Divorce Movement head Deborah Schembri criticised the anti-divorce movement today for a 'coordinated scaremongering campaign' on the impact of divorce on women.
Speaking at a press conference, she said that with the introduction of divorce, women would not lose anything which they had now. The no camp, she said, was insensitive to the pain and hardship which women found themselves in when their marriage broke up.
The proposed law, she said, ensured that all social benefits currently received by separated women would continue to be received when there was divorce. These included relief and children's allowance. Maintenance from the husband agreed in the separation contract would also continue to be paid.
Divorce, he argued, reduced the incidence of domestic violence, according to Family Law expert Ruth Farrugia, who recently aid that: "The introduction of no-fault divorce reduces domestic violence and female suicides."
On the proposed Cohabitation law, Dr Schembri said it was obvious that it would not cover separated people who found new partners, since that would clash with the marriage law.
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGEMENT
Reacting to the constitutional court case judgement which confirmed a decision by the Broadcasting Authority banning a TV clip by the movement showing comments by Cana Movement Mgr Charles Vella, Dr Schembri said the movement had no time to appeal.
However, she insisted, the judgement had created an ugly precedent which would affect the everyday running of TV stations when they needed to broadcast clips from another TV stations when consent was not sought.
The court had confirmed that the clip was not doctored, but found that permission had not been granted by Mgr Vella.
Dr Schembri said she would continue to insist that the consent was not needed since the footage was already in the public domain.
Evarist Bartolo, who is also head of news of One Productions, which recorded the Mgr Vella video, said it was normal practice for TV stations to take clips from other TV stations without seeking the permission of the person who appeared in the clip.
In terms of this judgement, he said, if he said something on a PBS programme, Net TV would need his consent in order to use it.
(Separately, in a statement the Divorce Movement said the court found that the opinion expressed by Mgr Vella was in the sense that there should be good marriage preparation. Those who did not make it had to choose their way - libero stato, libero chiesa. . He also said he could not ignore separated couples and those who were suffering..
The court recognised that Mgr Vella was an influential person, and, the Divorce Movement said, for the same reason, it believed that once he had made his views known, it should not have been precluded from transmitting them)
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando criticised lawyer Austin Bencini for having said in a public activity that the introduction of divorce would affect maintenance. This, he insisted was manifestly not true.