University debate focuses on divorce and the common good
No-fault divorce reduces domestic violence and female suicides, according to research quoted by family law expert Ruth Farrugia at a University debate today.
She gave the keynote speech about the different types of divorce around the world, during an event organised by the newly-formed Law Debating Society.
No-fault divorce – as is being proposed for Malta – is common around the world and means that a divorce is granted when a marriage has irreconcilably broken down. In the law being proposed for Malta, someone seeking divorce does not need to cite any particular grounds to do so as long as the spouses would have been separated for four years or more.
The last state in the US to move towards a no-fault divorce, last year, was New York, she said.
The debate was focused on whether divorce should be discussed in terms of the common good or individual rights.
Fr Peter Serracino Inglott and Professor Kenneth Wain debated the concepts of common good versus individual rights.
Fr Serracino Inglott said that if divorce was a fundamental human right, there would be no need for a debate on the issue. But since it had not been declared as such, it must be debated in terms of its impact on society. The common good argument, however, was not “the greatest good for the greatest number”, but a question of what was in the best interest of the collective good – the good for society as a whole.
If divorce reduced the number of children being born out of wedlock or the number of people cohabiting, it should be introduced. But if divorce went against the collective good, such as if it made the situation worse for children, it should not.
Prof. Wain said the common good argument as it was being made by the anti-divorce lobby was dangerous and went against Malta’s practice of safeguarding fundamental human rights (including the right to life) and minority rights. He said this was an issue of tolerance since in a pluralistic country there were divergent views on the definition of common good.
He said fundamental human rights were not absolute and were justifiably limited when there was concrete evidence of tangible harm being done to society to exercise such rights.
But divorce, he argued, simply provided closure to a couple whose marriage has been a disaster. If divorce went against the common good, the onus of proof fell on the anti-divorce lobby to prove how this was the case.
The debate continued with Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Arnold Cassola arguing that Malta, unlike the Philippines, the Vatican City and Andorra (which all do not have divorce) recognised divorce rulings granted in other countries – so Malta already had divorce.
He also criticised the anti-divorce lobby for lacking compassion and opposing a no-fault divorce but then also arguing that a battered wife should not be granted divorce because her husband would then be able to remarry and beat up his new wife.
Speaking on behalf of the Marriage Without Divorce organisation, constitutional lawyer Austin Bencini said divorce was not a minority right because being single, married or separated was simply a status which changed over one’s lifetime. He also argued that divorce should only be introduced in Malta if the country’s family law had failed. Currently, he said, the country’s family law managed to wed fundamental human rights without needing divorce.
The Yes for Divorce movement chairman Deborah Schembri said that her 10 years experience in the family court showed that marriages did not always work out, even if one tried one’s best. Divorce, she said, was a statement of fact: when someone died there wasa death certificate, when a marriage died there should be a divorce.
She said divorce would create no impact on society that did not already exist with annulment.
Participating in the debate from the floor, a number of University students argued that the concepts of common good and individual rights were not mutually exclusive since individual rights can be seen as part of safeguarding the common good.
The debate was organised in conjunction with law student organisations GhSL and Else and was chaired by David Friggieri, lecturer in the Department of European and Comparative Law.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Marsa murder - Police looking...
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Updated - Two bodies, capsized boat,...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
In Discussion
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
Chinese company to study Malta-Gozo...
Updated - PM reacts to Labour anger on...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
No appeals board for first part of power...
Updated - PM comments as Franco Mercieca...
BBC site highlights illegal hunting in Malta
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Christopher Grech
May 11th 2011, 10:40
People who divorce do not impose divorce to those that wish to remain married.
This is not so with the anti-divorce movement, as they impose rules so that the divorce applicants cannot do it. This is most egoistic of these persons, think about it.
I do not agree with divorce as a quick solve-it scenario, and that marriage should be for life, but one group, or even the majority cannot impose, via human laws or a referendum, violations of Divine Law.
Should one note, that in the Bible, there is a safety guard for divorce, both in the Old and New Testament!
J Gatt
Mar 16th 2011, 01:01
@MBorg.. It is not that easy, so do not make it sound so.do not givr a false picture.
It`s not easy, but for those in a position to obtain divorce abroad, it will be recognized here in Malta.
So divorce in Malta is legally recognized, but not possible at this time to obtain locally.
Being difficult to obtain does not change the facts
G. Ballard
Mar 15th 2011, 19:38
The way Dr Bencini rolled his eyes, shook his head, gestured with his hands and occasionally even verbally interjected while others were trying to speak was embarrassing to both the 'No' movement and the University of Malta. We can hardly blame the students for talking among themselves during the debate if Dr Bencini is the role model they are offered. The level of disrespect he showed to invited speakers such as Dr Schembri was truly out of place.
Joe Zammit
Mar 15th 2011, 19:21
DIVORCE IS FOR THE COMMON EVIL!
W Ciantar
Mar 15th 2011, 18:05
To all those saying that divorce is indissoluble, go tell that to all the families and couples whose marriage has already broken down, divorce or no divorce, what solution is there for them?
As Dr. Schembri said, there currently is none. Who are we to deny them the right to a second chance?
As for the religious factor, please do not make me laugh, nobody at any point said that divorce is going to render invalid the marriage instituted by the Church and simply voting for divorce does not in any way imply that the voter intends to make use of divorce; furthermore has it ever crossed your mind that there are people not of the Catholic faith who reside in Malta? We are "EU citizens" now after all, we must be tolerant of other people's faiths, views and problems more than ever before.
R Borg
Mar 15th 2011, 18:04
To all those against divorce,may no body pass from a broken marriage and is Lucky to be loved again,for without divorce he will be forced to cohabit.If that happens than you will change your opinion for When you fall in a river, you're no longer a fisherman; you're a swimmer.
MSciberras
Mar 15th 2011, 18:00
Why did not someone just stand up and say that my marraige and everything about it including when it starts and ends is none of your business?
M. Debono
Mar 15th 2011, 16:06
Yawn!
Joe Zammit
Mar 15th 2011, 16:04
The pro-divorce movement has no one single valid argument in favour of divorce. So what do you expect them to say? Just non-sense.
Marriage is the union of two persons, a man and a woman, for life. The two characteristics of marriage are: Unity and Indissolubility. If one of these is missing, it is no marriage at all. If unity is missing, it is bigamy; if indissolubility is missing, it is cohabitation.
Marriage + Divorce = Cohabitation
Those who want divorce are in favour of cohabitation and not of marriage. As simple as that!
Joe Zammit
Mar 15th 2011, 16:02
Remarriage after divorce can easily be described as another form of cohabitation. In cohabitation there is no bond. Divorce points to no bond because when they want the couple can for some reason or another get a divorce. Divorce opens the way to literally another form of cohabitation.
Marriage and only marriage is serious and beneficial to every human society. The two characteristics of marriage are UNITY and INDISSOLUBILITY. Marriage is for ever.
No voter, no MP can vote in favour of divorce without sinning seriously against God. Divorce is a grave sin and voting for divorce is equally a grave sin that separates the offender from God and puts them on the path to hell.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Dr Francis Saliba
Mar 15th 2011, 16:01
The cat is out of the bag! The proposed bill IS indeed being offered as a facile "no fault" ' dissolution for a new style "rabta coff" type of marriage!
Shaun Azzopardi
Mar 15th 2011, 15:45
Dangerously missing from such debates is the question of the state of missing rights separated people and their new partners find themselves in.
Consider A who was previously married to B, but now is in a committed relationship with C.
In Malta A and C are faced with the impossibility of marrying and thus of the impossibility of intertwining their lives legally, i.e. they are not regarded as a couple by in front of the law. Therefore they don't have any of the rights and duties accorded to a married couple. They file separate taxes, one isn't automatically the next-of-kin of the other [i.e. in case of an accident which renders one of the partners unconscious for an indefinite length of time, the other partner can't take medical decisions for them; if one of the persons dies without a will the other person has no automatic right for the other's assets; inheritance of assets is subject to a greater property tax (this I'm not sure of in Malta, but in the U.S. relatives/spouses don't have to pay any property tax on assets less than a certain large amount) etc.] etc.
Does that seem just?
mark johnson
Mar 15th 2011, 16:17
There is divorce in malta. You can get one abroad and they stick it on your marriage certificate at the public registry.
MBorg
Mar 15th 2011, 20:21
@ mark johnson
Do please stop repeating that you can get divorce abroad. Many think that you can just go abroad and buy it. Why say this rubbish when it is not so. To get a divorce from another country one has to prove that one has lived there for some time. show utility bills and even that one has paid tax and NI in that country. It is not that easy, so do not make it sound so.do not givr a false picture.
Please choose the reason of your report below: