Opposition spokesman for justice José Herrera told Parliament yesterday that the divorce referendum had proved that the Maltese were capable of debating whatever was necessary because they were weary of taboos.
Dr Herrera said the opposition motion was an affirmation that Malta was an inclusive, liberal and tolerant state but at the same time a nation which still harboured the traditional values of the family.
There were certain sectors of society which were being censured because of their lifestyle. Certain intimate relationships were not acknowledged and regulated by the state. He said he agreed with Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat to give the gay minority a place in the party.
It was the PL which, in the 1970s, had eradicated the anti-gay laws from the Criminal Code. It had been at the same time that despite the fear factor, civil marriage had been introduced.
Dr Herrera said he would also like to see that the remit of the proposed Permanent Committee on the Family include the regulation of the rights of minorities who had an alternative lifestyle and new modern-day relationships. If things were not regulated, people would suffer prejudices.
The same applied to couples seeking assisted procreation. Dr Herrera revealed that a report drawn up by the Select Committee on Assisted Procreation had been shelved. He said that in drawing up the report, the committee chaired by Jean Pierre Farrugia (PN) had shown responsibility to suggest how the issue should be regulated and cut down on possible abuse. Medicine had given the medical profession a right which could not be treated as illegal because of some medieval concept. Malta was a lay state and IVF should be legalised. How could one deny the right to a couple to have a family on religious considerations?
Dr Herrera dedicated the first part of his speech to the constitutional development of family law, but complained that in recent times there had been indications of more conservatism, including the case of Josanne Cassar. The first inherent human right was the right to happiness.
The family was experiencing difficulties which had never been seen before. These did not only include financial problems but also those emanating from the perception as to how one should live. The family was experiencing consumerism which was also influencing the young. An all-out effort to strengthen the family was needed.
Malta had an economic and social network which was counter-productive to the traditional family model. Those living on a minimum wage could not afford to have a traditional family and therefore formed non-traditional family units.
There was a growing minority which was cohabiting and the state must therefore legislate to protect such unions. Not amending social laws would be prejudicial to such people. At the same time, one must protect traditional families and safeguard them from economic and fiscal problems.
Dr Herrera thanked the Church, which for centuries had helped society to deal with social problems. A clear example was the Cana Movement which taught, and was still teaching people what marriage was all about. The Church had also been a pioneer in taking care of children from broken families when civil structures were non-existent. He called the nuns who ran such homes “modern-day saints who did not get any recognition”.
On the other hand Maltese governments were positive, charitable and believed that civil society had a mission. They believed in minority rights, individual rights and tolerance. But now the time had come for the government to shoulder the burden being carried by the Church.
The fact that 33 per cent of all marriages in Malta and Gozo were contracted civilly presented the government with an opportunity to give such couples the same importance that the Church gave couples marrying in church.
The government had already started. There was the National Family Commission, the university’s Family Institute, the Children’s Commissioner and the reform of the Family Court.
Dr Herrera warned of legal implications if the Family Court were to pass under the Ministry for Social Policy. There were juridical aspects which must be taken into consideration and the Family Court should always remain a court. The world over, annulments, separations and divorce proceedings were held before a high court, where formality ensured a proper legal process.
However, he complained of what he called “increased stupid formalities” and “ultra-conservative judges”.
The Deputy Prime Minister had suggested the proposed permanent committee should be a sub-committee of the Social Affairs Committee. But the opposition believed family issues should be urgently addressed, and that warranted a separate committee.