Matthew Xuereb
Children worst hit by divorce – ‘No’ movement
Andre Camilleri says the movement is against all forms of divorce. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
Children and the negative effects they would suffer are the focal point of the anti-divorce movement’s campaign, coupled with the value and indissolubility of marriage.
Movement chairman Andre Camilleri yesterday said his movement was against any form of divorce, insisting its introduction would not solve the problem of marital breakdown but would, as it did in other counties, increase the incidence of cohabitation and separ-ation and reduce that of marriage.
This meant that children would be born outside marriage and within unstable families.
“The movement was set up to inform the public about the effects of the introduction of divorce on society, especially on children who are the ones with the faintest voice in this debate. The experience of (the introduction of divorce in) other countries has shown that this did not solve family problems. We do not want a no-reason divorce because this will bring about marriage which expires,” he said.
Dr Camilleri was speaking at the launch of the final part of the campaign being waged by the movement Żwieg Bla Divorzju (marriage without divorce), with the slogan Flimkien Għal Uliedna (Together For Our Children).
The motto brings to mind two slogans used by the Nationalist Party for the referendum to join the EU and the last general election: Iva, Għal Uliedna u Għal Pajjizna (Yes, For Our Children And Our Country) and Flimkien Kollox Possibbli (Together, Everything Is Possible).
Dr Camilleri said the slogan had been chosen because children had the faintest voice in the divorce debate and yet, they would be the most affected if divorce were introduced.
Asked whether the effect on children of being born outside wedlock or to cohabiting couples, or of being the offspring of separated couples, equalled the effect that divorce would have on them, Dr Camilleri said divorce would make the problem worse rather than solve or contain it.
The movement, he said, wanted to promote the concept of a lasting and indissoluble marriage and its main aim was to inform the public of the serious effects divorce had on the family unit. For Maltese society there was no better formula than this kind of marriage.
Dr Camilleri insisted that despite problems they faced, Maltese families, by and large, were still strong and would be weakened by the introduction of divorce.
He said the movement was against all forms of divorce, including the so-called no-fault divorce. Asked whether this meant the movement was against giving a second chance to those whose marriage had broken down through no fault of their own, he said divorce did not solve the “injustice” these people were facing but, on the contrary, it increased them as it would give people an easy way out.
Dr Camilleri complained that no one had carried out a social impact assessment of the introduction of divorce on society, and when asked he said the movement did not have the resources or the time to take it up.
The movement, he said, wanted a “mature and civil” debate “free of personal attacks” and expressed his conviction that the Maltese would, at the end of the day, make the right choice and say “no thank you” to divorce.
Asked about whether any funds had been received from the Church to support this campaign, Dr Camilleri said the movement planned a fund-raising campaign and would welcome donations from anyone, including the Curia.
He said a parish had made unused premises available which the movement was using as its office.
In an immediate reaction, the pro-divorce movement said child-ren and religion should not be used in the divorce referendum campaign. It accused the “no camp” of ignoring the plight of children born outside marriage because their parents could not get married.
With the introduction of divorce, such parents would be able to marry and children would therefore bene-fit.
It pointed out that a third of babies were now born out of wedlock, including many to cohabiting couples who could not marry because there was no divorce. This number would increase if divorce was not introduced.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
46 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alfred Falzon
Apr 27th 2011, 20:06
Those who abuse of their marriage by abandoning their wife or husband and children, if any, for their selfish ego or by betraying their legitimate partner for another "Valentine" should be penalised by society and exposed for what they are!
There won't be then talk of a legalised bigamy or polygamy through divorce to whet their appetite!
No to half-baked solutions!
Mr jon farrugia
Apr 27th 2011, 18:23
pretty sure kids would rather be in a one parent family rather then abused
Ms Francesca Abela
Apr 27th 2011, 13:22
Why is is most men are against Divorce?? So they can keep little wifey safe at home! It's usually the women who are victims of brutality so are we to expect victims to turn the other cheek and keep getting beaten or abused or cheated on?? Isn't it more scandalous for religious freaks to have a mariied couple seperate, then co-habit with different partners with children born out of wedlock??
There must be a choice - if you dont want to divorce - no one will force you to. But if you need to obtain a divorce then you should have the civil right to do so. State and Religious beliefs are two seperate issues.
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 27th 2011, 15:28
Ms Francesca, I sometimes end up thinking (not literally, for those who tend to read into every line posted here) that these same men believe that their wife needs permission to speak.
I feel like I'm living in the middle ages where people point at each other, and attempt to put them down, send them to damnation and all that tosh just because they do not form part of their so called majority.
Ms Emma Xerri
May 11th 2011, 13:42
Francesca, you are spot on. And that is precisely why the Church is against divorce - because it benefits women the most.
Ms D Galea
Apr 27th 2011, 12:20
How will the introduction of Divorce legislation, stop a violent psychopath of an ex spouse from stalking or beating up his ex-wife / partner or children or setting fire to the matrimonial home if he is hell bent to do so?
I also wish to ask the pro-divorcists, on how can the referendum question guarantee IN A PRACTCIAL WAY, maintenance to an ex spouse,if he is hell bent not to do so and has a good lawyer who will be able to advice him on how to keep giving the third finger sign to his ex-wife as far as financial support is concerned. And here, I am not referring to a young ex-wife who is in time to rebuilt her future and earn a living to be able to support herself.I am referring to women who were been cast off by their husbands after giving them thirty or forty years of their lives in marriage.
Ms Emma Xerri
May 11th 2011, 13:55
Ms. Galea
Divorce will not stop violent psychopaths - just like any other criminal, this is a matter for the Police. Maintenace and support orders fall under jurisdiction of the Courts (and not the Curia) using wage garnishee orders and the Police.
Just the same, it is better to be divorced from a psychopath then just separated (i.e. tied legally to a violent and abusive person for life) like the Church and its minions want everyone (mostly wives) in Malta to remain.
Mr Sean Swain
Apr 27th 2011, 10:44
Dear Pro-Divorce Loyalists
The kiddies will be much better off living in broken down marriages because...because, just because. And any naughty grown up that might have made a mistake (kids or no kids) and wants to have a second chance at happiness and love should all be taught a lesson FOREVER, just because. And, and if you vote for divorce you are a bad person and will destroy the country because, because you shouldn't have a choice in life.
Yours truly
Smiling Nodding Muppet
Gerry Cowie
Apr 26th 2011, 20:06
Can Ramon Casha provide firm evidence of his accusation that the "no" movement was set up "to MISINFORM". He must provide firm evidence or else withdraw this comment.
I keep wondering if those in favour, making such comments, realise that the more they do this the more the vote will go the other way. Perhaps that is what they really want!
Mr Matthew Grima
Apr 27th 2011, 11:45
Same can be said for the "other side" really.
Victor Pulis
Apr 27th 2011, 12:19
Thank you for your 'genuine' concern' Gerry.
Mr Victor Laiviera
May 8th 2011, 21:01
Mr Cowie, the fact that the "NO" movement translated "No Fault Divorce" as "Żwieġ Bla Raġuni" is positive, conclusive proof that they want to deceive and misinform.
Joseph M Camilleri
Apr 26th 2011, 18:23
divorce and abortion are our rights, it is only the funademntalists ,GonziPN and the Bishops who prevent us from having the rights of othet modern European states.
I will not vote on the 28th for I am not going to waste my time. this should never have been left to a referendum.
Elaine Compagno
Apr 27th 2011, 01:37
You need to vote. Please. Please help those of us who need a divorce.
Mr Sean Swain
Apr 27th 2011, 08:16
You won't waste your time voting for your fundamental right to 'choose', but you will waste your time airing your views in a forum. Yes, I see how this makes absolute sense.
Ms D Galea
Apr 27th 2011, 12:09
@Mr Camilleri,
can you please point out to me in which Internationally recognized Charters are Divorce and Abortion quoted as Rights?
Mr j mifsud
Apr 27th 2011, 13:57
actually divorce and abortion do not form part of basic human rights.....
Mr Sean Swain
Apr 28th 2011, 08:47
I completely agree that this should never have been left to a referendum, that said unfortunately in our somewhat backwards society these referendums are the only way we might move forward. And I say ONLY way as it is clear that any Maltese government will ALWAYS shy away from shouldering any big decisions on their own.
Personally I am pro-choice and am not content being prodded one way and another and expected to eagerly comply no questions asked. This is a vote. If you don't vote then you hardly have the right to complain about the way things are, same goes for people who don't bother voting in the national election but who then spend much of their time complaining.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 17:12
"Movement chairman Andre Camilleri yesterday said his movement was against any form of divorce," Is the movement also against any form of Annulment even though they are one and the same. They both dissolve a marriage and both ignore the words " What God put together, let no man put asunder".? of course not. An Annulment is condoned both by the Maltese government and the church. The church realizes that any marriage can sometimes fail and they have a solution for that same purpose called annulment. The only problem is that annulment costs a lot of money and few people can afford one. So an annulment becomes an exclusive solution for the rich and the ins. An annulment goes even further because it erases any sign that a marriage ever took place. The government sanctions annulments as a matter of fact even some politician's families used this so called annulment, some of them more than once. Children have the same impact after an annulment or a divorce, so why all the hype Mr Camilleri et al? On the other hand which child is content to see one of his parents beating up on the other? Which mother is willing to sit and take the abuse of an abusive husband or a cheating husband who comes home reeking the smell of perfume of another woman? This woman cannot afford an annulment. So she has to stay honour and obey till death do us part because she does not have the money or the connection to obtain an annulment. Don't use the children as a weapon to fight divorce. Min igarrab ikun jaf. Everybody should be entitled to a way out out of a failed marriage. Happiness is not a monopoly for the rich, every human being has that right. Why is the Maltese government denying such a right?
Victor Pulis
Apr 26th 2011, 15:44
Movement chairman Andre Camilleri yesterday said his movement was against any form of divorce,
Does that include annullment?
I know that the church does not consider annullment the same as divorce but the consequences on children are the same. Will the movement live up to its motto and campaign against annullments in the interest of 'our children'? I have a feeling that they won't
Mr Patrick Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:41
When will Malta join the rest of the European countries and rid itself from the clutches of all these religious zealots who make it their aim in life to interfere and force their views on others?
So, the Lady of the South wants her followers to "force" others to recite a repetitive prayer to ward of divorce whilst threatening us with earthquakes. If a marriage has failed, nothing will bring the ex lovers together again unless they want too. According to the church, they should than lead a celibate life as they cannot marry their new partner and are thus perfect candidates to burn eternally in an imaginary place inhabited by tailed, horned and pitchfork wielding red beings.
Please, go get a life.
Mr Paul Barrett
Apr 26th 2011, 11:35
You still have not grasped the point. Yes, the great majority probably are against divorce and with luck will never need to resort to divorce. Having said that, hopefully the great majority can see that there is a minority that are suffering because there is no divorce legislation and have enough humanity, comprehension and common sense to support a yes vote in the referendum, sound in the knowledge that it does not effect anyone that does not wish to apply for or recognise a legal bit of paper.
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:09
The great majority of PL supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of PN supporters are against divorce.
The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans are against divorce.
All these majorities are positive people: in favour of the indissolubility of marriage.
Join in the battle between God and the devil! Fight the good fight! The victory is ours, it's already guaranteed!
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 16:44
Mr Zammit, really where do you get your statistics? If, and I mean if , you are right and the majority of PN, PL, Maltese and Gozitans are against divorce then why bother having a referendum? The Maltese government is spending thousands of euros to appease the church and you are so positive that the majority is anti divorce why go through all that hassle and spent all that Tax payers money. The government should have saved all that money and invested it into Air Malta, God knows it needs all the government help it can get. I suggest you check your numbers again Mr Z. Is the government wasting our hard earned money in a referendum? I never thought the government was so callous. Annulment = Divorce
Mr Joe Zammit
Apr 26th 2011, 11:08
BORG IN-NADUR: 17 ta' Novembru, 2010:
Uliedi, illejla tajtkom prova ċara. Iva wliedi, għalhekk Ibni Ġesù qed jibgħatni hawn, fuq dil-gżira. Għalhekk għażilt dil-familja kważi ħames snin ilu. Għalhekk ridt lil Angelik u lil Catherine. Iva wliedi, Ibni Ġesù ma riedx jara żwieġ imfarrak. Għalhekk ħames snin ilu bagħatni hawnhekk, nerġa’ ngħidilkom. Ġejt inħabbrilkom minn qabel x’se jseħħ fuq dil-gżira. Kien hawn min fehemni u oħrajn lanqas biss taw widen.
Ftit taż-żmien ieħor se jkollkom għażla f’idejkom intom stess. Oqogħdu attenti x’tagħżlu wliedi. Iġġibux il-gwaj fuqkom.
Fejnhom fil-familji l-imħabba, l-għaqda, il-maħfra, is-sinċerità u t-talb flimkien? Fejnhom? Għalhekk illum kulħadd qed ifarfar minn fuq spallejh mal-ewwel intopp li jinqala’.
Iva wliedi, il-qalb tiegħi u l-qalb ta’ Ibni Ġesù muġugħin minħabba fikom. Jiena muġugħa għax jiena omm li nħoss għalikom.
Akkost ta’ kollox uliedi, jiġri x’jiġri, ibqgħu għidu: “LE GHAD-DIVORZJU, LE GHAD-DIVORZJU!"
U għidu r-rużarju u ġiegħlu lil ħaddieħor jgħid ir-rużarju.
Grazzi talli smajtu s-sejħa tiegħi.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Apr 26th 2011, 16:47
Divorce is:
A solution for all those who fall under domestic violence.
A solution for those who are mentally and physically abused.
A solution for those spouses who are cheated on day after day.(Adultery)
A solution for those who cannot bare to see their children physically and mentally abused by the other spouse
A solution for those who see their spouse come home drunk and reek the smell of another woman/man.
A solution for those whose marriage has already failed.
ANNULMENT=DIVORCE. One and the same
Divorce is not a disease like you would like everybody to think it is, but a cure for a failed. marriage which has no other recourse. Divorce is only there for those who need it. Divorce is a human right which should be afforded to all
Joe Galea
Apr 27th 2011, 19:17
INT BIS SERJETA LOL!!!!!!!
Mr Aristide Galea
May 12th 2011, 19:43
Imma kif ma tisthux tinqdew bil-Madonna ghal skopijiet ta' mohhkom. Aktar ma taghmlu dawn l-affarijiet,aktar tohrog l-ipokrezijja taghkhom. L-impozizzjoni u l-gideb taghkhom ma fihx ebda limitu ta' xejn.
Ramon Casha
Apr 26th 2011, 10:36
"The movement was set up to inform the public about the effects of the introduction of divorce on society, especially on children who are the ones with the faintest voice in this debate."
The movement was set up to MISINFORM the public. That is why they continue to refuse to distinguish between divorce, annulment, separation and cohabitation, instead attributing everything negative about all of them to divorce while pretending that, without divorce, marriages are "indissoluble" despite the fact that a couple may have been living apart for over 40 years.
The NO campaign is relying on the old adage, "repeat a lie long enough and people will believe it's the truth".
Amanda Bennetti
Apr 26th 2011, 10:10
Has anybody thought about interviewing young adults who were 'victims' of separation or annulment when they were children? I have not met one yet that does not agree with divorce. Most will tell you that life became much more bearable after the feuding parents split up.
Ms D Galea
Apr 27th 2011, 12:24
I know plenty whose parents split up and they were perfectly happy ...until their parents remarried and the living hell started all over again. These 'victims of seperation' feel that life would have been so much better if their parents remained single.
As the Italians are wont to say , "Meglio soli che mal accompagnati".
Charles J. Buttigieg
Apr 26th 2011, 09:49
Marriage in the world, Malta and the Philippines not excluded, is a blessed sacrament or a legal bond which can be freely untied without a divorce and no law or religion can stop that. It is therefore a hypocritical notion to insist that divorce is the reason for marriage breakdowns. Divorce legislation does not encourage a loving couple to go their separate ways; divorce offers legal stability to unloving couples after they had voluntarily terminated their bond and not before.
Mr carmel tonna
Apr 26th 2011, 09:41
I cannot fathom the arrogance of this movement and Dr. Camilleri in particular. How dare they assume to be the guardians of our children. Does Dr. Camilleri think members of the public need him to help them sort out their children's problems. Just back off our children.
Mr Peter Paul Sacco
Apr 26th 2011, 09:22
"Flimkien ghal uliedna". Where were you when "uliedna" were being abused by paedophile priests? Where are you now that it is clear that the Church continues to do anything in its power to avoid that the case of the abused children at Hamrun is settled and justice meted out to the perpetrators before the case dies a natural death with their demise? The fact that not even the pope was able to convince the local church authorities to take action speaks volumes, but not a sound from the movement set up "ghal ulienda".
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 09:46
When did two wrongs ever make a right?
If that is your only reply you are only admitting that yes it's true, children are those worse off by divorce.
Marriage and divorce can never be compatible except in someone's fancy.
MT Caruana
Apr 26th 2011, 09:48
@Mr Peter Paul Sacco,
Naqbel mieghek 100%.
@Andre Camilleri,
'He said the movement was against all forms of divorce, including the so-called no-fault divorce. Asked whether this meant the movement was against giving a second chance to those whose marriage had broken down through no fault of their own, he said divorce did not solve the “injustice” these people were facing but, on the contrary, it increased them as it would give people an easy way out'
Vera jaghmel sens dan il paragrafu, jider bic car x egoismu , so min hu sepeart bla htija hu pacenzja u ibqa hekk hux. IPOKRITI.
U l-Kurja qed taghti il flus ukoll??? Tajjeb kompli indahal fin nofs Kurja ha jerga jigri bhal ma gara hafna snin ilu.
Mr Peter Paul Sacco
Apr 26th 2011, 10:58
Mr Vella, divorce is not wrong, it is the unfortunate but inevitable admittance that marriage has gone wrong. Secondly, don't try to be paternalistic and a wiseguy and put words in my mouth that I never said.
Once you admit that paedophile abuse is wrong, why not make your voice heard for justice to be done?
Lastly, I will not waste more time with you...see you at the polls which will hopefully deliver Malta from the clutches of the Catholic church and mezzo-preti and do gooders like yourself and the Moviment Zwieg bla Divorzju.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 14:25
Separation is wrong and divorce is worse. Separation denies the children the presence of one of the parents but leaves them a glimmer of hope while divorce seals that removal permanently. That is right according to you?
Another thing, you do not know whether, or how, I have made my voice heard about paedophile abuse.
Even if divorce were to be voted in it still does not make it right.
And calling me a do gooder is no insult, so thank you for it.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 15:33
I don't mean to be a wise guy and put words in your mouth that you never said but doesn't calling me a do gooder for being against divorce makes divorce wrong? Or have I got it wrong?
Victor Pulis
Apr 26th 2011, 15:50
Mr Tommy Vella
Today, 14:25
Separation is wrong and divorce is worse. Separation denies the children the presence of one of the parents but leaves them a glimmer of hope while divorce seals that removal permanently. That is right according to you?
You left out annullment where the marriage according to the church never happened(!) that makes any offspring from the union illegitimate. What's worse for the children divorce or annullment?
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 17:11
An annullment is an altogether different thing.
Victor Pulis
Apr 26th 2011, 17:53
You didn't answer my comment. Are children of annulled parents better off than those of divorced parents?
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 26th 2011, 18:50
For the children annulment, separation and divorce are all traumatic. What you are missing is the fact that if there are grounds for annulment it would be an injustice not to declare that the marriage was never contracted due to certain conditions. Would it be just to say that a couple, who were never really married are after all married just before they went through the ceremony? Even if children are the result of that illegal union, it would still be unjust to say that the union exists. What many of you are not saying is that in such cases the Church advises the couple, for the sake of their children, to legalise their union, however, if this is something that they do not want to go through the Church cannot force them to do it.
In a separation or divorce the couple are seeking to break a contract which is VALID. As I said in a separation a door may be left ajar but with divorce the rift is final.
Victor Pulis
Apr 26th 2011, 21:37
So you admit that the children suffer the same truma as those of divorced parents. With the added bonus of being considered as being born out of wedlock.
Mr Tommy Vella
Apr 27th 2011, 14:16
The difference is that in the first case the trauma cannot be avoided because if a marriage is null whatever you say it will remain null due to circumstance not under one's control whereas in separation and divorce the suffering can be avoided because it all dependa on the decision of the mariied couple and no one else's.
Ms D Galea
Apr 27th 2011, 23:55
Mr Sacco, with all due respect, but has it occured to you that there may be people who are against divorce who happen to be non-Christian or lapsed Catholics and who may have a broken marriage behind them as well?
"Giving love as second chance" in a second marriage is not the fairy tale of the " they lived happily ever afte"-sort that some (not all) pro-divorcists make it out to be.