Prior to World War II, a foreign politician is reputed to have said that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Apparently, the reactionary and anti-liberal lobby that wants to deny people the right to divorce and remarry knows this very well, given the ad nauseam repetition of the claim that the divorce question is loaded.

The latest victim of this lie is my friend and former student Charlene Valentina Giordimaina (Catholic Reply To The Possibility Of Divorce, March 18) who, apparently, bought this line of thought when she compared the question being asked in the referendum to the following question regarding abortion, namely: “’Do you think a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if that is her only way?’ The majority would say yes.”

She then adds that “However, if I ask: ‘Do you think that abortion is ever OK?’ the majority would say no.” She then concludes: “The same with the referendum question (claiming that)… a plain and simple: ‘Do you agree with the introduction of divorce?’…is the only possible unbiased question.”

The argument is fallacious on a number of grounds.

To start with, if “the majority” were to answer yes to the question “Do you think that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if that is her only way?” and no to the question “Do you think that abortion is ever OK?”, then the major problem lies with this “majority” rather than with the question because this majority would be blatantly inconsistent.

If this majority really believes that in no case “…abortion is ever OK”, then it should answer no to the first question as well, the word “ever” used by Ms Giordimaina in the formulation of the second question implying that no exception is acceptable. This is, after all, what convinced anti-abortionists hold (see, for instance, Pope Pius XII Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951). If, on the other hand, this majority accepts “… that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if that is her only way”, then it should answer yes to the second question, qualifying those cases in which abortion is acceptable.

Secondly, there is a very evident difference in the two “general” questions Ms Giordimaina proposes “Do you think that abortion is ever OK?” and “Do you agree with the introduction of divorce?”, namely the word “ever”.

The word “ever” means “At all times, always’’ (The Oxford English Dictionary). It renders the statement very specific, ruling out any exception.

The second question, on the other hand, is vague; in voting “for divorce”, I would not know whether the law that would legalise divorce will be a serious law, like the one being proposed in Malta, or whether it will be some lax provision sanctioning Hollywood-type termination of marriage. It would be like asking one “Are you in favour of people amputating other people’s legs?” in order to close down some operations theatre at Mater Dei Hospital.

Now since I suspect people are less contradictory than Ms Giordimaina assumes and since they would be more willing to accept the serious type of divorce being proposed rather than some Hollywood-style version, it would pay the anti-divorce lobby to have a vague question so they could raise the Hollywood-version ghost.

One thing the anti-lobby does not seem to realise is that if the majority votes yes to the vague and general question they desire, then Parliament would have the mandate to legalise divorce in any way it deems fit, including the Hollywood-style version. No one would be able to claim it has no mandate or popular sanction. On the other hand, with the question being asked limits are being set on the type of divorce Parliament may introduce. In light of this consideration, who is responsible and mature, the pros or the cons?

Thirdly, I cannot see how the question being asked is loaded. Loaded questions normally entail some assumption, which the person who answers will implicitly accept by answering, regardless of his/her reply. These may include either accepting the veracity of some disputable fact (“Are you still a murderer?”, which entails accepting that I was a murderer, regardless of whether I answer yes or no) or some moral consideration (“Are you in favour of this morally-unsound proposal?” or “Are you in favour of the murderous practice of IVF?”, which entail acceptance of the moral-unsoundness of the proposal/murderous nature of IVF, no matter how I answer).

Now I would like the anti-lobbyists to point out which part of the question we shall be asked, namely whether divorce should be available to couples who have been separated for four years, when there is no hope of reconciliation and as long as there are provisions for maintenance and care of the children; is loaded and why?