The House of Representatives on Wednesday started discussing the motion moved by the Opposition, proposing that a consultative referendum regarding the introduction of divorce is held.

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, who co-signed the Bill for the introduction of divorce with Nationalist backbencher Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, initiated the debate.

After reading the motion, Mr Bartolo said he is proud to have moved a motion pertaining to a very important issue for Malta and which seems to be supported by the majority of the MPs, since all members of the Opposition have signed it and there are other members from the government’s side who declared that they would support it.

“The debate on divorce should be calm. There need not be any crusades on the matter. Fundamentalism does not help matters on both sides of the coin. Discussion should be calm, serene and reasonable,” Mr Bartolo said.

He added that this is not the first time that he is associating himself with a member of government as around 10 years ago, he had joined the current Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, at the time social policy minister and seconded the motion proposing the Equal Opportunities Act for disabled people.

He said that in many ways, divorce legislation is similar to the equal opportunities legislation because both safeguard minority rights.

“I consider myself lucky for having been brought up in a normal family and to have survived married life for 32 years despite the ups and downs experienced like any other family. I ask however: Who am I to say that other people do not need a divorce?” Mr Bartolo added.

At the moment couples whose marriage breaks up have three options, he said. They could separate, get an annulment or a divorce from a foreign country, if they have the means. In his opinion, this is a great injustice against those who cannot afford to get a divorce from abroad or their circumstances do not allow it.

Mr Bartolo also spoke on forced cohabitation. “It is not true that the introduction of responsible divorce brings about broken marriages because marriages are already breaking up,” he said.

He said that the rate of marriage breakdown is higher than in other countries where divorce has long been introduced. In Malta 22% of families are separated. In Italy this stands at 20% while in Ireland the rate stands at 15%.

Divorce does not induce breakdown but divorce takes place after breakdown, he continued.

An open-minded society demands that the majority’s tyranny does not prevail, he remarked; it is not right to impose one’s views on another person and it is also incorrect to deny a civil right.

Speaking on the nature of the referendum question, he said that the threefold question reflecting the Bill presented in parliament is necessary. “I would have gone against my values had we proposed a question that does not reflect the conditions in the divorce Bill,” he added.

Education, Employment and Family Minister Dolores Cristina also voiced her opinion.

She said that the MPs should work together to give the real picture of what divorce means to Maltese society and its individuals and what the lack of it means.

“Here I do not only speak as an MP, but I also speak as a private citizen, as a woman, as a mother and an educator. I will transmit all that makes me who I am in this debate. If not, I wouldn’t be speaking honestly,” Mrs Cristina remarked.

“I researched the subject intensely and enjoyed highly interesting debates with various people. I feel that divorce is a delicate and sensitive subject,” she said.

Agreeing with Mr Bartolo, she hopes that the MPs show respect to each other and agree to disagree on the issue. However, she disagrees with the interpretation of the ‘common good’ concept. In her opinion, Mr Bartolo made a dangerous argument on compassion while highlighting the importance of MPs listening to each and every opinion being voiced during the debate.

“For some, the divorce referendum question proposed by Mr Bartolo and Dr Pullicino is simple and direct. In my opinion it is loaded and meant to sell the idea of introducing divorce to the electorate,” she said.

“The question elicits various other questions and could play with one’s feelings. The question confused many people in the street who are not experts on the issue but who have the right to understand what is going on. The question should not leave space for misinterpretation,” Mrs Cristina said.

“It is true that the divorce Bill is based on the Irish model, the most conservative divorce law ever implemented, however we need to find ways of making sure that it really reflects the needs of the Maltese scenario,” she commented.

PL’s justice spokesperson José Herrera compared this moment in history with the time when homosexuality was decriminalised and when civil marriage was introduced.

“The country cannot legislate for Catholic people only. Sometimes we confuse what is strictly a matter of conscience or morality with civil issues. It is important to draw a line between contractual and sacramental aspects of marriage. The state takes care of the civil aspect while the Church takes care of the sacramental. They are two totally different things,” Dr Herrera said.

It is about time that we legislate on divorce, he said; the state is powerless to save marriages. The only way we can legislate in favour of the family is economically.

“The government is playing with words because the implications of cohabitation are the same as those of divorce. We should safeguard people from feeling humiliated,” he said.

Children are very often used as pawns; they are victims but the cohabitation law proposed by the PN will not change this, he added.

The debate continues on Monday.