On May 19, The Times published an article entitled News Analyst Takes Offence At Cohabitation Billboard and referred to an interview between Michael Falzon and the undersigned which was aired on Campus FM.
As news analyst on Campus FM, I attempt to analyse with equanimity what is being voiced or published in the press and here I reiterate what I stated during the debate: the billboard in question of the yes movement is not only in bad taste but lacks any ethics.
I shall continue to object to the use of the word “bastard” with regard to children born out of wedlock. In all languages the word is derogatory, no less so in Maltese. With or without divorce, illegitimate births – as births outside marriage were once called – are destined to continue to be, hence the use of such terminology can only add to the pain and difficulties these children will have to face in life.
The Maltese word bagħal (plural bgħula) carries the same socio-linguistic innuendo that was once used against those who were considered “different”. Normally such terms were used by bigots and conservatives. Unfortunately, they have now become the buzzword and way of address of the so-called progressives and socialists.
One would have thought that with human rights being bandied back and forth, more respect and sympathy towards the less fortunate would have been forthcoming, instead they are being victimised. Whatever the intentions of this billboard, the message therein is jeopardising the future of all children.
If the current divorce Bill, as it stands today, passes through our Parliament, the number of “illegitimate” children will be on the increase and not vice versa. Certain clauses being proposed are going to rebound negatively on our society with the result that more couples will opt for cohabitation rather than enter into a formal marriage. We all know that this is already happening. The divorce Bill in question will only exacerbate the situation.
The divorce movement based part of its campaign on compassion and solidarity for those whose marriage ended in distress. However, it failed to express solidarity, empathy and compassion for those who, for personal reasons or other reasons, decide to cohabit and have children outside marriage.
Since these parents do not wish or cannot marry or remarry, their children are going to carry the brunt of stigmas of the past which one would have hoped have long been dead and buried. This speaks volumes about the intentions and the spirit of the yes movement which brands itself to be in favour of the family.