Three protagonists of the fiery divorce debate that has erupted over the past few weeks have welcomed the results of a survey published in The Sunday Times yesterday, but each for different reasons.
Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, whose presentation of a private member’s Bill on divorce has reignited the national discussion, said he was pleased that the proposal of holding a referendum on a Bill, which would be followed by a parliamentary discussion, was likely to have the backing of around 80 per cent of the population:
“Fifty-eight per cent think that the introduction of divorce should be made by means of a referendum and 20 per cent think it should be a parliamentary decision. What I am suggesting is a combination of the two.”
He said the “significant” 14 per cent of voters who claimed to be undecided would be influenced if the referendum dealt with a specific Bill rather than being simply a yes or no question on divorce in general.
Meanwhile, only 10 per cent of respondents felt the decision should be made by means of a general election and 56 per cent wanted the decision taken before the next election, he pointed out.
He agreed it would be “unjust” to link the prospects of any political party in the next election with this “emotionally charged issue” so it was important that the decision be made well before.
He noted that 19 per cent of people felt their decision was influenced by the Church which was, “understandably, taking a firm but correct stand against divorce”.
On the other hand, Fr Daniel Cardona, the parish priest of Żebbuġ who set up an anti-divorce billboard on the church parvis, also welcomed the findings as satisfactory, “taking into consideration the margin of error”.
“However if people were to see and reflect on the negative effects divorce has had on other countries, I am more than sure that the percentage of those against would be higher,” he said.
Regarding whether the decision should be taken through a referendum or not, he said this was a democratic tool that measured what people wanted. But it did not show whether the majority was in the right or whether the decision would be for the common good.
He said the Church had an influence on the survey’s results because of the religious formation and upbringing of children. But another important factor was that “scientific knowledge seems to be in synch with what the Church teaches”.
Meanwhile, lawyer Lynn Zahra, who is planning a constitutional case to argue that the lack of divorce is discriminatory and breaches her right for respect to family life, said the survey’s results “excited” her.
She said it was good to know that 75 per cent of the people were basing their decisions on their own consciences rather than on what the Church or political parties told them.
“It really bodes well for the divorce lobby because people will be ready to ignore the Church’s unchristian and uncompassionate stand... in the same way they ignore its messages regarding the use of condoms,” she said.
Dr Zahra said the survey, although less optimistic, was more realistic than other surveys recently carried out.
“Forty per cent is not a minority. That’s why I think a referendum is unfair,” she said.
She pointed out that the Marriage Act already allowed for divorce – but only if one was married to a foreigner. “I am stupefied that the Maltese allow discrimination that is staring them in the face. Divorce has been in Malta since 1975, but only if you’re married to a foreigner. So it’s not a case of being against divorce in principle.”