The referendum question being proposed by the Labour Party is “so skewed and biased” that anti-divorce Labour MPs must find it difficult to justify their support, according to media studies lecturer Fr Joe Borg.

He was asked to react to The Sunday Times survey which found that 58 per cent of respondents would vote yes if such a question, based on the Private Member’s Bill moved by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, were put and that 43 per cent would say yes if they had to indicate whether or not they agreed with the introduction of divorce.

Fr Borg, a blogger, said he had predicted such overwhelming support for this type of question because at face value it could be “mistaken as a reasonable one” but on closer analysis was really just a “sham”.

The pro-divorce lobby, he pointed out, was harping on the right of battered, or abandoned women, to get a divorce. But the question’s premise was that anyone could divorce after just four years, even if one of the partners was “unwilling”.

“(The anti-divorce lobby) has to persuade people that the referendum question is for irresponsible divorce,” Fr Borg said, pointing out that people seemed to believe that Lab­­our’s motion could guarantee maintenance and care for children but this “cannot be the case”.

Fr Borg said the survey showed younger people were more likely to be in favour of divorce, indicating that divorce was not the main issue being debated.

“Divorce is just a symptom of a culture that is privatising relationships in line with the libertarian ethos and in contrast with communitarian ethics. The young are the natives of this generation.”

On the other hand, history professor Henry Frendo said the survey showed people made a clear distinction between a type of divorce that “gives marriage a chance” and a quick-fix divorce typical in places like Los Angeles.

Many, he said, were against divorce but in favour of a “last-resort divorce”, only applicable when all else failed.

“This is why the question based on the Bill presented in Parliament seems safer and more respectful to the citizens... because you’re not just telling them ‘Divorce: yes or no’. You’re offering divorce conditional on the fact that a marriage has been a disaster for at least four years.”

However, he said his own views were much simpler: “Divorce is a civil right. Period.”

He questioned the accuracy of surveys such as that conducted by The Sunday Times and other forms of polls because of Malta’s insular peer pressure, which prevents people from freely speaking their mind. He said a secret vote in a referendum could provide surprising results.

According to education professor Kenneth Wain the result is still wide open and loyalties can shift as the campaign continues, especially after a decision is taken on the question.

“The question is crucial,” he said, adding he was not surprised by the fact that results varied depending on the question asked.

“I think the broader question is too open and people would be afraid it would create a permissive climate where people would start divorcing left, right and centre – a Las Vegas kind of situation.”

On the other hand, if divorce is contained through a specific and restrictive Bill, people will be reassured.

“I think it’s very unfair to put a general question because that is not what is being proposed to Parliament. So if people should be consulted, they should be consulted on what is being proposed: a restricted and controlled type of divorce legislation.”

This explained why there were fewer undecided individuals when the question was specific (nine per cent) as opposed to when the question was generic (15 per cent), he said.

Reacting to another finding in the survey – that Labourites were more likely to favour divorce than Nationalists – Prof. Wain said this had a lot to do with the radically different examples being set by the two leaders.

The pros and cons of a referendum question

As if the debate on whether divorce should be introduced was not controversial enough, the parliamentary motion on what question should be asked in the referendum is divisive in itself. David Schembri tries to break the pros and cons of the question based on the Private Member’s Bill as presented by the two sides. The question proposed in Parliament on February 23 is: “Do you agree with the introduction of the divorce option in the case of a married couple which has been separated or has not lived together for at least four years, and where there is no reasonable hope of reconciliation between the spouses, while adequate maintenance is guaranteed and children are protected?”

Con – Moviment Żwieġ Bla Divorzju

• The question conditions the voter to think about the kind of divorce that should be introduced, even before s/he has decided whether marriage should remain indissoluble or not.

• The question fails to show that divorce may be obtained by one party, even though s/he may be the party at fault and even though the innocent party objects.

• It gives the misleading impression that rights and interests such as maintenance may be guaranteed when experience has shown that in separation cases there have been many cases of maintenance not being honoured for one reason or another.

• Divorce cannot ensure children are cared for. Their pain is ignored, which, after a separation, is further aggravated by having to adapt to a third party who takes the place of one of their parents.

• The question hides the fact that divorce may be obtained for no reason and all it takes is for a spouse to walk away, live apart for four years and claim the marriage has been irrevocably broken down. This is irresponsible.

• Divorce, with this legislation, could be imposed on a spouse who might want to stay married for reasons such as the children’s interests.

• The divorce law, as proposed, does not set any limit on the number of marriages one can go through. In effect, one can marry, divorce, remarry, divorce repeatedly.

Labour Party

• A referendum on such a delicate subject requires a specific question and not a simplistic one which is seemingly being proposed by the Prime Minister.

Pro – Moviment Iva Għad-Divorzju, Iva għaż-Żwieġ

• The question should be one which reflects the Bill before Parliament.

• The present question refers to a specific type of divorce, which is not “Las Vegas style” but “far more responsible and achievable only where there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation”.

• A generic question can pave the way for a quick fix divorce.

• It’s untrue that a specific question “conditions voters to think of what kind of divorce they want when they still haven’t decided on the principle” as people would have decided on that beforehand.