Government playing Russian roulette with people’s rights’

Labour MP Leo Brincat has accused the government of playing Russian roulette with people’s rights on the issue of divorce on this moral issue, Parliamentarians should defend this right even if only one person in Malta and Gozo needed to resort to it.

The electorate should not only consider its own interests.

There were those who were in favour of divorce, as they needed it to start a new chapter in life after their marriage had broken down irretrievably. Some did not contemplate divorce but believed that such a civil right should be exercised by those who needed it. Certain people thought they had a divine right to deny such a right to others. Others were afraid to lose votes and thus acted as if nothing was happening.

Declaring he was in favour of divorce, Mr Brincat praised the PL, which had tolerated a diversity of opinions. He criticised the PN for having taken a strong stand against divorce and then given a free vote to its members.

The government wanted to kill the Private Members’ Bill and was now trying to do the same thing to the opposition’s motion on a consultative referendum. Dr Gonzi tried to reconcile liberal and conservative elements within his party, yet he had been hijacked and swept away by hardliners in his Cabinet and by a President Emeritus, a former leader of his party.

Mr Brincat said Dr Gonzi faced a dilemma: he did not want divorce to be introduced during his term of office, while he was aware that if the referendum produced a negative vote, he would have failed to reconcile liberals and conservatives within his party.

With its insensitive attitude, the government had shown that it only wanted those who had financial means to be able to resort to divorce. While certain people spoke on Christian values, they had pushed for annulments, which sometimes took place even on the suggestion of Church representatives.

Statistics showed that separations, divorce obtained from abroad and Church annulments had risen. Civil annulments had risen to an average of two a week and those granted by the Church were one a week.

Mr Brincat said that while children might be traumatised in a new family, they were also facing problems in broken families.

Concluding, Mr Brincat encouraged people to vote in favour of divorce, as it was a civil right which no-one had the right to deny to others.

Carmelo Abela (PL) said the discussion on the introduction of divorce had been an eye opener to the real problems facing Maltese families.

There ought to be a serious analysis and the introduction of concrete measures to strengthen the family. It was important to be proactive in order to maintain those which were already strong and help others who needed help. No studies and statistics needed to be quoted. Reality dictated that Maltese families were facing a challenge as various PN governments always procrastinated with regard to family-strengthening measures.

He pointed out that the commission for the protection of the family was still not formed and called on the government to address the situation. Similar action should be taken with regard to the education of children which should focus on the importance of families. Teachers should strive to focus on portraying families in a good light.

A family impact assessment needed to be carried out in order to see how certain social and fiscal measures were affecting families. Children were the ones who suffered mostly.

Mr Abela also requested Maltese courts to tackle family cases differently from other cases, in order to protect children. The media also had an important role to promote the family and he called for better reporting of the arguments being brought forward in favour or against divorce.

Some Nationalist MPs said the opposition motion as one of convenience rather than one of conviction. But how could such members explain the position taken by PN on the issue? How could the party take a stand against divorce and still allowed its MPs a free vote? This did not make sense.

Charles Buhagiar (PL) criticised those who argued that the proposed referendum question would confuse minds. On the contrary, it was a simple yes or no question that would in fact create confusion.

He said that the argument that giving minorities their rights led to anarchy, made one question whether the Maltese are truly living in a modern society. This represented an ultra-conservative argument by persons who held rightist political leanings. Such statements also showed the mindset of such MPs.

He criticised those arguing that divorce would lead to marital breakdown.

Mr Buhagiar said that it was of concern that 22 per cent of Maltese marriages ended up in separation and he questioned what was being done to analyse and address the causes of such a situation. Nothing was being done to sensitise couples about the obligations of marriage. Warnings of marital breakdown were futile and hypocritical when no action was being taken to address such causes.

Divorce was being proposed to give those separated another opportunity to establish a family,.

Mr Buhagiar said that it was a known fact that children of separated couples faced difficulties but stated that by giving parents who were already cohabiting the possibility to re-establish a family would give the family unit legal recognition. He said that MPs ought not to be blind at the social situation and the problems that were currently being faced by members of society.

The question of divorce was not one of religion since practicing Catholics are not being forced to divorce.

Concluding, Mr Buhagiar said the proposed Divorce Bill ensured responsible divorce.