Clean up the campaign please!

With just over a fortnight to decision time, the gloves are coming off and the referendum campaign is becoming dirty. Controversies are erupting by the hour and the focus of the debate is shifting. Instead of debating the pros and cons of the introduction of divorce in the Maltese society we are losing time discussing secondary issues that should not be brought up during a campaign. This is not fair.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of voters are still undecided and were hoping to make up their minds about how to cast their vote during the campaign after a mature debate takes place. This is not happening. Some exponents of the pro-divorce lobby and some sections of the media appear to be making an effort to deviate the focus from the real issue: the indissolubility or otherwise of marriage. The case of Deborah Schembri is a case in point.

Since Dr Schembri became involved in the pro-divorce movement her position as a lawyer in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal became untenable. Canon law prohibits lawyers who are pro-divorce from re­presenting clients in the Church’s tribunal.

As the statement issued by the Church’s authorities states, advocates are informed about these norms during their years of formation.

Like everybody else, lawyers are free to make their own choices but they should be ready to face the consequences of their choices so the Church was right to exclude the head of the pro-divorce lobby from re­presenting clients in its tribunal.

I face a similar situation every day in a different setting. I have been a civil servant for more than 20 years and in my present grade for the past 15 years. My colleagues have all been promoted to directors, directors general and, indeed, permanent secretaries. My involvement in politics has barred me from pursuing a career in the civil service because the Public Service Management Code (PSMC) clearly states that officers above scale 5 cannot engage themselves in politics. I wanted to be able to participate in elections and get involved in local politics. It was my choice, I knew the consequences and never argued about the situation. If I want to pursue a career within the civil service I will have to relinquish my involvement in politics. As yet that day has not arrived. This is called opportunity cost.

Entities set their rules and one has to abide by them. The civil service has the PSMC to regulate its employees and the Church has canon law that regulates lawyers practising their profession in its tribunal. Dr Schembri has no case to defend.

There are a number of advocates who wish to represent clients in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal but who have been excluded because of their association or proclamation of their beliefs, which are not compatible with the Church’s teachings. These lawyers are still regarded with esteem and still make a living in the law courts. As a good lawyer, Dr Schembri should have known about this when she decided to involve herself in the pro-divorce lobby.

No petition was raised when other lawyers were excluded from representing clients in the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. Clearly, the issue is being raised now by Dr Schembri and the pro-divorce movement as part of their campaign strategy. Would it have been fair on other lawyers who were excluded from representing their clients in the tribunal if Dr Schembri were treated differently? Is it fair to accuse the Church’s authorities with ill-treatment? Is it fair to raise this issue during the referendum campaign?

The pro-divorce lobby should concentrate on the real issues of divorce and not play on people’s emotions. Neither should they try to silence the Church’s authorities from involving themselves in this debate. Although I have proclaimed myself against the introduction of divorce I would have liked to listen to the pro-divorce arguments. I will probably not agree with them and will not change my view on the issue but it would have been healthy for our society to participate in a mature debate. In a press conference held recently, the pro-divorce movement did not once mention the issue of divorce. Instead, they dedicated the time solely to attack the Church.

There is still time to steer the debate back to where it belongs. Let’s focus on the real issue rather than pointing fingers. The electorate deserves a responsible debate prior to taking an important decision that will affect present and future generations. To do so we need to clean up the campaign.