Pro-divorce chairman Deborah Schembri feels she was not given a fair hearing when she was stopped from practising as a lawyer in the Church tribunal and plans to fight for her rights once the referendum campaign is over.

A few weeks ago Dr Schembri revealed that, about a month earlier, she had been told she could no longer practise in the Church courts because of her stand against the Church teaching on marital indissolubility.

Judicial vicar Arthur Said Pullicino said she had “automatically excluded herself” from practising in the tribunal by speaking publicly in favour of divorce.

Commenting independently on the issue, pro-vicar Anton Gouder and theologian Charló Camilleri had said that by choosing to get a warrant to practise in the Church tribunal, Dr Schembri took on an obligation to publically uphold marriage according to the Church. When she spoke in favour of divorce, she went against that obligation, they agreed. Yesterday, Dr Schembri insisted she always kept a clear distinction between Church and civil unions when she spoke as a member of the Yes for Divorce campaign.

She said the Church had not given her a chance to defend herself against the accusation. She planned to fight for her rights but would do so after the May 28 divorce referendum, as she did not want that issue to derail the Yes campaign.

Dr Schembri was speaking during an interview, conducted by The Times news editor Mark Micallef, in Paola Square as part of the Yes for Divorce campaign. Her five-year-old son, Ryan, sat quietly next to her throughout the whole event, playing blissfully with a toy. Referring to involvement by the Church in the divorce debate, she said the Church had the right to voice its views but one had to keep in mind that this was a society of lay people that should not be run by the Church.

People should be allowed to vote according to their conscience, she said, adding that there was a “tremendous fear campaign” going on. People did not have to choose between backing marriage or introducing divorce. The two could exist in parallel as happily married couples would remain so with the new legislation.

Dr Schembri reiterated that she agreed with comments recently made by former Judge Philip Sciberras who said the Church campaign against divorce was motivated by financial considerations.

She said Judge Sciberras was a respectable man and she was sure he knew what he was talking about.

While saying she did not want to discuss how the Church made its profits, she added there could be certain “hidden benefits”.

Talking about the campaign, she felt people were slowly understanding the positive elements of divorce. However, she was concerned that some felt their vote was not important and urged them to vote.

A story from the audience

While Deborah Schembri was making her argument in favour of divorce, to a crowd in Paola, a member of the audience suddenly stood up and handed her a framed family photograph.

“The billboards (of the anti-divorce campaign) show happy families, but not this one,” he said, as he went on to explain that he only found happiness after divorce.

The man, who did not identify himself by name, said he lived in Australia and got married at the age of 21. Three years into his marriage his wife left him and they obtained a divorce. After dealing with the heartbreak, he returned to Malta.

He met another woman but was told he could not marry in Church before six years had passed since his divorce. The couple eventually got married, had children and have now been married for 32 years.

“If I had not got divorced I would not be heading off to Mother’s Day lunch right now,” he said, as he displayed the portrait of his family.