Referendum should have followed census - 'No' Movement
It would have been better for the referendum to be held after the national census as the results would have given a picture of the reality experienced b y families today, David Zahra from the anti-divorce group said this afternoon.
Mr Zahra was speaking during a debate on campus between the anti-divorce and divorce movements, organised by the students' organisation Move.
Mr Zahra said that with the introduction of divorce children would be brought up with a mentality that they could just walk out on problems.
He said that the country was rushing into taking its decision.
But Deborah Schembri, from the yes camp, pointed out it was the Prime Minister and not the yes camp, who had announced the referendum.
She said that any assessments about the impact of divorce on society would have been a projection.
Any study, she said, would have shown an increase in marriage breakdown which was taking place anyway with separation, so the link with divorce would be flawed.
She pointed out that there was a lower rate of marriage breakdown in Italy, where divorce was available.
And in many countries where there is divorce, many marriages still lasted forever.
Asked if divorce would have an impact on taxes, Dr Schembri said the Finance Minister, would certainly have released a report had this been the case.
Former minister Michael Falzon, also from the yes camp, said that no one divorced frivolously just as no one went into marriage lightly.
The argument of the no group, he said, was disrespectful to men, making it seem like they would leave a marriage as soon as divorce was introduced for a size 10 woman just like cats of heat.
Austin Bencini, from the anti-divorce movement, said that Malta was not socially ready for the introduction of divorce to have a positive effect.
The current legislation gave no other reason than the passage of four years for people to divorce. This would an imposition of divorce on a partner who wanted to fight for marriage.
The introduction of divorce, Dr Bencini said, would remove the bargaining power of those who wanted to fight for marriage.
The No camp also raised the issue of maintenance saying that in practice it was already difficult to guarantee this was paid when there was only one marriage, let alone if there were more marriages in the picture.
Student Kevin Mercieca asked how a country with a relative poverty rate of 15 per cent was going to cope with having to maintain former partners and children from previous marriages.
Dr Schembri said that, at the moment, the woman in a second partnership was legally unprotected and exposed to poverty even more.
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...
26 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr John Cassar
May 18th 2011, 20:52
Austin Bencini, for the Movement Against Divorce stated that Malta was not yet socially ready for the introduction of divorce to have a positive effect.
Apologies for my caps locks but I can't help it:
EVERYONE DID YOU READ THE ABOVE STATEMENT CAREFULLY?
SO NOW M.A.D. ARE FINALLY ADMITTING THAT DIVORCE MAY HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT.
What a turnaround!!!
Sorry dear Austin, you know I don't mince my words but this is the biggest flip flop of the whole campaign to date.
Mr M Borg
May 19th 2011, 09:49
Sorry but I think you got it wrong ( and I will not use caps locks to tell you this )
What he meant was that with this no - fault divorce no positive effects will be felt, but the very opposite.
More taxes, more people looking for Government housing, wives unable to ask for higher maintenance, because this no-fault divorce removes that power, so the children will suffer.Is there anything positive in
this ?
What he meant was, that our Social Services will not be high enough to help out. So for the one person
who might feel the " positive effect " by remarrying after divorce, many other will suffer.
No " positive effects " can ever come out of divorce " flip flop or no flip flops "
Mr John Cassar
May 22nd 2011, 09:56
i did not get it wrong.
Read the simple plain English sentence again "Malta was not yet socially ready for the introduction of divorce ot have a positive effect". This implies that even my friend Dr Bencini is finally admitting that tephere are positive effects to divorce.
on the other hand your long winding explanation leaves much to be desired.
I suggest you read Ranier Fsadni's last article in the Times. Amongst other things it concludes that:
1. The effects of separation, annulment and divorce are the same
2. Divorce increases not decreases the marriage rate
3. There will be no new for of social poverty in Malta or else it would already be present without divorce
4. Malta's marriage breakdown rate is at par with some of our EU partners.
Gerry Cowie
May 18th 2011, 19:44
It is a fair point that after the census one might get a better statistical guide as to how Malta's people are. Of course not only did the PM announce the referendum but he also called for the debate to be held in a fair and non confrontational manner.
Why then has the pro movement managed to make itself the best weapon available to the anti movement?
Mr Joseph Calleja
May 18th 2011, 22:35
Hello Mr Cowie
You are starting to sound like Mr Joe Zammit ,. Cut and Paste. Count me in.
Mr M Borg
May 18th 2011, 18:41
" She pointed out that there was a lower rate of marriage breakdown in Italy, where divorce was available "
Why do they always have to play about with figures ?
Italian Governmnet Officail figures issued July 2010
2008 ----Separations 84,165 - up 3.4%
Divorces 54,351 up 7.3 %
2007---- Marriages 25,036
2008-----Marriages 24,613
In 2008 there were 423 less marriages at the same time separations went up 3.4 %
and divorces went up 7.5 %
How can Dr Schembri say that marriage breakdown is going down in Italy. Don't the IVA do
any research before issuing figures ?
Research also shows that many Italians are cohabiting and not marrying.
Wherever there is divorce legislation the number of marriages goes down, and separations, divorce
and cohabitation go up.
The IVA might not admit it, but no one can deny facts, and the figures above are facts !
Mr B. Cachia
May 18th 2011, 20:55
I think that, if you take the time and look at the statistics for Malta you will find that the same trends are present in Malta, where we don't have divorce.
Mr John Cassar
May 18th 2011, 21:03
There is no evidence that any of your so called research is true.
If it were true Scotland that introduced divorce in 1560's would have no one marrying by now. The same would apply to Germany 1794 and Scandinavia 1909-1929...just to mention a few.
Society patterns have been changing and today there is no longer the peer pressure to get married, more people remain single or cohabit....and more women than ever are independent and career oriented. Furthermore college educated people tend to marry much later in life.
I can send you my research
Mr Dave Schembri
May 19th 2011, 07:51
Mr. Borg, you need to brush up on your English. The article states, "She pointed out that there was a lower rate of marriage breakdown in Italy, where divorce was available." That's a comparative statement, meaning that as a percentage of the population, there are less marriage breakdowns in Italy than in Malta. No one said that they are decreasing in Italy. Less math, more English.
Mr M Borg
May 19th 2011, 10:44
@ Dave Schembri
Do please brush up your reading !
" Research also shows that many Italians are cohabiting and not marrying ."
After reading this, lets move to some maths , shall we ?
If less couples marry the number of marriage breakdown Will be less.
Easy to uderstand no ? , Not all that hard .
So more maths, more reading !
Ms Maria Vassallo
May 18th 2011, 18:21
GOD HATES DIVORCE!
ALLA JOBGHOD ID-DIVORZJU!
mill-profeta Malakija.
Mr B. Cachia
May 18th 2011, 18:43
Nobody is disputing that. But God also hates adultery, lack of attendance at Church on Sundays, the use of contraceptives etc but the State does not consider these things a crime. Do you know why? It's because the State's laws can only impose the minimum requirements on people that enable them to live together. It cannot impose a religion on them. Nor should Christianity, the religion of love, be imposed on anyone.
The Catholic's duty with regard to adultery is to avoid committing it, and to encourage others not to commit it. It is not, for example, to collect signatures to have adultery outlawed by the State. Even in Malta, no one would dream of doing that, I think. The same applies to divorce.
Joseph Camilleri
May 18th 2011, 19:58
So now the anti-divorce people are going to quote the Old Testament too. Have you ever read it in full? How could God be said to hate divorce if in other books God ordered the Israelites to divorce their foreign wives and send them away and their children (no maintenance, of course).
And by the way, do you know that, according to Deuteronomy 22:5, if a woman wears jeans (a man's garment), she is an abomination (a hateful thing) in the sight of God? According to the OT, God hates not only divorce but also women in jeans. Absurd! Let's leave the Old Testament aside. It does not apply to our days.
Mr l Azzopardi
May 18th 2011, 22:42
Sinjura Vassallo ma tahsibx li wasal iz-zmien li flok tuza l-bibbja b'dan il-mod tuzaha biex twassal il-messagg ta' mhabba ta' Kristu u thalli f'idejh biex jara x'hemm fil-qlub tan-nies?
Mr Paul Barrett
May 18th 2011, 16:55
If the points shown in this article were the main or only points raised in the debate, it was a very weak debate.
As for waiting until after the next census - just another delaying tactic to add to the many years behind the curve divorce legislation already is.
Divorce would indeed remove a bargaining weapon from the armoury of the vindictive spouse, the one working on the premise that if I can't have you then no one else can, you ruin my life, I ruin yours.
Face facts, there is very little chance of a couple getting back together again after four years of separation, especially where one or both have been living with another partner and may even have had children since the breakup. Having said that, there is nothing to stop a divorced couple obtaining a civil marriage to each other and indeed in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, they will still have remained married.
Mr Aleander Balzan
May 18th 2011, 17:04
Kemm qeghdin jinbidlu l-pozizzjonijiet tan-nies tal-LE. Kemm qeghdin isiru selettivi u joqoghdu attenti li ma jeskluduhx ghal kollox. Issa ghax mhux socially ready. Meta nkunu socially ready IVA. U dan Dr Bencini ha jiddeciedi ahniex socially ready ?
Mr l Azzopardi
May 18th 2011, 16:54
Austin Bencini, from the anti-divorce movement, said that Malta was not socially ready for the introduction of divorce to have a positive effect......
"Thank you Daddy! "... "and next year when I am 57 could I go to watch a football match with my almost retired friends? ... Pretty please!!
U hallina Austin issa gej bil-prietki inti wkoll issa!
Mr M Borg
May 18th 2011, 17:37
" Pretty please " ?????
Mr Mario P. Sciberras
May 18th 2011, 16:38
"He said that the country was rushing into taking its decision".
Maybe 2100, 2200 or 2300 would be more appropriate for his liking??!!??
Mr M Borg
May 18th 2011, 17:52
" He said that the country was rushing into taking its decision "
Judging by all the rubbish people are writing about divorce he is more than right.
People know nothing about the implications of divorce, they are eager to vote " Yes " because by doing so they
think that they will harm the church., they can get their revenge on the church .
They are believing everything the IVA is saying without questioning anything.
Unfortunatley things which are very important are not being explained.
People are being made to think that if you have money you can just buy divorce. Which is a big lie.. They are
being given the impression that if the rich can get is why not everybody ?
They are not understanding that, they , the very ones who are in favour of the divorce , will be the ones who
will be forced to cohabit. Divorce is not cheap. Keeping two or more families needs money.
David Caruana
May 18th 2011, 16:01
"Austin Bencini, from the anti-divorce movement, said that Malta was not socially ready for the introduction of divorce to have a positive effect."
This is definitely the most condescending comment of the day! So for Mr.Bencini, Malta is NOT SOCIALLY READY for divorce while the rest of Europe has been so for many long years?!
Mr.Bencini, aren't you being absurd when you wanted to vote YES for the European Union accession and now you do not think we are socially ready to be like our European partners?
I hope that the people will see through all this deceit on the 28th of May.#
YES FOR DIVORCE
Mr edwin formosa
May 19th 2011, 00:35
Sur David Caruana , aren't you being absurd when you wanted to vote NO for the European Union accession and now you think we are socially ready to be like our European partnership r. i .p. ?
Mr Joe Zammit
May 18th 2011, 15:59
There can never be a responsible divorce. Divorce of any kind is evil, condemned by God for our own good.
We do not want divorce, any divorce. The great majority of Maltese and Gozitans want no form of divorce; so the vast majority will say NO to divorce.
It is a devilish deceit to try to qualify divorce. Divorce is the dissolution of a validly contracted marriage by a human person. No human person has the power, let alone the right, to dissolve a valid marriage.
A big NO to divorce; YES to 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 Joe Zammit
May 18th 2011, 15:57
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
May 18th 2011, 16:44
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.
Mr B. Cachia
May 18th 2011, 15:50
I find it hard to understand why the census would have made a major difference when in fact statistics on the family and on demographic issues are published annually. Sure, it would have added some more detail, but the picture is well-known.
And I really don't buy the argument that we're not yet 'socially ready' to be a normal Euoropean country. I think it's not only incorrect, but it's also somewhat insulting. Nor do I buy the other argument that introducing divorce will 'remove the bargaining power of those who want to fight for marriage'. One does not fight for marriage against one's partner using one's 'bargaining power'. As if anyone will remain in a marriage against their will! If one is to save an endangered marriage one does so because both sides want it and because one recognises that there is something worth saving not because one gets one's arm twisted by the other spouse.