Warning on ‘deceptive’ referendum question

Voters in Saturday’s referendum must keep in mind they would be deciding on whether they wanted a specific type of divorce and not if they agreed with it in general, anti-divorce campaigner Arthur Galea Salomone said yesterday.

Despite the intensive campaign, he felt not enough attention was drawn to the “deceptive” referendum question that spoke about the introduction of divorce “for no reason”.

Dr Salomone illustrated why he believed the question was misleading.

The question hid the fact that divorce could be imposed by one spouse on the other and made no mention that there was no limit on the number of times a person could get divorced. It also gave the wrong impression that maintenance was guaranteed by divorce.

He insisted that maintenance was not guaranteed, especially because one had to bear in mind the reality that a man’s salary could not possibly sustain two families. This meant divorce was either for the rich or it would lead to a new form of poverty.

Dr Galea Salomone added that the proposed divorce Bill did not safeguard children, as stated in the question. Instead, the state endorsed the right of a couple to break up a marriage and for strangers to replace a child’s parent.

A person could get a divorce after having lived apart from his spouse for four years. No reason or legal separation was required and there was no mention of compulsory mediation as there was in the case of separation, he said.

Dr Galea Salomone reiterated that the population had been hastily burdened with deciding on the introduction of divorce through a referendum without being well-informed and based on a deceptive question.

“I trust in the intelligence of the population and that they will see through this deceit and vote no,” he said.

Asked if his movement disagreed with all forms of divorce or just the one proposed in the Bill, he replied this was a hypothetical scenario. The no movement was made up of people with diverse opinions but who came together because they disagreed with the proposed divorce Bill, he said.