In my last two contributions I criticised some of those among the anti-divorce lobby. I criticised both the members of what I described as ‘the God says so’ brigade and those speaking frivolously about the commission of mortal sin in conjunction with the divorce referendum.
I warned against the danger that the Church could win the divorce battle but lose the war by creating new wounds among the People of God. Some were pleased, others were annoyed.
I received favourable as well as negative reactions from people holding important positions in the Church. I wrote what I wrote because I felt bound in conscience to take those positions.
Paying a price for being at peace with my conscience is a price I very gladly pay.
I would like to comment on two worrying developments: the bullying tactics being adopted by some media people, and the mistaken – if not draconian – directive issued by the Broadcasting Authority.
Today I would like to express my distaste at the behaviour of several people in the pro-divorce lobby. Many of their comments in several blogs are simply disgusting. They are the epitome of intolerance.
Besides, last week one could notice that some media advocates for the pro-divorce lobby deemed it fit to emulate the intolerant attitude of some of the bloggers. These media outlets are showing an attitude of bullying against people active in the anti-divorce lobby.
In this year celebrating voluntary work, some media people find it appropriate to bully and rubbish people who are generously sacrificing a lot for a cause they believe is right.
Bullying can work with some people but it won’t work with most. These media bullies risk provoking the exact opposite reaction. Their intolerance will harm the pro-divorce cause they militate for in their newspapers, just as the fundamentalism of some religious people harms the anti-divorce lobby.
The other negative development was the directive published by the Broadcasting Authority (BA).
In what could turn out to be a draconian directive, the authority lumps together divorce, marriage and the family, decreeing that any mention of these subjects on radio or television should be balanced.
It is not only reasonable but also obligatory for the BA to insist on balance whenever divorce is discussed.
There is a controversy, and different people have different opinions. A referendum will be held to decide the issue.
All sides have the right to be heard. But marriage and the family are not the subject of the referendum. All sides say they are pro-family and pro-marriage.
Why is the BA postulating a controversy where a controversy does not exist? What kind of balance is the BA demanding?
Should one balance a programme about marriage with one about cohabitation, as the latter is the antithesis of marriage, not divorce?
Should one balance a programme about the family with a programme against the family?
If the Archbishop speaks in favour of the family during a phone-in programme, will the BA insist that a station should bring someone to give the other side of the argument even if there is none?
Why did the BA force itself into such a tight corner?
The BA should allow stations to have a slant or editorial position on divorce while seeing that there is overall balance.
It should have said that if divorce is mentioned in the context of other subjects – whatever they are – the station would be expected to represent a balanced picture regarding the discussion on divorce.
I am certain that the present BA does not intend starting its tenure by taking measures which gives it draconian powers of interpretation and which also raise freedom of speech issues. The directive should be carefully explained and the BA should emphasise that it will be giving a very liberal interpretation.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt