Tonio Fenech
Insure yourself against divorce
The front page headline of The Daily Mail last November 16 read: Insure Yourself Against Divorce: Minister’s Advice On Marriage As Huge Legal Aid Crackdown Looms. With various countries coming to grips with very tough economic realities, some governments have come up with various solutions towards reducing their high deficits. The UK took a number of measures, some intended to increase revenue, like raising VAT by three per cent, and others targeting expenditure reduction.
One such idea is to scrap legal aid for divorce lawyers. This means that on the day of one’s marriage, when the vows of trust and affection “till death do us part” are being made, an insurance policy document will have to be signed to protect oneself from the legal cost of any eventual divorce. This may sound absurd but this is what Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke actually suggested.
Divorce simply breaks the concept of marriage, there are no two ways about it. It simply reduces a marriage to the level of any other contract for the period of time a couple decide to be together with a termination clause when things don’t remain going so well. Divorce does not simply introduce what those who propose it perceive it to be a right, it actually destroys the very essence of what marriage should be. My point is not about the Christian meaning of marriage but it is the reality we see out there in the countries that have introduced it and the actual consequences of ever-growing rates of marriage failures and family breakdowns. Pro-divorce proponents want us to ignore the harmful consequences of divorce on families, children and society at large. They merely want to present it as a right to remarry rather than the right to break a marriage and a family. Now that is some right!
But the real question we need to ask is really a very simple one: Will our society be better off with divorce or worse off?
From an economic perspective some new activity will result, new jobs in legal aid, insurance companies and brokers, new apartments, new receptions for those that remarry. Quoting from the same article: “Yesterday, one of Mr Clarke’s ministerial team, Jonathan Djanogly, said: ‘Couples are too ready and too willing to run to the courts. We think there can be a wider market in before-the-event insurance. We would be creating a new market but we want to see a market.’”
But is this really the way to generate jobs?
Clearly, from a social perspective the consequences are devastating. Judging by what Mr Djanogly said that “Couples are too ready and too willing to run to the courts”. Divorce becomes the easy way out. Is this the society we would like to see? Let us not fool ourselves that we can have such a tough law it will not be so attractive for couples to go for divorce. If so, why is such a fuss being made to have it in the first place? All divorce laws had been introduced with restrictions and limitations but today they all allow quick divorces where you can divorce by simply signing a couple of papers, not even going to court.
Recently, I was at table with a couple of foreign investors when the issue of divorce cropped up and they were quite surprised Malta still did not have such a law. They were even more astonished that I was against its introduction. The gentleman on my right described to me how he had unfortunately passed through it after only two years of marriage. I asked him a very simple question: Do you think that were divorce not an option you would have given your marriage a second try. For a moment he hesitated and then he said: “Honestly, I would”. Clearly, he still felt something for the woman he had divorced but things happened so fast, it was so easy to do it they were divorced before they even knew it. A couple of years later and he is now thinking it could have worked after all.
Who of us does not have relatives abroad, say Australia or Canada, where divorce has been available for a very long time? Whenever I meet them I get the feeling the issue there is not divorce but why marry in the first place. Divorce is not about the possibility of remarrying because what happened in these countries is that it diluted the value and significance of marrying and eventually wiped it out completely as an option of starting a family.
If marriage is not a commitment “till death do us part” then why the hassle of marrying in the first place? There is nothing stopping you sticking around? At least, you save on having to take an insurance for the eventual breakdown and divorce. The new model is to simply stick around together, for as long as we are fine together, and when it is not so fine then we move on.
This is not the type of society I aspire to see. As a nation we are so proud of who we are but what makes us is our values and our endeavours. If we lose them there is nothing so special about us. We would become like all the rest: societies without a soul, where selfishness has become the mother of all values.
The author is Minister of Finance, the Economy and Investment.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 7th 2011, 19:25
"Divorce simply breaks the concept of marriage, there are no two ways about it".
False. Divorce only breaks the concept of marriage as defined by the Catholic church. If Divorce truly broke the concept of marriage, so would annulments and separations.
B. Cachia
Apr 7th 2011, 17:25
When countries like the UK refer to divorce and its costs etc, they are usually referring to the separation aspect of divorce, which we obviously already have, and not to the possibility of remarriage. In Malta, separation proceedings, especially acrimonious ones, are already expensive and traumatic. That will not be affected by whether couples will subsequently have the option of divorce and remarriage or not.
Natalie Heywood
Apr 8th 2011, 00:23
You're right about the UK counting the costs. It has wisely considered investing in marriage because divorce is an enormously hefty cost to the country's coffers.
d.attard
Apr 7th 2011, 14:17
the convulsed nature of the arguments presented is beyond belief. I shudder to think that these people are taking the important decisions for us...the whole world has divorce legislation and not one nation is having second thoughts about it. Yet we have to rely on some anecdote, most probably taken out of context; it truely is beyond belief...does the minister realise that divorce is considered to be such an important avenue in the uk that it is currently made available to all by the state! and that in cost-cutting considerations, the state is still keen to ensure that financial considerations will not impede all married couples from obtaining divorce should their marriage fail?
l fenech
Apr 7th 2011, 13:30
Ara issibix xi insurance ta xi habib tieghek barranin basta ma tkunx ta' xi cuc malti.
Sabrina Borda
Apr 7th 2011, 12:37
It is better to take out an insurance to cover bad governance.
Emanuel Farrugia
Apr 7th 2011, 12:29
Before this Divorce debacle, ( thanks to JPO) all we had was COHABITATION and UNKOWN FATHERS. Dear JPO, can we go back to square one please ?
M Vella***
Apr 7th 2011, 11:26
When are you going to understand that the more you try to shove religion down our throats, the more we will resist it! Dan jaqaw ma ghandhux x'jaghmel?
P. Vincenti
Apr 7th 2011, 12:17
It is only you M Vella who mentions religion here, nobody else does. You sound more religious then the zealots you imagine surround you. You sound a little paranoid and hysterical. If you have to make everything a religious aregumnt, you have no argument.
MBorg
Apr 7th 2011, 13:22
This is not religion , these are plain facts. Facts which many of you do not want ot acknowledge.
Divorce does not cure anything, bit it does bring heartbreak and poverty.
How would you feel if you can never be sure if you are still going to be married today, next week or the week after ? You can be the best husband /wife,. father/mother in the world and still find yourself divorced if your partner wants it.What about the children who will be dropped along the way while their parents move on to new partners ?
Couples will not remarry after divorce. Many who think that divorce will give them a second chance are denying facts. Marriage will seem so useless after divorce that couples will move into cohabitation.
This " responsible divorce " being proposed is nothing but a mockery.The four year separation will disappear and couples will be able to separante whenever they want.
So M.Vella forget religion and be prepared to pay , because that is what divorce means.
M Vella
Apr 7th 2011, 17:39
@M Borg,you said' forget religion and be prepared to pay , because that is what divorce means.' Well,not every body is lucky to have a strong, faithful marriage,for those who their marriage failed it is better to divorce and marry again then to cohabit.All people have the right to live their lives how they want.
Ramon Casha
Apr 7th 2011, 11:06
"From an economic perspective some new activity will result..."
If divorce has any effect on the economy - positive or negative - it is a minor, secondary concern.
"Clearly, from a social perspective the consequences are devastating."
Wrong. Clearly divorce is a significant benefit to society.
"All divorce laws had been introduced with restrictions and limitations but today they all allow quick divorces"
Ireland, on which the bill was modelled, is one example that does not, so your statement above is a blatant lie.
"If marriage is not a commitment “till death do us part” then why the hassle of marrying in the first place?"
Actually it isn't. The oath is to "love honour and cherish" until death do us part. Divorce or no divorce, once the love, honour and cherisihing are gone, the vows are broken.
"We would become like all the rest: societies without a soul, where selfishness has become the mother of all values."
Quite the opposite. At present we are a society with a diseased soul, where the edicts of a church outweigh the welfare of society.
Andy Farrugia
Apr 7th 2011, 12:26
You seem to be quite well-versed in "diseased souls"?
Andy Farrugia
Apr 7th 2011, 13:38
"At present we are a society with a diseased soul, .." You seem to be well-versed in diseased souls!
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 7th 2011, 19:35
@ Andy Farrugia:
What does "well versed in diseased souls" mean?
Natalie Heywood
Apr 8th 2011, 00:34
Once a couple divorces, that's it - finished, over. It closes all doors to reconciliation and therefore also on hope. They're left to lick wounds that never really heal completely. It's also harder on the children than separation who, already traumatised by their parents no longer loving each other, realise that they will never be one happy family again. Never, an ugly word, but the only suitable one.
Charlie Borg
Apr 7th 2011, 10:37
It is unbelievable. These people should be looking after their responsibilities instead of preaching down at us about what is morality and what is not. Indeed, Minister Fenech has nothing to teach us about morality! My goodness - it appears that we now have Ministers who have nothing better to do, other than to tell us how to live our lives. This is very dangerous! Yet another reason to vote for a change, come the general elections.
P. Vincenti
Apr 7th 2011, 12:23
•So you are allowed an opinion but a minister is not.?
Just fine and dandy.
•Intolerance thrown at others by those who claim that others are intolerant.
Changing the rules to suit your cause expose the inconsistencies in your arguments for divorce.
Andy Farrugia
Apr 7th 2011, 17:31
@ P Vincenti
And please note that it is "very dangerous" to have such people behaving in this way; no doubt some would suggest extirpating such people. Tolerance and milk of human kindness anyone? Hahaha!
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 7th 2011, 19:31
@ P Vincenti:
Yes, the minister is entitled to his opinion, just like we are entitled to ours.
MSciberras
Apr 7th 2011, 10:31
QUOTE"We would become like all the rest: societies without a soul, where selfishness has become the mother of all values." UNQUOTE. I suppose our saintliness is demonstarted by the way people drive, the general attitude to illegal immigrants, the admirable manner we resist those urges not to throw that old washing machine in that beautiful valley or in the sea, our joy in hearing birdsong in spring undisturbed by the sound of 10,000 shotguns blasting everything that flies out of the sky, our willingness to invest a little effort to recycle our waste (every day!!! Can you imagine that!!!). I love Malta, dont get me wrong. But we are not 'special'. We are not cursed by high unemployment, crime rates that are too high, blessed with a wonderful island, history and way and quality of life etc etc etc. But we have our own set of problems, like everyone else The Honourable Minister wouild perhaps be better advised to return to his brief; having just received a (very high) electicity bill with a payment deadline of 5 days (ignore it, says the customer care) I think he has enough issues on his plate here on planet Earth.
Giga Vella
Apr 7th 2011, 10:23
Some politicians are unbelievable,Most of us prefer to make our own decisions, and decide what is good or bad for us - not some politician who is on strings pulled by the Church
Kollox jidher li hu permess f'isem il-krucjata religjuza .
P. Vincenti
Apr 7th 2011, 12:20
If it is true what you say, ‘that most of us like to make our own decision’s, why are the anti-family divorce people liberals so upset that MPS will use their own minds even after a referendum? Are they not allowed to use their own conscience? Are people like you allowed to sue their minds but not people you disagree with?
Carmelo Micallef, Valletta
Apr 7th 2011, 12:35
@ Giga Vella
You, me and the Minister have the right to our own opinion on this subject., we also have a forum (The Times) through which to express it legitimately. The venom of your words has nothing to do with this serious subject that deserves our reasoned thoughts and actions. You are gratuitously expressing your bilious hatred of the Minister and the Church.
Carmelo Micallef, Valletta
Apr 7th 2011, 12:43
@ Above Correspondents:
These words being used by you are not to throw light on the subject, rarely even to express your own position on the subject: The sole purpose seems to be to stop another Maltese citizen from expressing their opinion.
Free speech in practise means that Tonio Fenech, you, me and the Church, if it so wishes, have the right to express opinions - this right does not extend to stopping others expressing their opinions.
Gianninu Saliba
Apr 7th 2011, 14:00
Gigi, what will you say when your Joseph starts campaigning for divorce? That's what he said that he is going to do. But then, Gigi, I believe that you enjoy eating omlettes. Are you prepared to compare your Joseph to Tonio Fenech? Surely you know that Tonio will tie Joseph in knots and make him look like an idiot. Mind you, there are thousands who believe that your Joseph is incompetent, immature and irresponsible.
Giga Vella
Apr 7th 2011, 16:16
@P. Vincenti,
Some politicians are unbelievable,if they had more say and power they will turn Malta into a Vatican state,they are there to serve the country and not the church,if they want to serve the church they should have joined a religious order.
Giga Vella
Apr 7th 2011, 17:55
@Giannini Saliba,You keep telling me ,my Joseph,haha what if I tell you I am a PN supporter and was always one, and was there in Zejtun and in Rabat in the 80's and on the Fosos,when we use to get shot at Remember or are you now a PN supporter for convenience.I believe in free politics, free from the church and beside divorce, that is why all Maltese must vote YES in the referendum.
Carmelo Micallef, Valletta
Apr 7th 2011, 18:07
@ Gigi Vella
Your outright contempt for other people and the Constitution of Malta is a very sad reflection on you. Tonio Fenech is free, in this country (thanks to its constitution) to hold his relgious and political beliefs. the people of Malta are also free to elect him and his party to Government.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 7th 2011, 19:29
@ P Vincenti:
First of all, pro-divorce people are not anti-family. So stop slandering people. It's against your religion.
Regarding being "upset" about MPs using their own minds even after a referendum, that is because the MPs who use their own minds to deny the divorce option to people will, by a single act of parliament, be denying everyone else to use their own minds.
Yes, people are entitled to use their own conscience and not divorce, just as much as people are entitled to use their own conscience and choose to divorce. Is that so hard to understand?
Natalie Heywood
Apr 8th 2011, 00:19
It's good, P. Vincenti, that you mention conscience. Do make sure you don't confuse it with feelings. They are two distinct things - feelings thrive solely on emotion whereas conscience is that which, unless thwarted, twisted and maimed, will guide us to take sensible, unselfish and clear headed decisions (i.e. with a combination of mind and heart). It's motivation is not to satisfy one's immediate needs, but an honest need to do right by oneself and those around us. Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that divorce will not only fail to clear the mess but will heap on more problems to the existing ones that, far from being ignored, should be addressed. But not this way!!!! Divorce is the more like a panic stricken "solution", if it must be called so.