Unfair criticism of a statesman

Martin Scicluna’s unfair criticism (March 30) of Eddie Fenech Adami’s position on divorce was uncalled for. While he has every right to disagree with Dr Fenech Adami’s views, he certainly has no right to decide who can speak on this issue and who cannot, especially when one of the persons he thinks has no right to speak on this topic is the person who fought through Malta’s darkest years for our right to speak on whatever topic we wished, while others remained perched on the fence. Dr Fenech Adami not only fought for our right to speak without fear in this country but he restored Malta to the western democratic world while ensuring the island’s entry into the European Union.

It was indeed unacceptable for Mr Scicluna to attempt to drive a wedge between Dr Fenech Adami and Guido de Marco’s positions on divorce. I happen to have worked closely with both. I have known and worked with both men for the past 35 years. Both always spoke against the introduction of divorce in Malta in private and in public. I remember Prof. de Marco telling me that, in his vast legal practice spanning over decades, he had managed, through patience and persistence, to reconcile a large number of couples who were intent on leading separate lives. Divorce would accelerate rather than prevent such break-ups. I feel in duty bound to protect the memory of Prof. de Marco from such attempts at misinterpreting his views.

Had Mr Scicluna checked his facts correctly he would have discovered that on publication of the Private Member’s Bill proposing divorce last July, Prof. de Marco had publicly stated his position, which was reported in The Times on July 11, 2010 wherein he said clearly he was against divorce.

The last four presidents – Ċensu Tabone, Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Prof. de Marco and Dr Fenech Adami – were all accomplished politicians who served their country well. They were honest and hard-working men, all imbued with a patriotic spirit but, above all, with a Christian belief that pervaded their actions in public and private. Some in the pro-divorce front have looked askance every time one of our former presidents pronounced himself on the divorce issue as if ex-presidents, following their term of office, have no right to express the views they have publicly held throughout their lives.

Indeed, one such activist proposed that Dr Mifsud Bonnici draft a code of ethics to control pronouncements by ex-presidents, little knowing that, in Tarxien some weeks ago, Dr Mifsud Bonnici had publicly declared his opposition to divorce. In his own inimitable style, Dr Mifsud Bonnici pungently asked: “When a married couple proclaims its vows at the foot of the church altar or at the public registry does it bind itself to fidelity for a limited period of four years or till death do us part?”

Incidentally, I note that Mr Scicluna has become an ardent supporter of referenda. But only last October he actually chided Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi for “attempting to fob off a decision on the introduction of divorce legislation on the outcome of a referendum rather than taking responsibility for it in Parliament where it belongs” (The Times, October 20, 2010).

Dr Fenech Adami occupies a special place in the hearts and minds of all Maltese of goodwill. To Mr Scicluna he has “feet of clay”. And what is this great flaw in Dr Fenech Adami’s character that Mr Scicluna has discovered? It is his respect for the position of those MPs who have stated that they cannot vote yes in Parliament on a divorce Bill. We should all note that Dr Fenech Adami has never said that the will of the majority in a referendum should not be respected as did the whole of the present Labour Party leadership.

What he has said is that those who in their conscience cannot vote for a particular Bill should have their right to vote in line with their consciences respected. And to Mr Scicluna this is the hidden flaw in Dr Fenech Adami’s character.

This is not a flaw, it is a badge of honour.

Dr Borg is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs