I read with interest that one main argument that anti divorce supporters still cling to is the argument that before introducing divorce, one should keep in mind the “common good of society as a whole”. This argument set my mind racing to a historical speech that was made by a particular leader in the USA. This gentleman went on record as stating that: “We must defend our traditional values, protect women and the family, Christian values and societal good as a whole”.

This man was D.C. Stephenson, leader of the Indiana Klu Klax Klan. Klan members themselves believed that segregation and prohibition of African American rights was for the common good of their society. It did not mean, however, they were right, even though they used such terms as “Christian values and societal good”.

I find it easy to draw up parallels with the current divorce prohibition that our country persists in maintaining. Currently we are experiencing a gradual “uprising” in the number of people who are demanding the civil right to divorce in Malta. All they are asking for is the right to legally form another proper family. However there are certain structures, namely the Church structures, that view divorce as a threat to their tacit power.

These structures have nothing to fear as yet, since we currently have an outdated conservative government that will not dare legislate divorce because of fear of the Church. The government could also be accused of carrying out a political U-turn, especially in the light of the agreement it signed with the Vatican. That shameful agreement gave rise to the infamous Family Act 1995, which stripped citizens of their civil rights in case of a civil/Church annulment.

Today a person who files for a civil annulment will have his case stopped “sine die” until the Church annulment is heard and concluded. Annulments in Malta take an average of six years for a verdict and this can easily be a negative one. It is only following this wait that a person can start civil proceedings. This Church “service” is neither free nor cheap.

Anti-divorcists have often claimed that Maltese religious values are strong and that most couples would not resort to divorce for faith reasons. If this is truly the case, then I am correct in concluding that this is only a question of perceived loss of power by the church. If the “new spring” is really corning to Malta, it is not economic but social in nature. The traditional stigmas are now all but gone, people are no longer easily indoctrinated and are ready to speak up, as is the case with divorce.

More Maltese are questioning why, in this day and age, where practically the entire world except the Philippines and ourselves have a divorce law, our government does not see the light. Given that co-habitation levels, separation statistics and children born out of wedlock are continually increasing, it does not take an expert to realise that the cries for divorce legislation will continue to grow stronger and stronger.

Like the civil rights movement in the USA this oppression will be overcome someday.

Paul Azzopardi

RABAT