The Nationalist Party’s Sunday newspaper, Il-Mument, which was once used as an effective tool to promote democratic principles, including freedom of expression, last week ran a two-page spread by a ‘special correspondent’ slating the independent media for the manner in which they have tackled the so-called divorce debate.
Conveniently forgetting the run-up to the 2003 EU referendum – it is amazing how short, or perhaps small, the memories of some Nationalists can be – the newspaper ran a huge heading saying there has been unprecedented imbalance in the coverage leading up to the vote being taken on Saturday.
Our crime was carrying a front-page story titled ‘Archbishop addressing complaints about priests’ (who were deemed to have spoken out of turn about divorce from the pulpit).
This ‘special correspondent’ not only missed the plain fact that this item was put together with the full cooperation of the Church, but that it was also newsworthy.
One of the problems with the Nationalist media these days is that they have forgotten what newsworthy means. The party that once, justifiably, criticised the Labour Party media for churning out nothing but propaganda now mimics them.
On a daily basis it serves up an Iron Curtain-style menu of what it wants people to believe is happening in this country and chose to promote its stand on divorce to such an extent that it did not even accept paid adverts to the contrary.
This approach can be described as many things, but, most certainly, journalistic, tolerant or even fair do not feature among them.
Contrast that with the way we have conducted ourselves: by running any story irrespective of whether it favours one camp or another; and by embracing every opinion – whether expressed in our news pages or Comment section – irrespective of whether we happen to agree with it.
We do not believe we should tell people how to vote on divorce, since they are perfectly capable of making up their own minds once the decision was taken to hold a referendum. That does not mean, however, that certain observations cannot be made, particularly on the puerility of the debate.
The No camp has attempted to startle us with the revelation that divorce has a bad effect on children – as if any child who has grown up with divorced parents would need reminding of that – and to add insult to the injury of those who have not been so fortunate, it has sought to get across this message with billboards and adverts depicting happy families.
No one needs reminding, one hopes, that children are no less upset if their parents separate, which is legal in Malta.
And, it is pertinent to ask, why is the No camp being so secretive about who is funding its costly campaign?
The Yes movement, meanwhile, has regaled us with images of a battered woman – once again, this is not a problem divorce would cure – and banal messages about couples being forced to cohabit because they do not have the opportunity to remarry.
Determining the divorce issue boils down to just one factor: conscience. However, we must ask ourselves what conscience encompasses.
There is little doubt that conscience should dictate whether one wishes to obtain a divorce, or whether one does not. But that is not the question people are being asked on Saturday.
What they are being asked is whether divorce should be available to people who wish to take up the option. So their conscience must also determine whether it is correct for them to impose their will on others in these circumstances.