We all have a cross to carry

I was just about to sit down this Saturday morning to contemplate the dominating issues of Libya, Japan and divorce when I read of the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which saved the day for me, so to say. At least it’s something different to start off with.

Judge Giovanni Bonello’s lucid exposition of the issue and the arguments put forward in his separate opinion in the case need no repetition or explanation. It reflects the way every Christian should feel. Further than just Christians, everyone with an iota of culture and historical knowledge should feel exactly the same. Who is anyone to deprive us of the highest religious symbol we have? And just because this symbol is not one embraced not only by a non-Christian but nothing less than an atheist, a person who believes there is no God.

Sole Latusi, who filed the human rights case, is entitled to her personal beliefs and non-beliefs. No one, at least in this modern day and age, is going to drag her or her children to the stake. But neither is she to negate our embodiment of the greatest symbol of Christianity. She can expose what she pleases within the privacy of her home in the full exercise of her human rights but she cannot deprive us of the sacrosanct right of many nations.

It was good to see that Malta was one of the sponsors of Italy’s appeal and that (yet again in recent times) we found a unifying factor in the form of the crucifix among Malta’s political parties, not to mention the Church, of course. I say to Ms Latusi: “Hands off our heritage and deep religious beliefs”.

I would hope no smart Alec will attempt to undermine such a historic decision, although I would not be surprised if one of our mavericks had to enter the fray in opposition to the rightful exposition of the image of the crucified Christ in our classrooms.

Our Muslim brothers across the sea in North Africa, particularly during these tumultuous times, may chant “Allah u Akbar” in an expression of their strong religious beliefs. And who are we non-Muslims to attempt to stop this? This would be a breach of human rights of the highest order. Besides a religious exclamation or prayer, it is also a war cry for the factions in Libya. It is probably the chant that has fortified so many of those battling fearlessly for the achievement of their aspirations. And, yet, the oppression and the killing of our Libyan brethren at the merciless hands of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces go on at this point in time.

On the one hand, the Colonel declares a ceasefire in observance of resolution 1973 of the UN Security Council in terms of Libya being a member of the world body but at the same time he continues to attack and surround Benghazi. International forces are poised to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and take any other measure necessary to protect the Libyan rebels and put a halt to the massacre.

Malta’s role will, rightly, be a passive one in that it has chosen not to allow the use of the island as a military base for these operations while allowing the use of its airspace for the passage of allied forces’ military aircraft in pursuance of the enforcement of the UN resolution. This is all in line of our constitutionally neutral status and we should go no further. To do so would expose us to aggression.

As we say “we all have a cross to carry” and one such cross is the acrimonious debate on the introduction or otherwise of divorce. My reading of the situation now that a referendum is to be held on May 28 is that, should it be a “no” vote then the issue is closed, at least for the foreseeable future. Should the vote be a “yes” then the issue must go to Parliament, where the Private Member’s Bill presented by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo is debated. This must happen.

But the scenarios are three and this on the basis that the referendum is a “consultative” one.

Firstly, the House of Representatives adopts the Bill as presented in toto, thus introducing divorce. Secondly, it introduces divorce by means of the Bill as amended. Finally, the divorce Bill can be defeated altogether.

Unfortunately, two factors have contributed to what is a confused and possibly contradictory situation. The Bill should have been debated in Parliament in the first place. If, and only if, a Bill was to be enacted, it would then be put to a vote in a referendum, being then signed into an Act of Parliament by the President if the vote was “yes” or abandoned if the vote was “no”.

Given that the House has decided to hold a referendum before discussing any Bill, the question to be put divides the pro-divorce camp and is far from watertight. It is the sole individual legal and constitutional right and duty of every member of Parliament through a free vote to approve or disapprove of the introduction of divorce under any form, in this case solely according to his/her conscience.

Parliament will not be bound either by the main thrust of the referendum vote (be it “yes” or “no”) or by the particular form of divorce encompassed in the referendum, particularly since this effectively provides for “no fault” divorce (not to mention the lacuna regarding guaranteed maintenance for children of the marriage). Parliament may very well go against the “will of the people” as expressed in a referendum and parties/MPs may suffer short- and long-term political prejudice but the prerogatives is Parliament’s and Parliament’s alone. That is why the issue should have gone to Parliament in the form of a Bill before going to a referendum. But we have contrived to mess up things.