Anti-divorce Movement presents its case to the PL
Filming: Alan Adami, Editing: Mark Zammit Cordina
The Anti-Divorce Movement this afternoon presented its case to Labour leader Joseph Muscat and spokesman Evarist Bartolo, at the PL headquarters in Hamrun.
The movement paid the PL a visit as part of their campaign.
Chairman Andre Camilleri said the aim of the group was to explain the effects of divorce on society. This, he said, had a negative effect where it was introduced and the movement was concerned that the whole issue had been handled too hastily.
He reiterated the group did not agree that the referendum question reflected the reality of the divorce that could be introduced.
The state, he said, had a responsibility to educate people about divorce but this could not be done as the motion said that public funds would not be used in campaign. This was very irresponsible.
The movement, he said, feared that children would be the most affected and that the entry of divorce would lead to poverty in some sectors.
Mr Camilleri welcomed the fact that PL was allowing a free vote but said he had spoken to Labourites who felt uncomfortable by statements made in the Labour media.
Labour leader Joseph Muscat reiterated his position in favour of divorce but said he was proud to say that his party was allowing MPs to decide according to conscience. The same, he said, applied to any Labourite.
"The party will not put pressure on anyone to change position.
"No matter what the result will be, I will respect it.
"I will not go against the will of the population.
"In the legislation this will be case closed," he said.
Dr Muscat said that everyone agreed with the need for a family policy and pointed out that financial problems were a major cause of marriage breakdown.
So far, he said, the state had abdicated from carrying out marriage preparation courses and left everything solely in the hands of Cana.
But a quarter of marriages are solely civil and the people involve were not getting any preparation.
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...
41 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Ms Lynn Zahra
May 25th 2011, 17:22
But did Andre Camilleri offer an alternative other than the status quo for separated people?
Mr Victor vella
May 11th 2011, 19:06
Who is subsidizing this anti-divorce movement? the church? Fr Joe Borg? the PN? Some PN businessmen supporters who want to continue sucking the blood of the Maltese?
David Caruana
May 6th 2011, 08:44
@ M Borg:
Give up! Your attempts at misinforming the people are useless! People grew brains since the 60's. Liberalism IS taking over and REASON will prevail.
Welcome to OUR world M Borg
Mr M Borg
May 6th 2011, 12:53
@ David Caruana
Maybe you were not quite awake when you read what I wrote.
I did not misinform anyone with what I wrote.
However if you did not like what you read, now that is another story.Sometimes the truth hurts.
As for brains, the 60s are long gone but it seems some brains are still in the process of growing, seeing the rubbish some write.
As for welcoming me to your world. I'll rather stay in mine , if you don't mind.
Mrs Connie Deguara
May 6th 2011, 03:49
The politicions in Malta are cowards,they washed their hand from divorce and left the people of Malta fight about it. It should have been passed throught parlament ,and it is there who want to use it.
Mr Robert Callus
May 5th 2011, 22:02
"Mr Camilleri welcomed the fact that PL was allowing a free vote but said he had spoken to Labourites who felt uncomfortable by statements made in the Labour media."
Ukoll!! A progressive and moderate party that can't even take a clear stand on a basic civil right and you want more?
Mr M Borg
May 5th 2011, 21:07
@ Ms G. Schembri
" I cannot understand why the introduction of divorce would make marriage useless, if a couple want to start a family marriage will be the best choice. "
With the introduction of divorce marriage will seem useless and at best a waste of time, money and energy. Who would want ot get married knowing that his / her marriage has an expiry date of 4 years. That is what this no-fault divorce gives to marriage., an expiry date .
Cohabiting will be so much easy, get what you want and out when you get fed up.
That is what is happening in other countries why should Malta be different. ?
" Marriage would be the best choice for couples who want to start a family," divorce will change this. They now have another option, and many will make use of it.
" Children from first marriage will not find it difficult to tell friends that their mother has a child from her second marriage . Divorce protects children from being bullied or called names. "
You are right here children will not find it difficult to say that their mother has had another child from her new husband.
You are forgetting that most of their friends will be living in the same situation , so why should they find it difficult or strange ?
No one will bully or call them names because of this, many will be living in the same boat.
But did you stop to ask if children will be happy in this situstion ?
Did you stop to ask how they would feel if mother / father changes partner at will ?
Did you stop to ask how they would feel if home never feels like home because they have to change it so often ?
No good can come out of divorce.
@ Joseph Calleja
" What do you tell children of cohabitant parents ? Your Mum and Dad are living in sin because they are not married and they had you ? "
I hope you are joking ! I will ask you another question .
What do you tell children of divorced parents ? Your Mum and Dad are living in sin because they are divorced and they had you ?
If we are talking about living in sin, I hope you understand that divorce does not change anything.
A divorced person who remarries will be committing a permanent adultary and living in sin.
When you wrote that if a couple
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 5th 2011, 23:35
@Mr M Borg
"A divorced person who remarries will be committing a permanent adultary and living in sin. " That is only if you believe that divorce is a sin and I happen to think that it is not. This is something you brought up. Unless you are Catholic you do not believe that divorce is a sin. It just happens I am Catholic and I still don't believe that divorce is a sin. I think it depends on what side of the fence you are standing on. I am entitled to my believes and you are entitled to yours.
Elaine Compagno
May 6th 2011, 07:26
Ok, so what you are saying is that less people will marry. Versus everyone marrying and breaking up and separating, co-habiting etc. What's the difference?
On one hand, your imagined end result is marriages only by those who really REALLY want the commitment enough to spend time and money on it.
Versus people getting married (because that's what everyone does) and separating a few years later and cohabiting and oh yes.. living in sin forever and ever.
Doesn't seem like a bad thing after all, does it?
Better a few good marriages than many bad, broken ones.
Mr F J Brincat
May 6th 2011, 08:07
M Borg:
"With the introduction of divorce marriage will seem useless and at best a waste of time, money and energy. Who would want ot get married knowing that his / her marriage has an expiry date of 4 years. That is what this no-fault divorce gives to marriage., an expiry date "
That is what YOU and people like you say. Divorce does not automatically put any expirey date in marriage. Lots of people in other countries stay married till death. You keep interpreting things as you deem fit for your purpose and then scorn others who have differing opinions to yours - go figure.
Cohabitating is just as easy now - just in case you don't know.
"A divorced person who remarries will be committing a permanent adultary and living in sin."
That is according to you and to the Church and its teachings. If there is a divorce law infrastructure then it will be legal.
"What do you tell children of divorced parents ? Your Mum and Dad are living in sin because they are divorced and they had you ?"
You see, this is YOUR problem because I would not tell the childrenanything at all. Whereas people like you will have something to say if anything just so that you can appear to have discharged your religious duty.
Mrs Pauline Abela
May 6th 2011, 11:30
@ M Borg: So how do you explain the fact that people still get married in countries were divorce does exist?
Mr Manuel Mangani
May 5th 2011, 20:45
The last sentence but two in my previous message should read "Dr. Muscat's statement - if one understood correctly - that a no vote would mean"the case is closed until the end of this legislature that the more questions than it quells anxieties".
Aplogies
Mr Manuel Mangani
May 5th 2011, 20:29
Anti-divorce PL supporters must be feeling truly comfortable in the knowledge that Party Leader is personally unreservedly in favour of the introduction of divorce an that that party spokesman for Civil rights is none other that the co-sponsor of the Divorce Bill and a leading light in the pro-divorce movement. The sensation that despite the party's oft-repeated free vote stance, the PL's squarely behind the IVA movement - witness Dr. Muscat's decision to devote a large chunk of his speech on workers'day reiterating his belief that divorce is civil right, and the party media's unabashedly pro-divorce position - grows stronger by the day. There are tens of thousands of PL voters who want to have no truck with divorce, and who must be asking themselves about what will happen in regard to this if the PL wins the next election. Dr. Muscat's statement - if one understood correctly - that a no vote would mean that the more questions than it quells anxieties. Clarity is called for. The PL ignores the anti-divorce element among its supporters at its peril.
On the other hand, well done to Dr. Muscat for raising the question of lack of preparation for those who opt for civil marriages. Perhaps the PL could indicate what the State could do to address this failure?
Mr Alistaire Gill
May 5th 2011, 20:54
So Manuel, are you in favour of cohabiting? Whether you can fathom it or not, the reality today is that any married person can walk out of marriage any day of the year, any time of the day without giving notice to his better half and without breaking any civil law. Divorce is already recognised in Malta as long as you obtain it from abroad. Divorce will only be the seal that a couple has been legally separated for at least 4 years and not the other way round that is one getting separated after being four years divorced.
Mr B. Cachia
May 5th 2011, 21:32
Obviously, the same applies to the Nationalist Party, whose electorate is even more divided and which is also risking the loss of a significant part of its vote. Even more seriously for the Nationalist Party, the pro-divorce segment of the population tends to be much younger than the anti-divorce segment (according to one poll, among voters aged 18-34, supporters of divorce leglislation outnumber opponents by two to one). Young voters are the key to any party's future, older voters tend to be a reflection of the past, respectable as that may be.
Mr Manuel Mangani
May 6th 2011, 00:18
AlistaIre, I've been involved in this sort of debate for months and I won't repeat the old hackneyed answers to the old hackneyed questions once again, at least not in this particular exchange. What I would like an answer to - not from you, obviously - is what PL intends to do to allay the concerns of those among its supporters who do not wish to see divorce introduced. It's a situation which the PL cannot keep avoiding in aeternum.
Ms D Galea
May 7th 2011, 17:12
If you want further proof of what the PL actually stands for in this issue, listen to ONE media radio in the afternoon with its platent anti-clericalism of the sort that was last heard in the sixties and when the artistokrazija tal haddiema decended on the Curia on their way to the law courts in true sans coulottes -Liberte' egalite' fraternite' fashion.
Gerry Cowie
May 5th 2011, 20:14
Paul Barrett says below:-
"Anyone that has every facet of marriage clearly and honestly explained to them before marriage would not actually go through with it - it would be like volunteering for a route canal without anaesthetic."
For whom does he speak and what can he mean? Marriage preparation involves all of the aspects of marriage yet people still "volunteer for a route canal (filling) without anaesthetic!"
Ms D Galea
May 5th 2011, 20:12
Is-soltu. Joe Muscat ma qal xejn li ma intqalx diga min haddiehor u hlief jilghab ghal gallarija biex minghalih ma titlifx voti ma jaghmilx. Leader ta veru jghati direzzjoni u mhux idur mal lewza.
Ray Gatt
May 6th 2011, 09:13
Leader ta' veru jhalli lil membri tal-partit jahsbu b'mohhom u mhux jipprova jikkundizzjona l-opinjoni taghhom. Gonzi zbalja meta iddikjara li il-PN huwa kontra id-divorzju. Ghamel att kodard u ipokrita. Huwa ghalhekk u ghal hafna zbalji ohra li ghamel li jien u hafna bhali mhux ser nivvutaw lil PN sentejn ohra. Gonzi tilef id-direzzjoni u fil-kaz tad-divorzju qieghed jipprova jidher sabih mal-knisja. Gonzi wiret partit b'sahhtu u farku bibba bicca bhalma Sant kien kisser lil PL. Dejjem lil PN ivvutajt, izda issa kontra qalbi nghid daqshekk. Nistenna bil-herqa dak il-mument meta nara wicc Gonzi wara it-tkaxkira sentejn ohra. Inti tghid li "Joe Muscat ma qal xejn li ma intqalx diga min haddiehor u hlief jilghab ghal gallarija biex minghalih ma titlifx voti ma jaghmilx. Leader ta veru jghati direzzjoni u mhux idur mal lewza". Jien nghidlek, Leader ta' veru jaghti direzzjoni mhux jimponi. Dik id-differenza.
Mr Malcolm Seychell
May 5th 2011, 20:01
Did Andre Camilleri speak to nationalists and how they feel about their own party?
Philip Hili
May 6th 2011, 00:30
Mr. Seychell,
Nationalist are very disappointed by the two disloyal members of parliament because they voted in favour of the opposition motion and against the government which they form part of. We Nationalists are disappointed not because of the bill in itself because that matter is debatable. One may agree and one may disagree about the subject. But we elected our representatives in order to represent us in Parliament and not to vote against our interests. Moreover when one takes into consideration that these two disloyal Nationalists MP cheated the electorate who trusted them.
After all, when the Electoral Manifesto was presented to the NP council members in a special pre-General Council meeting, BOTH GENTLEMEN WERE PRESENT AND APPROVED THE MANIFESTO WITHOUT ANY CLUE TO DIVORCE.
Jesmond Micallef
May 5th 2011, 19:18
Well, one thing forsure, the public has been left on its own auto pilot once again as it will decide the outcome of the referendum !!
Anyway, good luck to the pro-movement and may divorce prevail in Malta.
Joseph Agius
May 5th 2011, 19:07
Ma nistax nifhem, Ghaliex issa? Fejn kontu fis snin li ghaddew biex tahdmu favur zwigijiet sodi u familji maqghuda? Jekk veru l ghan taghkhom hu li taraw familji b sahhithom, ghalfejn inaqghadtu ghal ftit zmien biss? Divorzju jew le, zwiegijiet ser jibqaw jitkissru, u nahseb ahjar il-fondi li uzajtu biex taghmlu dil kampanja uzajtuhom aktar tajjeb u investejtu ghal ghajnuna, informazzjoni u preparazjoni ghal koppji li ser jizzewgu
Ms D Galea
May 5th 2011, 20:14
L istess mistoqsijja naghmilha lil membri parlamentari li iridu iddivorzju ghax huma favur izzwieg. Nghid jien , qatt ma giethom f rashom biex fis-snin li ilhom fil parlament ma jivvutawx favur mozzjonijiet li ikomplu jghabbu lil familji Maltin b aktar pizijiet finanzjari ?
Mr M Borg
May 5th 2011, 18:41
@ B. Cachia
" I new separation per year for every 5 new marriages "
I do not know from where you got this figure , but the NSO 2007 Lifestyle Survey shows that only 3.3 % of the population are persons who have separated from their wife / husband .
A very different figure from the one you quoted.
Not only that , but the same research shows that 90.9 % of married people in Malta said they were " very satisfied " or " satisfied " with their relationship.
The entry of divorce will increase the number of separations, it will be an easy way out and couples will not try to solve their problems, but walk out.
This no-fault divorce will make this very easy.
If we had to follow what is already happening in other countries the number of cohabiting couples will increase .
In the UK where they already have laws which give certain rights to cohabiting couples, the Government is finding that because the number of couples who choose to cohabit is so large these laws have to be rewritten.
1 in 5 women choose to cohabit in the UK, although they have the right to remarry after divorce.
Many will not even give marriage a try. Divorce makes marriage seem useless.
We have to protect family and vote No for divorce
Mr Alistaire Gill
May 5th 2011, 19:56
The 'Statistical Trend' in recent years as these are the years that matters today, is that out of every 100 new marriages there are about 25 separations.
What happenned 20, 50, 100 and 1000 years ago is statistically irrelevant to what is factually happening today.
Ms G Schembri
May 5th 2011, 20:09
If 90.9% of married people are satisfied with their marriage, the introduction of divorce will not make them unsatisfied with their marriage. So why should these 90.9% make life miserable for the other 9.1% of unsatisfied married couples?
The number of cohabitating couples will increase if divorce is not introduced and certain couples will have no choice but to cohabitate.
I cannot understand why the introduction of divorce would make a marriage useless, if a couple want to start a family marriage will always be the best choice.
Divorce gives a couple a chance to start a new family where the children will not be considered illegitamate, children from the first marriage will not find it difficult to tell their friends that their mother has another child from her second marriage. Presently they cannot explain how their mother/father had another child but from a different man/woman.
Yes to divorce protects children from being bullied or called names.
Mr B. Cachia
May 5th 2011, 21:25
@ Mr M Borg: I think Mr Alistaire Gill clarified the point very well there. The ratio of new separations to new marriages is currently very high but obviously that was not the case until some years ago, which explains why the overall percentage of separated people is still low. As for the source, as I mentioned below, it is the latest Demographic Review issued by the National Statistics Office.
Mr Alistaire Gill
May 5th 2011, 18:37
The total silence on the part of the 'Negative' (NO) movement and also the way they evade questions put at them in regards to co-habitation if conspicuous.
I take their complete silence as agreeing to cohabitation with all its effects. Probably (unless they publicly state otherwise) they will support legalised cohabitation.
The people want to know where the 'Negative' movement stands on cohabitation.
Philip Hili
May 6th 2011, 00:43
As far as I am concerned, subject to correction when the law about co-habitation is mentioned it does not mean that parliament is going to legalise co-habitation. But to safe guard the interests of the couples who are already co-habitating. So that if anyone of the couples terminates the status of co-habitation, the other part has her/his rights safe guarded.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 5th 2011, 18:17
Still trying to pull that rabbit out of the hat. I ask Mr Camilleri if this is one last desperate attempt to confuse the people. How come Mr Camilleri never brings out the question of annulment and what happens to those children. How come he never mentions the children born out of wedlock with father unknown? How about all the children born to cohabiting couples? Maybe these children don't matter to him and the anti divorce movement. Maybe the anti divorce movement only cares what happens to children of divorced parents? As a matter of fact rather than having divorce they are willing to sanction cohabiting. Is it because fighting cohabitation is a lost cause? Even the government seems to attest to that. If I read correctly Minister Mifsud Bonnici will be introducing a bill favouring Cohabitation within a year. Since cohabiting in Malta is so popular, what is going to happen to the children of cohabitant parents? All these children are being born out of wedlock but it seems Mr Camilleri only worries about children that are effected by divorce, maybe the rest will find their way on their own.
Mr M Borg
May 5th 2011, 18:53
@ JOseph Calleja
The number of children born out of wedlock will increase if divorce is introduced. It happen in other countries, it wil happen here.
Many will not marry after divorce but choose to cohabit instead. Because Dr. Camilleri does not want children to suffer he is against divorce.
So should you if you have the good of children at heart.Children should live in a strong family, not one where the mother/ father moves out at will.
Ms G Schembri
May 5th 2011, 20:15
@ M Borg We all would like children to live in strong family, but sadly this is not the case to some. If a family fails why shouldn't the children and the parents have a second chance to a positive family life? Why shouldn't children born from the second union have a right for a strong family as well? Children would find it easier to understand that their parents have remarried than that their parents are living with other partners (illegally). As things stand these children are being bullied and insulted at school.
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 5th 2011, 20:18
@ mr M Borg
And what do you tell the children of domestic violence. Hang in there, everything will be OK? And what do you tell the children of unknown fathers? There is a father out there somewhere? What do you tell children of cohabitant parents? Your Mum and Dad are living in sin because they are not married and they had you? Children are always the ones to suffer no matter what. A failed marriage is a failed marriage and most of the times children adjust, it's the adults that do not.
Mr david debattista
May 5th 2011, 21:13
You are up to your usual misinformation . Where do you get such ideas. What makes a strong family is love, respect, and trust and not enforcement by the state, which is ruled by the church. What will increase the number of children out of wedlock is not influenced by the introduction of divorce . What will increase the number of children outside wedlock is inadequate education, abusive and irresponsible life style, and all the bad and devastating effects you people against divorce and the church are causing. I have two children of my own and I hate to say it, but say it I must , realizing how dirty the issue of divorce has become. I hope that non of my two children will marry by the church or the state ,children or not . I just hope that when they find true love, they will recognize it. To all of you out there, You must think and think hard, will any of you be able to live your whole life in a love less marriage, if not an abusive one ,and will any of you allow that you or your children are refused to nurture yourselves and your children if the right opportunity comes your way ! Mr Borg, Joe Zammit the only war that you must fight is within yourselves. Statements made by most against divorce are purposely intended to mislead, confuse, and even threaten. This is very disturbing since the true cause of divorce is being over looked and many people are in harms way. We may speak for ourselves, but how dare you JOE ZAMMIT speak for GOD . Who do you think you are. What makes you think that God needs you to speak for him/her or fight some battle you are always telling us about. If you think you are the chosen one then let us know. Was not Christ mission among man the ultimate expression of his LOVE for his own creation MAN ! It was LOVE and not absolute dominance over us * NO MATTER WHAT* even if he was the son of God .
Mr Paul Barrett
May 5th 2011, 18:06
Quote: But a quarter of marriages are solely civil and the people involve were not getting any preparation. Unquote.
Just exactly what is "marriage preparation". Until you have lived with a particular person for a few years and actually faced the day to day difficulties, routine, responsibilities and duties towards each other and indeed the stress of children 24/7, schooling, housing as well as work there is absolutely no way of knowing how a marriage is going to turn out.
Anyone that has every facet of marriage clearly and honestly explained to them before marriage would not actually go through with it - it would be like volunteering for a route canal without anaesthetic.
40 years of marriage behind us, we are still learning about each other - like falling off a high rise building and as you pass each floor you can say "so far, so good", "so far, so good" .................
Marriage works for some - for others it does not. Everyone deserves the freedom of choice and the chance of happiness.
Ms D Galea
May 5th 2011, 20:10
So ,as far as you are concerned , a couple contemplating marriage need not bother about how marriage will affect their obligations and rights in the eyes of the LAW
Il qorti tal familja mimlija koppji li hasbu bhalek , ma hadux bis-serjeta il preparamenti taz-zwieg u issa jitqatlu fuq manteniment, propjeta' parafernali, komunita ta' assi etcetc....
Mr Paul Barrett
May 6th 2011, 00:12
@ Ms D Galea
I really do not understand the point or aim of your question (the bit in English) in relation to my comment.
As far as the bit in Maltese is concerned. Marriages will continue to break down with or without divorce legislation. Arguments regarding assets, maintenance etc, etc will continue to be a problem and are actually being dealt with at the separation stage of a marriage breakdown. The current proposed legislation is for everything to be finalised at the separation stage and then, after four years, draw a line under the old marriage and give people the chance to start again in a fresh relationship. Most probably will not choose to opt for divorce but they should have the right to clear the books and start again if they want to do so.
Ray Gatt
May 6th 2011, 08:42
@ Ms D. Galea - "Il qorti tal familja mimlija koppji li hasbu bhalek , ma hadux bis-serjeta il preparamenti taz-zwieg u issa jitqatlu fuq manteniment, propjeta' parafernali, komunita ta' assi etcetc.... "
Who do you think you are to assume and state that Mr. Paul Barrett or anybody else for that matter, did not take marriage preparations seriously. Do you see yourself as perfect? Have you ever been married? Do you know anything about the pressures marriage involves. Do you honestly believe that if divorce is introduced, anybody with a pinch of brains goes into marriage thinking of divorce. What solutions do you NO people offer to separated couples. What solutions do you offer to cohabiting couples. Are you saying no for the sake of saying no, or maybe cause the church says so. Our problem needs to be seen to and nobody should take away our right to be happily married. After all marriage is what you're fighting for, or are you? As Lino Spiteri said lately, "Whether to seek divorce or not in their particular circumstances is for individuals to decide, not for a majority to impose."
I suggest you open link below and read.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110403/opinion/no-point-in-divorcing-ourselves-from-reality.358000
Mr B. Cachia
May 5th 2011, 17:52
The Anti-Divorce Movement appears to make the claim that the availability of eventual divorce will lead to an increase in the rate of separations in Malta. Do they have anything to back this claim? Malta already has a high rate of separations per annum (more than 1 new separation per year for every 5 new marriages, according to the latest Demographic Review). This is already in the same league as other developed countries having a similar culture and has happened without the availability of divorce. So, essentially, the phenomenon has already happened and there is little space for it to grow dramatically.