Divorced campus

As the divorce referendum date draws closer, Noel Camilleri, a member of Insite, asked student organisations Studenti Demokristjani Malta (SDM) and Pulse to share their views on divorce.

SDM’s official position on divorce was that it is “against the introduction of divorce and believes such a discussion should be an opportunity to discuss ways of strengthening Maltese families”.

A spokesman of the organisation added that SDM believes “a divorce mentality will promote instability in marriage and that any discussion should be based on a common good perspective rather than on an individualistic one”.

In support of its argument, SDM quotes studies by Peter Lunn, Tony Fahey and Carmel Hannan, which showed “that marriage breakdowns in Ireland (the same divorce system upon which the draft Bill being presented in our parliament was based) increased in the 1990s while more breakdowns in the second relationships were also registered”.

Furthermore, SDM emphasised that a study carried out by Gonzales and Vittanen in 2006, which ana­lysed the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce in 18 European countries, found that no-fault divorce led to a 20 per cent increase in divorce rates.

Meanwhile, Pulse, through a position paper published in March, has declared its support for the proposed divorce legislation as it argues that divorce is “a civil right, with the one proposed in parliament being responsible, for it obliges a married couple to be separated for a number of years, exhaust all reconciliation avenues while also guaranteeing maintenance rights”.

This report addressed the social, economic, legal and political aspects of introducing divorce and it touched upon all the major issues which have been put forward by the pro- and anti-divorce camps.

Pulse said the document was the result of a wide-ranging discussion based on the premise of strong families, the development of a secular society and social justice.

Moving on to the issue of holding a referendum, Pulse said the electorate should have “a direct say in the method used to decide on such matters of importance”.

However, it believes parliament should never abdicate from “its responsibility to legislate in favour of minority and civil rights”. Pulse stressed the need to allow voters to make a choice according to their conscience and free from any undue political pressure.

Questioned on whether SDM agrees with the holding of a referendum, SDM said “the referendum is a consultative one; hence it is part of a wider process and a valid democratic procedure”.

Moving on to the actual wording of the referendum question being asked on May 28, SDM said “the question can be misleading, as it does not clearly show that the divorce that is going to be introduced is a ‘no-fault’ type of divorce.

“A partner can leave his or her spouse without any valid reason, live for four years separated, and say the situation is irreparable and the person is entitled to divorce.”

SDM argued “the question does not show that the divorce is unilateral, where only one of the partners is needed for the start of the marriage bond dissolution process.

Lastly, SDM contended that “the question does not show the voter that there is no limit on how many times one can divorce”, while “the guarantee on maintenance mentioned in the question is misleading as such mechanism is not found in the proposed parliamentary Bill.

Taking a completely opposed stand, Pulse argued that a simple ‘yes or no’ question devoid of any detail “is dangerous as voters should have the right to decide what type of divorce they want”.

Responsible divorce legislation “should not be confused with ambiguous questions which sow doubt in people’s minds as to what actually they are voting for”.

The question should be based “on the proposals put forward in the Bill by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo as these provide a clear basis on how divorce legislation should be”.

Both organisations seem to agree that a cohabitation law as touted in various forums should never be equated with marriage. While SDM said “a cohabitation law should not give cohabitants the same rights as if they were married”, Pulse said “only divorce legislation can give people in a relationship the opportunity to enter in a marriage”.

Pulse added that “the state should provide the opportunity for people to remarry so as not to create a class of enforced cohabitating people”.

Meanwhile, SDM acknowledged “that there are problems and even legal loopholes that can have a negative impact on people, in the absence of any law regulating cohabitation. We believe cohabitation laws can protect people from social injustices by regulating different types of relationships, including those involving siblings.

Finally, moving on to issues closer to home turf, both Pulse and SDM believe students cannot involve themselves properly in the debate and in the ongoing campaign due to the fact that the referendum is going to be held so close to examination time.

Nonetheless, both organisations affirm that every student, whether in favour or against divorce, should present themselves for mature debate and discussion and offer solutions and ideas to society.

SDM expressed the hope that “through such input, students could have the necessary influence on policymaking and take an informed decision”, and Pulse said students “should be at the forefront of any future efforts for more civil rights to be adopted coupled with increased levels of responsibility”.