Christian Peregin
PM fears no-fault divorce
Marriage as a ‘loose tie’
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi yesterday opened a fresh line of attack against divorce, warning that the referendum question proposed by the Labour Party would pave the way for no-fault divorce.
“This means you can get divorced even if you are at fault... even if you are the cause (of the breakup)... and there will be no consequences at all (for you),” he told The Times after a political activity, as one of his middle-aged supporters jokingly asked him if he should get a divorce to leave his wife for a 25-year-old.
During the activity, Dr Gonzi had said he was very worried about the referendum question being supported by the pro-divorce lobby but he would reveal his reasons at the opportune moment.
Deborah Schembri, who chairs that lobby, reacted to Dr Gonzi’s fears, saying that since divorce would only be possible after four years of legal separation, “it really does not make sense to attribute blame at this stage”. (She explains her reasons on page 4.)
Dr Gonzi was addressing supporters at the Nationalist Party club in Attard – the constituency of backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who is campaigning for divorce legislation and who said he would support the question proposed by the Labour Party. Dr Pullicino Orlando was sitting in the front row at the event and although he clapped during some parts of Dr Gonzi’s speech, his face turned bright red whenever the Nationalist leader spoke strongly against divorce.
Early in his speech, when talking about employment, Dr Gonzi spoke of the socio-economic turmoil being experienced in Ireland and the fact that country had also discussed divorce and introduced it by referendum.
“(In Ireland) they also spoke about divorce and approved it in a referendum... However, today they are not talking about divorce or the family but about a financial crisis that has crippled them. Today, I am proud that my country is not in that situation,” he said, adding that Malta’s recent economic successes were thanks to the fact that the government did not heed the advice of the Opposition.
Later, Dr Gonzi said Labour leader Joseph Muscat had refused his invitation to meet and agree about the question to ask at a divorce referendum.
Dr Gonzi wants this to be a simple “yes” or “no” to the introduction of divorce but the Labour Party is unanimously sticking to its original question which is based on the Bill presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando: “Do you agree with the introduction of the option of divorce in the case of a married couple, which has been separated or living apart for at least four years, when there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation and where adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children protected?”
Dr Gonzi said asking this question did not make sense unless there was a Bill already approved by Parliament, because otherwise such parameters could be changed at parliamentary stage, making such conditions irrelevant.
He also said it did not make sense for Malta’s highest democratic institution not to have its say on divorce.
Dr Gonzi then went a step further and gave two alternatives to the question he proposed: “So far, marriage in Malta has always been permanent. Someone is now saying this should no longer be the case. No matter how much you can sugar-coat it, the question remains this: Do you want to reduce marriage to the state of being engaged (għerusija)? Do we want to reduce it to a loose tie (rabta ċoff)?”
“I vote no,” he added enthusiastically to loud applause, before adding that he respected those whose opinion differed.
Dr Gonzi also told supporters that the reason Dr Muscat was so insistent on having a debate quickly was because he feared the referendum would be held the day after Our Lady of Sorrows. “(But) this is such a serious matter for our families that I would not play any such games,” Dr Gonzi said. Meanwhile, Parliament is on Wednesday expected to begin discussing the Labour Party’s divorce referendum motion, which is said to enjoy the support of the majority of MPs. A House Business Committee meeting is being planned for early this week to refine details of how the debate will proceed.
No-fault divorce ‘makes perfect sense’
The legislation proposed by MPs Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo introduces the concept of no-fault divorce but, according to pro-divorce lobby chairman Deborah Schembri, this makes “perfect sense”.
No-fault divorce, which is commonly practised around the western world, basically means that a separated couple can get a divorce without having to cite particular reasons, except that their marriage has irrevocably ended.
Reacting to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s comments, Dr Schembri stressed that it did not make sense to attribute blame at a stage when the couple would already have been legally separated for four or more years, as is being proposed.
She said Malta already had legal no-fault separation so it would be counterintuitive to follow this with a fault-based divorce.
“We have looked at alternatives but even countries which initially had fault-based divorce felt it wise to introduce no-fault divorce.”
In cases where separation has not yet been obtained but the couple has been living apart for the stipulated time, the proposed law enables fault-based divorce since the couple would be getting separated and divorced simultaneously.
Dr Schembri added that it did not make sense to punish the person at fault by preventing either spouse from remarrying.
“Wouldn’t this be the same as locking up an abuser in one cell and the abused in another, thus unjustly punishing the victim with exactly the same punishment as the perpetrator?
“In the case of annulment, the spouse who is to blame is not punished by being stopped from getting married, so why should this be the case in a divorce scenario?
“Should we also stop someone who has been the cause of a marriage breakdown from remarrying even if his/her spouse dies, just in case they do the same thing to their new spouse?”
Dr Schembri added that a fault-based divorce would make the situation worse for children since it would create more unnecessary animosity.
“Studies show that what really gets to children in a broken marriage scenario is conflict rather than separation, which they feel is inevitable and sometimes desired.”
Dr Schembri wondered if Dr Gonzi agreed with anti-divorce campaigner André Camilleri who was recently quoted as saying that divorce should not be given in cases of domestic violence since it would also allow the abusers to abuse their second spouse.
“This argument does not make sense since one cannot stop the so-called abuser from having other relationships outside marriage through cohabitation or otherwise, and therefore, not giving the right to divorce would not solve anything. It would just give the spouse who is not to blame no choice but to cohabit and have children out of wedlock.”
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Philip Hili
Jul 5th 2011, 01:38
Fadlilkom l-ahhar chance biex issalvaw ftit mid-dekor li tliftu f'dawn l-ahhar xhur.
Dmir id-deputat Nazzjonalista hu li jivvota KONTRA din il-ligi ghax zgur l-ebda appogg ma taghkom l-elettorat Laoborista.
Qeghdin hemm fuq bis-sahha tal-voti ta' l-elettorat Nazzjonalista u allura il-lejalta' lejn dawn l-eletturi ghandha tmur u mhux lejn dawk li min jaf kemm SAWTUKOM, GHAJRUKOM, INSULTAWKOM, BEZQULKOM U SAHANSITRA ANKE ITTORTURAWKOM. Jew forsi min qieghed hemm bhal issa ma jiftakarx il-forza fizika ta' membri laborisit bicciet minnhom illum mejtin lejn id-deputati Nazzjonalisti, bhal qatt minsi Dr. Geroge Bonello Du Puis,meta kissruli snienu b'daqqa ta' ponn min ghand membru tal-gvern illum mejjet li qasam il-kamru u hebb ghalieh, Is-Sur Randu Galea, daqqa ta' "terminal" tal-batterija go mohhu!!
Insejtuh zmien it-tortura? Insejtu meta bniedem kien jidhol haj id-depot u johrog mejjet???? DIN HIJA L-ISTORJA U HADD MA JISTA' JHASSARHA. Forsi tintesa iva, ghax hekk jaqbillhom, imma tithassar LE.
Jekk mhux ser tkunu lejali issa lejn l-elettorat li hatarkom hemm fuq, zgur l-elettorat mhux ser ikun lejali lejkom fil-fin tal-kontijiet.
Lynn Zahra
Feb 22nd 2011, 00:39
@G.Borg
I'm afraid what's not convincing is your saying that Divorce is not the only solution for couples who have separated and simply do not want to know about each other anymore. I hope your'e not suggesting that the State forces them to stay together nonetheless? Divorce has been found to be the only solution to end the misey all over the world, so please stop acting as if you have a better solution Mr. or Ms Borg.
Lawyers like myself who already have plenty of legal work dealing with couples who wish to separate , are no rubbing their hands in glee for divorce to be introduced, neither are we holding our breath until divorce is introduced , to make a living. Many, certainly I do, always try to reconcile a couple before proceeding to file for legal separation and I have succeed many times, in achieving this, as my clients could tell you, Mr or Ms Borg. I see divorce as a way out of a miserable life when a spouse is being constantly humiliated by the other spouse through cheating and violence. With the option of divorce, an abused spouse need not continue suffering the abuse.
MBorg
Feb 21st 2011, 19:57
@ Paul Barrett Wherever there is no-fault divorce law , no divorce can be stopped because objecting to the other spouse's petition for divorce is itself an irreconcilable difference that would justify divorce. One might try to contest it but is is very, very expensive so no one does. From a legal standpoint marriage is contract between two parties. For it to be dissolved there must be some violation by one of them , if no violation has occurred both must agree on divorce. No-fault divorce goes against this principle in permitting one partner to end the marriage . Under no-fault divorce the judge is not permitted to question the reasons for which the divorce was filed. This allows many marriages to end against the will of one of the parties. This amounts to violation of the principle of consent and the rights of the partner who did not agree to the divorce. Many use no-fault divorce to expropriate their spouses against their will. This law collaborates in the suffering of innocent people who have done no wrong and protects those who are actively trying to break their word and steal their spouses' property. These are the real facts .
Paul Barrett
Feb 21st 2011, 21:17
Quote: This law collaborates in the suffering of innocent people who have done no wrong and protects those who are actively trying to break their word and steal their spouses' property. Unquote.
What absolute rubbish. You have been watching too much television.
Joe Zammit
Feb 21st 2011, 19:36
Divorce is a step backward. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage. Divorce is a negative step. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage. Divorce is a big injustice. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage which is justice according to the word given in the celebration of marriage. Divorce is to the detriment of all people. Progressive people back the indissolubility of marriage which good for one and all. Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
SPace
Feb 21st 2011, 18:50
I will never agree with a no fault divorce. The marriage institution is not a farce. I thought that the proposed law will not cater for no fault divorce. The proposed law is not as tough as the Yes campaign is making it to be. I had different impressions.
Paul Barrett
Feb 21st 2011, 21:46
There will be a constant barrage of scaremongering coming out - anything to try and stop restricted and controlled divorce legislation being enacted.
Joe Zammit
Feb 21st 2011, 16:02
There can never be a responsible divorce. Divorce of any kind is evil, condemned by God for our own good.
We do not want divorce, any divorce. The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans want no form of divorce; so the vast majority will say NO to divorce.
It is a devilish deceit to try to qualify divorce. Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. No human person has the power, let alone the right, to dissolve a valid marriage.
A big NO to divorce; YES to the indissolubility of marriage.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Paul Barrett
Feb 21st 2011, 18:38
Dear Mr Zammit,
Have you not got anything factually useful to add to the debate. It is appreciated that you cannot comprehend the social chaos that is growing around you and your only solution appears to be to continue going down with the ship rather than allow anyone a second chance in the lifeboat.
MBorg
Feb 21st 2011, 15:21
Wake up all women who are in favour of divorce. Do you know that with the no-falut divorce your husband can file for divorce without you even knowing ? Do you know that once a no-falut divorce is filed nothing can stop it ? Do you know that you cannot fight for compensation and that you can find no legal aid to ask for more ? Is this want you want ? Is this the " resonable divorce " that we are being made to believe is not Las Vegas style ? What a joke ! It is the quickest form of divorce one can get. In the UK you can even apply for it on line, can it be any quicker than that. ? If you are a man who is in favour of divorce, do you know that if your wife walks out on you , you lose your children ? Is the " resonable divorce " you are fighting for ? r Gonzi is right , this issue is so large, it can change the way we think of family forever. What is the hurry. ? People must be educated to understand what they are voting for.
Paul Barrett
Feb 21st 2011, 18:27
MBorg you are really out doing yourself now regarding divorce. No, you cannot get divorced without the other spouse either knowing about it or at least extensive and verifiable action to make contact with the other spouse (i.e., in the case of desertion). These are extreme cases and very much heavily investigated by the authorities. On line application - Stop the scaremongering - Divorce is a legally very expensive action to take in the UK. You can apply for the correct forms and obtain legal advice on submission of the forms on-line which is vastly cheaper than the horrendous face to face meetings with lawyers. They still have to be submitted to the Court. The timescale is only cut in not having to make expensive appointments with the lawyers. If you wish to stop a "no fault" divorce, it can be stopped as it would then become an expensive "contested" divorce - the lawyers just love that LOL. Your garbage about custody of children is nothing more than that - custody, care and support of children is decided by the Court if it is contested (which is actually a contested divorce) not on who walks out on whom. Stop scaremongering.
MBorg
Feb 21st 2011, 14:05
Is this the " responsible divorce " that is being propossed.? A no-fault divorce is the quickest divorce one can have.
Either spouse can end a marriage, and there need be no reason. The reason often cited is irreconcilable differences , which can mean anything from adultery to one partner not wanting to remain married.
Where no-falut divorce apply it is impossible to stop a divorce and if the compensation provided is not enough the injured party cannot seek additional compensation.
This is the system that is used in America. Family Court Judge Heknan once said" It is easier to divorce my wife of 26 years than to fire someone I hired one week ago. The person I hired has more legal clout than my wife of 26 years. That's wrong."
This system takes away a father's right to his children if the wife wants to leave the marriage. On the other hand if the husband leaves the wife gets custody of the children . This lowers the dependent wife's and children living standard because 75% of the time the courts will not enforce any spousal support.
Dr Gonzi is right this is the worst kind of divorce .
Paul Barrett
Feb 21st 2011, 15:30
You seem to forget that all the problems you raise are problems which are sorted out (either for good or bad to one party or the other) by the Court in the current legal separation case. The only additional Court action that is required following a legal separation (provided that the stipulated time scale has been achieved) is (on voluntary application) to issue a certificate which would allow the legal separated individual the freedom of choice to obtain a civil marriage. Any and all the other scaremongering statements regarding divorce are a load of hog wash deliberately being spread to try and scare people who do not want, will never need or do not believe in divorce to vote against the right for a legally separated individual the option of a second chance of happiness and family life in a legally recognised civil marriage. Note well that this is an option, it is not imposed and anyone that does not wish to apply is not forced to apply. It does not in any way effect anyone who wishes to follow Canon Law which does not and will not recognise divorce legislation.
J Gatt
Feb 21st 2011, 17:13
`Divorce should not be given in cases of domestic violence since it would also allow the abusers to abuse their second spouse.`
How ridiculous can it get. With the same reasoning, people who commit a crime and end up in Jail, should be locked up, permanently
Joseph Calleja
Feb 21st 2011, 12:28
No matter which way you put it, Dr Gonzi is adamantly against divorce period and he is not going to change his mind no matter what. A good example is the Open Opera House. A no-fault divorce has to be agreed upon by both parties. And as far as Mr Camilleri's statement " saying that divorce should not be given in cases of domestic violence since it would also allow the abusers to abuse their second spouse". That is like saying if your car ever breaks down, don't get another one because that one will break down too. How insensitive can a person be?
Lynn Zahra
Feb 21st 2011, 16:03
The MWD people pretend to smypathise with the plight of separated people and at the same time they condem them to a lifetime of misery and abuse , in the name of the "common good". Andre Camilleri had the gall to question DeborahSchembri thus when she insisted on the State's obligation to offer separated people the option of divorce : " iva, imma kemm hawn minnhom?" (Yes, but there aren't many of them......) It's the typical "I'm all right Jack " mentality of those who have always lived , and continue to live in the sun. The disorderly situation of people with failed marriages must be addressed; theses people cannot continue living in limbo. Divorce, though hardly welcome, is the only solution to separation , it has proved to be the only solution, worldwide. Malta, you cannot continue to treat separated people as second class citizens any longer.
Joe Grima Brussels
Feb 21st 2011, 16:35
'How insensitive can one be!' Yes Mr Calleja. Can you, for ONCE, look a bit further than your nose?? If divorce is given AUTOMATICALLY to someone who suffers from severe violence, you 'might' save the victim in that couple, BUT YOU WILL BE CONDEMNING ANOTHER PERSON TO BE VIOLATED! Imagine someone who is fed up with his/her partner. Even if this person is NOT VIOLENT, knowing that in cases of extreme violence, divorce comes automatically, he/she will be tempted to be violent 'enough' to make divorce easier. (The idea of: If you are violent enough, you get what you want=divorce) Thus YOU would be giving a free hand to violent behaviour. Not to mention the fact that where a person is NOT FIT to marry, because of a violent character, YOU would be giving him/her a free hand the go ahead to remarry, and abuse of another victim. 'How insensitive YOU are to future victims!!'
G Borg
Feb 21st 2011, 19:33
You forgot another reality, Dr Zahra. The 'I'm all right with divorce, Jack, I don't care about any consequences!' And depicting divorce as the ONLY SOLUTION is hardly convincing. What guarantee is there that someone who failed once will not fail twice? Dreams!! Obviously, if divorce is eventually introduced, it will be a godsend to lawyers, guaranteeing sure income, isn't that so, Dr Zahra? You plead to Malta not to treat us as second class citizens, and yet, what CLASS do spouses treat each other when they divorce?
AJ. Anastasi
Feb 21st 2011, 11:58
Irrespective of the final result of the referendum, the divorce bill would still be required to be debated and passed by the majority of the MPs.
According to surveys, the majority of the MPs of both sides of the House are against the divorce legislation; therefore it stands to reason that whatever the result of the referendum, Parliament will not approve the introduction of divorce.
So, why do we have to go through all this hassle of referenda, waste of time and exorbitant expenses (which will be paid by the taxpayer), when we all know that the Honourable Members of Parliament in their majority are going to say NO to divorce?
It is irresponsible for the MPs to propose a referendum on divorce legislation at this stage because everybody knows that the Pro Divorce MPs – Joseph Muscat, Evarist Bartolo and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando just do NOT have the numbers!
If there are MPs who want to introduce divorce, all they have to do is to put this proposal in their party’s electoral manifesto for the forthcoming elections and then the people would have a choice; otherwise just please let our country concentrate on more important matters.
A.J.A.
Tommy Vella
Feb 21st 2011, 11:45
Dr Schembri said: “We have looked at alternatives but even countries which initially had fault-based divorce felt it wise to introduce no-fault divorce.”
Doesn't this show that a divorce law, once enacted in the law books, will change over time? We may introduce divorce now for those couples who have been separated over 4 years and don't see any chance of getting back together again, but over time this will change to divorce being permitted, whatever the reason, whatever the time frame.
victor pulis
Feb 21st 2011, 11:40
And what kind of divorce would we get with a simple yes and no question?
Any kind of divorce frees both the wrecker of the marriage and the victim. It is the responsibility of whoever dates a divorced person to investigate their past and find out the cause of their marriage breakup. This is not that difficult in malta where everyone is known to everyone else. besides, a violent person need not get married to abuse his/her partner so remarriage doesn't come into the equation. Should the victim be punished by the state too and refused a chance to get rid of the violent partner and find happiness?
Joe Grima Brussels
Feb 21st 2011, 16:44
It is the responsibility of WHOEVER dates, to investigate who the other person really is, FROM THE VERY FIRST DATE OF HIS/HER LIFE. THIS is part of better, responsible preparation. How often do we hear that even during dating, the first signs of drug abuse, drinking, beatings or at least bullying were ALREADY present! And yet, they decide to carry on. The obvious result would be to seek a 'remedy' after a few years. This is ONE aspect of better preparation, responsibility, and maturity!
Joe Grima Brussels
Feb 21st 2011, 16:48
MR Pulis. If you give automatic divorce to a victim of a violent spouse, YOU will be automatically giving a free hand to the violator to find another victim, with YOUR blessing! You 'might' free the present victim, but what are you going to do to the next? Obviously, you have the automatic answer: divorce....and the cancer grows and spreads!
J Gatt
Feb 22nd 2011, 00:42
@joe grima brussels
Now tell me, What will stop the violent party, once separated, from forming another relationship, and again beating the living daylights out of the next victim, Your logic?
edwin formosa
Feb 21st 2011, 11:31
So this is the kind of 'responsible divorce' we are hearing so much about these days ?
patrick zammit
Feb 21st 2011, 10:14
So, after so many years praising Ireland for adopting the Euro, attributing its progress to this fact and using it as a propaganda tool in our own introduction of the Euro, we now attribute its problems to the introduction of divorce. Political/religious somersaults!
patrick zammit
Feb 21st 2011, 09:59
Isn't living in a separated manner for 4 years in a 5 year period "fault" enough?
And Ireland's turmoil has nothing to do with the introduction of divorce (which was followed by a decrease in marriage breakdowns), but with banks greedily lending vast amounts of money to equally greedy contractors followed by the collapse of the system when there wasn't enough buyers for the large number of properties built. This was compounded by the EU/IMF bailout which saw the Irish govt becoming a mere pawn in the hands of the EU's unelected dictators.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0223/1224265038500.html
http://synonblog.dailymail.co.uk/
Joe Camilleri
Feb 21st 2011, 09:59
The no fault divorce could only result from what the Gonz is proposing because any government whether present or future will not be bound with the conditions as the PL and others want them. What the Gonz is proposing will allow any government to introduce divorce Las Vegas style. is what
Dr. Anthopny Vella
Feb 21st 2011, 09:54
What has Ireland's economic troubles got to do with the fact that the Irish voted in favour of having divorce as an option in their country? Either Dr. Gonzi's brain is confused or he is maliciously trying to confuse everyone else's brain. Is it impossible in this country to have an honest debate about divorce?
John Cassar
Feb 21st 2011, 09:47
It seems that the Prime Minister thinks that the electorate are 'little children'. His stance on the divorce question in my opinion belittles an adult. At the end of the day, it is not upto him to determine the 'state of one's marriage'. Separation or divorce normally would not be entered into lightly as it is such an important step to take, with many ramifications for all parties concerned including any children. If 'divorce' is not approved, then maltese society will continue to experience children being born out of wedlock when couples are separated and living together. Would it not be wise to give every child a chance to a normal childhood where the parents are married thus providing a more stable environment in which the child would be raised. In regards to 'punishing' the person who is supposedly at fault, Give me a break! It always takes to tango, Mr Gonzi! Your lack of maturity on such a topic at a public forum, is I think quite a poor showing, especially when one considers the office being occupied. And yes, I live in a society where divorce is legal. And I will celebrate 22 years of marriage in March.
J Gatt
Feb 21st 2011, 09:11
Good day Joe Zammit, wakey. wakey.
Cut And paste time Buddy, so get busy.
Victory, victory, and more victory......
Tommy Vella
Feb 21st 2011, 08:52
Dr Schembri said, "We have looked at alternatives but even countries which initially had fault-based divorce felt it wise to introduce no-fault divorce.”
Doesn't this show what many of us are fearing, that once divorce is introduced within certain parameters, with time all those parameters will disappear and even though starting with a contolled divorce (after 4 years, separation, no hope of reconciliation etc) we will surely end up with divorce for any (or no) reason, whenever one of the spouses feels like it?