Christian Peregin
‘No’ camp to lobby MPs on ‘loaded’ divorce question
Pro-divorce camp fears massive turnout by antis
The anti-divorce lobby has raised concerns about the question which the Labour Party and pro-divorce movement want to present to the public in a referendum.
A survey published yesterday by The Sunday Times showed that 58 per cent of respondents would vote in favour of divorce if the question was based on a specific law which restricts divorce to couples who have been separated for more than four years.
According to the survey, support for divorce drops by 15 percentage points when people are simply asked whether they are in favour of the introduction of divorce or not – which is what Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi wants to ask.
Contacted for his reaction, head of the anti-divorce movement André Camilleri said his organisation would this week officially announce its position on the referendum question and begin lobbying MPs accordingly. Although he chose not to announce his movement’s position yet, Dr Camilleri hinted that its preference would be for the non-specific question.
Describing the Labour Party’s question as “loaded” – the same adjective used by a number of Nationalist MPs in Parliament – Dr Camilleri said: “Can you ever guarantee that the rights of children will be protected when you do not even have a court case before you? Can you guarantee that there would be maintenance? How can you offer these guarantees in a referendum question?”
Parliament is currently debating a motion by the Labour Party to hold a referendum based on the main premises of the divorce bill originally presented by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. So far, all the Labour MPs have declared they support it and so has Dr Pullicino Orlando, which means it will be approved.
Although support for divorce does not seem to have waned at all since January – when the anti-divorce lobby was set up – Dr Camilleri insisted that his movement was constantly receiving very positive feedback.
Rather than the declining support for his cause, Dr Camilleri said he was mostly concerned by the survey’s finding that 32 per cent of respondents felt they were not adequately informed on this issue.
“That’s why we were set up and this tells us to spread our message even wider and faster... Then people can decide, based on what is best for them and the country,” he said, adding that he wants the rate of those who feel informed to reach a “high 90s” mark.
The movement, he said, would analyse the survey by segmenting it depending on age groups and comparing it to previous surveys carried out before the movement was set up.
“We will then address those areas and segments were there seem to be people who do not have enough information to decide.”
Meanwhile, pro-divorce Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando – who founded the Yes for Divorce movement – said surveys had consistently shown that the majority of Maltese support the introduction of “responsible divorce”.
He said the survey did not surprise him because “reason is militating in our favour”.
But he warned against complacency, saying that the anti-divorce lobby, possibly helped by the Church, had the resources to ensure a massive turnout from their side.
Dr Pullicino Orlando said those who had read the Bill would realise that the question was not loaded but tailored perfectly to the law, which would truly ensure maintenance and protection of children albeit in “difficult circumstances”.
“People must be separated for four years before asking for a divorce. If a husband failed to give adequate maintenance for those years he would not be able to get a divorce – or the court can use its discretion to ensure this changes.”
Asked to comment about the anti-divorce movement and how it had impacted the debate, he said their “cold-hearted” arguments were actually helping the yes camp.
He gave the “notable” example of when Dr Camilleri said battered women should not be given a divorce because their husbands would be allowed to remarry and potentially beat up their second wives.
“I was disgusted and physically sick when he said that,” Dr Pullicino Orlando said, pointing out that such violent men could do the same thing with their concubines. Divorce would at least make sure they had to pay maintenance to each woman who left them.
“I’m sure this irresponsible statement convinces people to vote in favour of responsible divorce. In another country, someone who says such a statement would be completely ostracised.”
Meanwhile, Dr Camilleri said this comment had to be taken in the context of a one-hour debate where he also said that he would campaign in favour of divorce if it allowed those who were suffering to remarry without having a negative impact on the rest of society.
Dr Camilleri said this was a misinformation campaign in his regard and complained of character assassination and journalistic dishonesty.
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...
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
MBorg
Mar 7th 2011, 18:53
@ Paul Barrett If you read the referendum question put by JPO you will see that it is very different from a " decree absolute " Divorced as proposed can be obtain without the need of the couples going to court. Just to refresh your mind, the referendum question is " Do you agree with the introduction of divorce in the case of a married couple which has been separated or living apart for at least four years etc... " There lies the difference. With a decree nisi couples pass through court before getting a decree absolute. In the law being proposed couples can just say that they have been living apart for four years, please note, not leagaly separated, and that changes the whole picture. The legal system that assures " that property, financial and child support are properly and legally sorted " has no say in a no-fault divorce where couples do not need to be legaly separated before filing for it., this allows them to bypass the legal system. That is why it is the very opposite to a responsible divorce. With this kind of divorce wives, and children get a raw deal .
Paul Barrett
Mar 8th 2011, 01:12
Quote: the way the referendum question is being proposed by the Labour party,
the fact remains that one spouse can force a divorce on the other spouse. Unquote.
The marriage has broken down and they apply to the Court for a legal separation. All financial and child support details are dealt with and four years later one or both can apply to the Court for a certificate to allow them the option to re-marry. Who is forcing what on whom - get real and move on; a dead marriage is a dead marriage and after four years it is more than time to finally admit it, at least in legal terms.
Failing having previously obtained legal separation, you are correct in that it all sounds iffy but I am fairly sure that the proposed legislation will not by-pass the legal aspects even though it is not in the proposed referendum question. Have a little faith in the legal beagles, they will want their pound of flesh.
Raymond Bezzina
Mar 7th 2011, 17:37
With the referendum question as proposed by the Labour party, divorce can be forced on the other spouse, even if this spouse disagrees with divorce. If one of the spouses simply walks away for four years, either cohabitating with another partner, or living alone for these four years, the other spouse would be FORCED to accept the divorce.
Paul Barrett
Mar 7th 2011, 18:41
You seem to have forgotten the four years "legal separation" part in your statement. When a marriage is totally finished and the due process of legal separation (which sorts out property, financial and child support) has been sorted a divorce certificate can be applied for. This is optional and not forced on the other partner who can of course consider him/herself still married as indeed in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church they are still married, irrespective of the laws of the State. They are neither forced to apply nor forced to re-marry, it is only an option. The current "legal separation" is in all effects divorce but fails to complete the action by the issue of a confirmation confirmation certificate that the marriage is dead.
Raymond Bezzina
Mar 7th 2011, 19:02
@ Paul Barrett
Mr. Barrett, the way the referendum question is being proposed by the Labour party,
the fact remains that one spouse can force a divorce on the other spouse.
victor pulis
Mar 7th 2011, 20:04
If i were married to someone who walks out on me and stays away for four years I wouldn't want to live with her. But I suppose there are those who wold prefer to cut their nose to spite their face.
Paul Barrett
Mar 8th 2011, 00:27
Quote: the way the referendum question is being proposed by the Labour party,
the fact remains that one spouse can force a divorce on the other spouse. Unquote.
The marriage has broken down and they apply to the Court for a legal separation. All financial and child support details are dealt with and four years later one or both can apply to the Court for a certificate to allow them the option to re-marry. Who is forcing what on whom - get real and move on; a dead marriage is a dead marriage and after four years it is more than time to finally admit it, at least in legal terms.
e busuttil;
Mar 7th 2011, 17:35
Dr Camilleri is quoted as saying: “Can you ever guarantee that the rights of children will be protected when you do not even have a court case before you? Can you guarantee that there would be maintenance? How can you offer these guarantees in a referendum question?” This is rich coming from a person for whom, the only way a marriage can be undone is church annulment. Church annulment never consideres or provides for maintenance neither for the spouses and even less the children.
Simon Oosterman
Mar 7th 2011, 15:25
There is something to be said for a simple question. But it should not be so simple that it distorts the facts. On the other hand the questions should not be so encompassing that one falls asleep before having read it. Why not compromise with the question the Times asked: Are you in favor of the possibility of divorce after 4 years of separation and after reconciliation efforts have failed? Seems fair and fairly simple to me.
MBorg
Mar 7th 2011, 13:45
@ Paul Barrett
As usual you mix things up, do you do it to fool people ?
It is the yes-camp who have no social conscience all they think of is about their selfish needs.How can they say that the children's rights will be protected under the no-fault divorce being proposed ? Who is going to see to their needs when no court in involved ? To win these rights or to ask for higher maintenance the divorce will have to be contested. This calls for money , many will be unable to afford it and will have to make do with what is offered ,if any. Is this the social, economic and safeguards that you are so happy with ?
People who do not see through this very loaded question want to make use of the divorce law themselves and do not give a damn to the implications that follow. You have every right to be in favour of divorce ,although you have let us know that you have been married to the same women for 40 years, but please call a spade a spade and do not try to play with or deny facts.
Paul Barrett
Mar 7th 2011, 17:52
As much as I respect your opinion I am afraid it is you that are mixed up here. Divorce can only be sought after four years of legal separation. That is where the legal system comes in to assure that property, financial and child support are properly and legally sorted. The Pro-divorce Camp have emphasised this by virtue of the proposed question for the possible referendum. You seem to imagine that the whole process that the couple went through to obtain legal separation will be re-tried on application for a simple certificate confirming that they are now free to undertake a civil marriage. You appear to be intelligent and well read so perhaps if you equate the current legal separation to "decree nisi" and the proposed divorce legislation to "decree absolute" you may better understand the intended process. The only thing missing here at the moment is the "decree absolute". Your assertion to only the people that wish to make use of divorce legislation are for it is again unfounded. There are many that have expressed that they don't want to use any divorce legislation themselves but understand that others may wish to legitimise their relationship in civil marriage.
MBorg
Mar 7th 2011, 13:27
@ Victor Pulis
Wake up to the real facts. The anti-divorce movement is not " scaring the public by saying that the government could change the four years clause anytime if the yes vote wins."
If you know anything about the way parliament works you must know that all it needs is a vote in parliamnet aand we might end up with instant divorce. It has happened in other countries, it can and will happen here. So if you are just basing your yes vote on the four years separation clause it would pay you if you rethink your position.
victor pulis
Mar 7th 2011, 20:05
Allow me to speculate like you are doing. What if the government decides to increase the years to six or ten instead of four?
victor pulis
Mar 7th 2011, 12:38
The anti divorce movement is scaring the public by saying that the government could change the four year clause anytime if the yes vote wins. At the same time they are disagreeing that the question should include any clause but simply a yes or no answer.
The flaw in their thinking is so plain to see.
Mario Zammit
Mar 7th 2011, 15:22
and they are right. Any government can change any law unless it is entrenched by the 2/3 majority. And even through this entrenchment any law can be changed. So the divorce law is full of holes. adn those who have the fear of God should say NO to Divorce. You are either with God or with the devils in parliament. I prefer to be on God's side.
Paul Barrett
Mar 7th 2011, 11:45
The No Camp has absolutely no social or economic grounds for their campaign other than to raise fear and uncertainty - they can do this best by ensuring that a referendum question is barren of any restrictions that it increases the fear and allusion of run away divorce legislation with no restriction.
The Yes Camp proposed referendum question alleviates many of the fears by delving into the basic principle and safeguards on which a restricted divorce legislation must be based.
Perhaps we need a referendum on what the referendum question should be!