‘No’ camp to lobby MPs on ‘loaded’ divorce question

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.