Opposition leader Joseph Muscat said today that he would be campaigning in the run-up to the referendum on divorce because he wanted to be on the side of those who were suffering, independently of vote considerations.

Speaking in parliament at the end of a 10-sitting debate on a motion for the holding of a divorce referendum, Dr Muscat said the core issue before parliament was not one of divorce or the referendum, but on whether Malta should start the process to modernise society so that the country would be truly European, and not just on paper.

When the people opted to join the EU, they did not opt just to join an institution, but they made a social option for civil rights based on European concepts. This debate was a continuation of that European choice.

The issue as not whether Malta should copy the other European countries.

Religion did not have a monopoly on values and this issue was not one of religion.

His personal position, Dr Muscat said, was based on the ideal that he wanted to live in a country that was truly European. That meant a set of values one should believe in and live. The European values included solidarity, inclusion, democracy, equality and tolerance. Tolerance meant choice and rights, as well as duties.

People should be allowed to take the decisions affecting their lives, while also assuming responsibility for them. Malta tolerated hypocrisy. The state allowed separated couples to cohabit with no responsibilities and duties.

Dr Muscat said he professed to being Catholic and he had been helped to overcome the conflicts he suffered between his religious beliefs and social attitude.

While the Church had a right and duty to speak against divorce, politicians had a right and duty to speak on the need to introduce responsible divorce as part of the process for the Europeanisation of Malta, Dr Muscat said.

In the debate, Dr Muscat said, he had been surprised by the state of denial by people such as Dolores Cristina and Jason Azzopardi, who had sought to play down the extent of marriage break-ups.

Divorce, Dr Muscat said, would not bring about more marriage break-ups, but it would reveal the extent of current problems and provide a solution to them.

Some had argued that one should not have divorce because one could end up having more than one divorce. Yet there had even been cases of more than one annulment, and that was legal.

The laws on separations and annulments needed to be reviewed. Should one continue to have a situation where couples had to reveal all their intimate details in public as they sought separation or annulment? The current hypocrisy in the system was a fact which had led to the divorce debate.

The children suffered when there was divorce, but it was certainly less than in annulment, which even denied that a marriage would have taken place. It was also certainly better than cohabitation, where the children’s parents might break up overnight. That was even worse than Las Vegas style and offered no protection at all.

Divorce was not what caused marriage breakups, and no country had removed divorce once it as introduced, Dr Muscat observed.

What caused break-ups were burdens such as the never-ending bills. Twenty years ago, a worker could raise a family of four children with one salary. Now two salaries were insufficient.

DUTIES OF RESPONSIBLE DIVORCE

Responsible divorce would introduce duties, responsibility and order in new relationships which sprang up after marriages failed. It also provided security to children.

The ones who did not want divorce were those who were comfortable in a new relationship but did not want responsibility.

Having a cohabitation law would be a hypocritical compromise, Dr Muscat said. Most people cohabited because they could not remarry.

And yet this was a country which recognised divorce granted abroad. If Dr Gonzi felt so strongly against divorce, why did not stop this?

Again, the reality was hypocrisy.

Dr Muscat said he had been consistently in favour of the introduction of responsible divorce. Three fronts had developed on the government benches – a small one in favour of divorce, one against divorce but in favour of a referendum, and another which wanted to kill off talk of the referendum in Parliament. The PN was fast becoming a coalition, indeed, the Maltese version of the tea party.

PN ‘TRAP’

The original PN proposal was to hold a referendum only if the House approved a Divorce Bill. It showed that the prime minister was not truly in favour of holding a referendum.

Dr Muscat said he wished to thank those Labour MPs who were against divorce but had not fallen into the PN trap and accepted to hold a referendum. They made him proud.

If the motion for the holding of a divorce referendum was approved, it would be a victory for democracy and honesty. It would be a victory for those who wanted to make Malta truly European, Dr Muscat said.

The PL had not taken a position on divorce because this was a matter of conscience. He believed in divorce, but would not impose his views on others. In contrast, the prime minister had adopted a dogmatic ‘no’ and it was still not clear if the PN would actively campaign for a ‘no’.

The PL would tell its supporters that they were free to vote as they wished. He would express his own wishes and would vote ‘yes’ even though it would be an uphill struggle. There was a real possibility that the referendum would be defeated. But he would not heed advice to stay silent in the run-up to the poll because this was something he believed in.

The prime minister was sacrificing the thousands of people who were suffering. These were people who wanted solutions now, and not in some distant date.

The referendum question would give a clear signal to the people on the form of divorce which the people wanted. It would show that the people wanted responsible divorce. It was irresponsible of the prime minister to want to give a blank cheque to future legislators.

And what were the alternatives? The Church statistical office, Discern, had said that within four years a tenth of the population would have a broken marriage. This was a problem which needed to be tackled now.

Apart from responsible divorce, the state needed to take a practical approach to marriage preparation.

Dr Muscat criticised the prime minister for having criticised the proposed referendum question, without presenting any alternative for fear of losing a vote.

The Labour leader confirmed that both sides agreed that the referendum should be held on Saturday, May 28.

This, he said, was a consultative referendum and some were arguing about whether MPs would follow what was decided. For him, his beliefs would not change but he would hear the people. He felt, Dr Muscat said, that if the No triumphed, the Divorce Bill should be withdrawn. But if it was approved, MPs should not hinder the people’s will. In that way, parliament would remain the legitimate expression of the will of the people.

Dr Muscat said the prime minister yesterday had spoken against the no-fault divorce, while forgetting that Malta already had a no-fault separation.

Reality was that divorce came after a traumatic experience in marriage. No one married to get divorce. But people’s lives should not be locked, like in a divorce.

Responsible divorce was not a luxury, it was a hard choice, the price a person was prepared to pay to build a new family. His duty, Dr Muscat said, was to help those who were suffering, independently of voting considerations.