House Social Affairs Committee chairman Edwin Vassallo said yesterday that the motion to safeguard the family came at the right time when there was focus on the family in society and the electorate had shown its will on divorce law.
The SAC had already treated family affairs. All members had agreed at the beginning of the legislature on an action programme which focused mostly on the family, children, the young and the elderly and persons with disability. It was the committee’s priority to see that social policy development had to focus on the family in particular.
Mr Vassallo said that most of the items listed in the opposition’s motion were being implemented by the SAC.
The divorce referendum was an historic and social reality. The discussion on the family had to be considered in this context. The referendum result had to be expected. It had been a test on religious belief. The choice was a moral one. The result showed that Christian values did not seem to be as popular as in the past.
He claimed that the referendum campaign was the continuation of a struggle against the Church which had started many years before, adding that it showed the indifference of many people.
Some argued that Malta was more democratic because it was different from what the Church and the PN believed in. Democracy was fulfilled when diversity was fulfilled and not trying to put pressure on everyone to conform to what the electoral majority decided.
The divorce debate had started in Parliament with a free vote to MPs but now the argument shifted in a yes vote or an abstention on the Bill. While accepting that to abstain was a right, Mr Vassallo argued that parliamentarians should not do so because the issue was a question of faith. He encouraged MPs to vote according to their conscience.
He said he was not embarrassed to form part of a minority on the divorce issue because it was a matter of faith and he would not mind losing his electoral seat because of this.
The fact that society was becoming more secular did not mean that it was consistent. Policies, however, had to be consistent and had to reflect values. Divorce presented a new reality because the legal framework protecting the permanence of marriage was now waived. One had, therefore, to seek ways how to defend marriage and the family in these circumstances. The state had a duty to provide such protection and prepare people for marriage.
The divorce law would be a success if the number of people seeking divorce would be kept at a minimum. The proposed committee had to think on the negative issues that threatened and weakened the family and the value of marriage. Everyone had to strive for a situation where less people separated or annulled their marriage.
Mr Vassallo insisted that the committee work in synergy with the family commission, NGOs and other interested groups.
Speaking on morality, the Nationalist MP said that a secular society had less impetus to fight adultery. This new Malta was certainly different but he was not sure if it was better than the old one. People were more knowledgeable but less humble. Without faith, the Maltese were unarmed in distinguishing right from wrong. If this was the new Malta, it was a poor society bereft of tolerance.
Society needed the Church and separation from the state had to be on administrative terms and not on issues of morality.
Everyone had to strive to strengthen the family ensuring that the negative effects of divorce would be avoided in Malta, Mr Vassallo said.