I refer to your leader of 21 February, “Divorce: Shocking insensitivity”, where you quote statements which I allegedly made on victims of domestic violence during a programme on Radju Malta. You commented editorially, picking comments very selectively without seeking my views on the topic.

Conveniently, you chose to ignore my insistence during the programme that government implement more forcefully its promise to protect victims of abuse, not only within marriages but also in cohabitation. The “shocking insensitivity”, in truth, is to seek to justify the introduction of divorce legislation by depicting it as a solution to the problem of domestic violence.

You quote me saying that “victims of domestic violence should not be given the right to remarry, but should separate”. You twist my words quite blatantly. Yes, I did urge that victims of violence should separate, today before tomorrow. But in response to a question as to whether the victim should be given a right to remarry, I commented that if it were possible to enact a divorce law for victims of abuse only, then I would be active in the pro-divorce lobby. You also ignore my comments as to why divorce legislation weakens the marriage commitment for all, and weakens the resolve of spouses in settling disputes.

The sad truth is that divorce has not resolved the issue of domestic violence anywhere, nor should we expect it to resolve that problem here. The United States has had divorce for decades, and more than 30 million, including spouses, cohabiting partners, children and relatives, are affected by domestic violence at any point in time.

Domestic violence is a plague affecting married or cohabiting couples and separated persons. Not infrequently, there are also instances where spouses are violent against former spouses or partners. Once divorce has not resolved this issue anywhere, any attempt to instil false hopes in victims of these criminal acts is dishonest. Victims of domestic violence – whether in marriage or in cohabitation – need an urgent and effective remedy today, not the illusion that their predicament will one day be solved by a divorce law.

It is essential that we enact more effective laws to control abusers, and ensure that any law is implemented vigorously by the police.

■ André Camilleri

Moviment Zwieg bla Divorzju

Editor’s note

Mr Camilleri quite obviously does not get it. We said in the editorial that the issue was not about being in favour or against divorce, just that he is detached from reality in his reasoning (in terms of abuse victims) and his words were an insult to society in general.

We said, and say again, that someone who says that victims of domestic violence should not be allowed divorce “because the abuser will go on to abuse that other family” is out of touch, living in denial and has showed shocking insensitivity to victims of said abuse.

This newspaper did not, at any time, infer any stand on whether divorce should be introduced or not. All we said, and we say it again, is that Mr Camilleri’s words beggar belief. If one is willing to make statements, one should be willing to stand by them and not backpedal and try to justify by claiming words were twisted – they were not. They were uttered on live radio.