It is utterly ridiculous and absurd for this tiny country, important though in reality insignificant to the majority of the 450 million citizens who form the European Union up to now, that we still evaluate divorce on a parameter as to whether there is a majority or minority who are in favour of or against divorce.
This is utterly absurd and ridiculous, I repeat, and this very line of thought, coming either from our politicians, from leaders of religious institutions, from presenters of television or radio programmes, or from ordinary discussion or debate – be it verbal or in print or even the internet – by any would-be contributor, does not make sense. It is completely illogical because divorce is a right that appertains to each and every individual and is regarded in the European Union and in other countries as a fundamental right which, if violated, runs counter to the protection of the private and family life of any individual, and would be an infringement of his or her fundamental rights and freedoms.
It is a known fact that our Marriage Act, as amended in 1995, is an outright abuse of our Constitution and the independence of our sovereign Court. We know that there is a classic Court of Appeal judgement on this point, apart from the fact that there is jurisprudence within the European Union that the decisions by ecclesiastical tribunals of the Catholic Church relating to the annulment or otherwise of a marriage run counter to European law and regulations.
It is a direct violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms as protected by the European Convention of Human Rights and Freedoms (which incidentally has, since 1987, formed an integral part of Maltese legislation) and, therefore, the government is duty-bound to see to it that the absurdity of the Marriage Law as amended in 1995 be rectified before the government is embarrassed in front of the rest of the European Union!
This has nothing to do with majority or minority rights where, in any case, a truly liberal democracy contemplates that the basic, intimate and social rights of individuals are equally protected. So in this country we are within the parameters of social absurdity to still keep transmitting programmes where we still evaluate an important social topic within the parameters of majority or minority percentages.
In conclusion, let us grow up once and for all: we are now members of the European Union, a union which allows for pluralistic and cosmopolitan opinions and ideas. We should follow what we now form part of, namely European Union laws and regulations, The European Union Convention, the European Union Constitution and judgments by the European Court of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms at The Hague, the European Courts of Justice at Luxembourg, and other European Union norms that in the remaining European Union member states, and for practically 450 million people, are acceptable except apparently in this tiny country.
After all, as one of our parliamentary
secretaries stated recently – albeit on another level of thought and argument – since we are now part and parcel of the European Union, we cannot allow a mode of behaviour and regulations in our
country that clearly, if not outdated, run counter to what is acceptable and actually practised in the rest of the European Union.
What goes for one line of argument
in these circumstances, automatically
follows in relation to local divorce law.
Dr Bezzina is chairman/founder of ALPHA: partit politiku