When marriage comes apart – to divorce or not to divorce? (1)

An important issue like the introduction of divorce in Malta is being turned into a political game. The last hot issue is the wording of the question to be put at the referendum.

The Prime Minister rightly wants a straight yes or no question because the real issue is the introduction of divorce. The tool of the divorce law will then be in the hands of the judiciary to interpret and the government of the day to change, amend and even substitute the whole law originally enacted.

Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, conveniently backed by the Labour Party, wants a detailed question reflecting his Bill.

The Prime Minister invited the Labour leader to agree on the type of question. Naturally, the Prime Minister should have anticipated he is wasting his time because Joseph Muscat is four-square with Dr Pullicino Orlando.

Dr Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo are working closely on the Bill, to the extent that Dr Pullicino Orlando declared he will vote on the subject with the Labour Party.

Naturally, Dr Pullicino Orlando is being used and his action is betraying his constituents and the party.

As agreed by all, no party has the mandate to introduce divorce, so how does Dr Pullicino Orlando explain his obsession to introduce divorce in this legislature. Only Alternattiva Demokratika declared itself in favour of divorce before the last election and it was not represented in Parliament.

The question as suggested by Dr Pullicino Orlando gives half the truth. It is true that if the referendum passes based on that question, Parliament will legislate on the Bill as presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando and would be bound by it till the end of this legislature.

However, I ask Dr Pullicino Orlando: Does he guarantee that future governments would not amend or even substitute the whole divorce law by a simple majority without the need of a mandate and make divorce available quicker, cheaper and easier even when compared to a Las Vegas divorce?

I hope he gives a clear and honest answer.

In the meantime, I invite experienced lawyers to treat this question and give their opinion.

If the answer is as I think that the law could be changed, then the people are being taken for a ride, misled and treated as fools with half truths.

The Prime Minister, who was elected to lead Malta with a strong pair of hands, has been lenient long enough vis-à-vis some of his members who think they can dictate matters because of the one-seat majority the Nationalist Party enjoys instead of doing their duty and help the government achieve its objective.

Dr Pullicino Orlando has been embarrassing the government from the beginning of this legislature but now enough is enough and the Prime Minister should exercise the authority given to him by the people and show who is the leader of the party and of Malta and stick to the question of yes or no, whatever the outcome and circumstances and then let the people judge.

True Nationalists prefer the government resigning than being a Nationalist government that introduces divorce and so have a black mark in the glorious history of the party.

I am proud to be a Catholic living in Catholic Malta and proud that Malta has no divorce (sorry Karm Farrugia). Christ does not want divorce and, therefore, any Catholic voting for divorce is committing a sin. No ifs and buts, straight and simple.

I must say a big thank you to Austin Gatt who has been loyal and working for the party since his childhood. Another thanks to the movement against divorce and augur they will explain and demonstrate the betrayal the people are going through.

I urge:

1) The Church authorities to speak clearly and lead their faithful in this difficult moment, without any fear of criticism from any political party. If it happens it will not be the first nor the last; it happened before and the Church stood strong.

2) The Prime Minister to guide the Nationalist supporters to vote in line with the party’s principles regarding divorce, that is to vote no.

3) The constituents who voted for Dr Pullicino Orlando to show their disgust at the betrayal of their trust in him by any legal means possible: e-mails, Facebook, letters in the press, interventions on radio shows or conferences.

I must mention that President Emeritus Eddie Fenech Adami, in 1987, had a one-seat majority but was surrounded by true and honourable gentlemen who helped him make wonders during the five-years term.