The British government was faring badly in the polls. Should government change its policies? Should it communicate more?

Sir Humphrey – in Yes Minister – proposed an easier solution: Commission other polls but with different questions that would get positive answers instead.

Do not ask people whether they are in favour of going to war. Ask them whether they are in favour of doing everything possible so that no one tramples on their and their county’s rights.

We are going through the same experience as part of the divorce legislation debate.

Picture this as the referendum question:

“Are you in favour of divorce when:

• one of the parties wants it even against the wish of the other party;

• one doesn’t need a reason to get divorced – one just needs to live with someone else or alone for four years and say they don’t want to go back;

• maintenance is granted but its payment is not guaranteed;

• and while an effort to respect children’s rights is made, no guarantee can be given?”

I think the vast majority would say no to this type of divorce.

However, people have not yet realised that this is what the Labour Party’s motion in favour of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando/Evarist Bartolo’s proposed divorce legislation says.

The Labour Party is doing what is done by those who, as the Maltese proverb goes, juruk id-debba u jqabbżulek il-ħmara (say one thing and mean something else). They speak of responsible divorce, that is, divorce that is not easily dished out, but then present a motion for an irresponsible divorce.

The stark reality is that the type of divorce being proposed in the Private Member’s Bill can be imposed on unwilling partners; it does not guarantee maintenance grants, as no one can guarantee them, and it goes nowhere near guaranteeing children’s rights. One would need only two things to divorce: one side must want it and must be ready to wait some time for it.

Moviment Żwieġ bla Divorzju was right to criticise the referendum question as one which “is biased in favour of the pro-divorce stand”.

It also states that “voters may very well be deceived and misled by the referendum question, as it conceals the negative con-sequences of divorce as is being proposed by the Pullicino Orlando/Bartolo Bill”.

The results of the survey published last Sunday by this paper prove them right. On the eve of the publication of these results I wrote in my blog on www.timesofmalta.com that this question would be approved by the majority, as people have not realised what it actually implies. I was right to think so.

I would say ‘never’ to abortion, but I do not think that one could say a similar unconditional ‘never’ to divorce legislation.

Some believe divorce should be a civil right. I do not agree with them.

However, I think that there is place for a serious discussion about whether the state of marriage and the family in Malta is such that divorce can be contemplated as the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately, the way the country is being forced to go about it is not the correct one. The country is being pushed into a decision without previously doing any assessment of what the social impact of divorce would be on our country.

To make matters worse, thanks to the Labour Party, Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett, the country will be faced by a biased question which promises one thing but will deliver exactly the opposite.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt