Children and the negative effects they would suffer are the focal point of the anti-divorce movement’s campaign, coupled with the value and indissolubility of marriage.
Movement chairman Andre Camilleri yesterday said his movement was against any form of divorce, insisting its introduction would not solve the problem of marital breakdown but would, as it did in other counties, increase the incidence of cohabitation and separ-ation and reduce that of marriage.
This meant that children would be born outside marriage and within unstable families.
“The movement was set up to inform the public about the effects of the introduction of divorce on society, especially on children who are the ones with the faintest voice in this debate. The experience of (the introduction of divorce in) other countries has shown that this did not solve family problems. We do not want a no-reason divorce because this will bring about marriage which expires,” he said.
Dr Camilleri was speaking at the launch of the final part of the campaign being waged by the movement Żwieg Bla Divorzju (marriage without divorce), with the slogan Flimkien Għal Uliedna (Together For Our Children).
The motto brings to mind two slogans used by the Nationalist Party for the referendum to join the EU and the last general election: Iva, Għal Uliedna u Għal Pajjizna (Yes, For Our Children And Our Country) and Flimkien Kollox Possibbli (Together, Everything Is Possible).
Dr Camilleri said the slogan had been chosen because children had the faintest voice in the divorce debate and yet, they would be the most affected if divorce were introduced.
Asked whether the effect on children of being born outside wedlock or to cohabiting couples, or of being the offspring of separated couples, equalled the effect that divorce would have on them, Dr Camilleri said divorce would make the problem worse rather than solve or contain it.
The movement, he said, wanted to promote the concept of a lasting and indissoluble marriage and its main aim was to inform the public of the serious effects divorce had on the family unit. For Maltese society there was no better formula than this kind of marriage.
Dr Camilleri insisted that despite problems they faced, Maltese families, by and large, were still strong and would be weakened by the introduction of divorce.
He said the movement was against all forms of divorce, including the so-called no-fault divorce. Asked whether this meant the movement was against giving a second chance to those whose marriage had broken down through no fault of their own, he said divorce did not solve the “injustice” these people were facing but, on the contrary, it increased them as it would give people an easy way out.
Dr Camilleri complained that no one had carried out a social impact assessment of the introduction of divorce on society, and when asked he said the movement did not have the resources or the time to take it up.
The movement, he said, wanted a “mature and civil” debate “free of personal attacks” and expressed his conviction that the Maltese would, at the end of the day, make the right choice and say “no thank you” to divorce.
Asked about whether any funds had been received from the Church to support this campaign, Dr Camilleri said the movement planned a fund-raising campaign and would welcome donations from anyone, including the Curia.
He said a parish had made unused premises available which the movement was using as its office.
In an immediate reaction, the pro-divorce movement said child-ren and religion should not be used in the divorce referendum campaign. It accused the “no camp” of ignoring the plight of children born outside marriage because their parents could not get married.
With the introduction of divorce, such parents would be able to marry and children would therefore bene-fit.
It pointed out that a third of babies were now born out of wedlock, including many to cohabiting couples who could not marry because there was no divorce. This number would increase if divorce was not introduced.