Hearing some Nationalist MPs speak against the introduction of divorce during the parliamentary debate on the referendum question and in the media, I felt as if I was in Iran or under a Taliban regime.

Had I not been able to recognise their voices on the radio or see their faces on TV, I would have thought I was listening to some fundamentalist preacher who is stuck in the times of the Inquisition.

I know of priests who, in private, express more liberal views and who also, again in private, speak in favour of divorce when it is clear that the marriage has broken down and all attempts at reconciliation have failed.

And here we have holier-than-thou MPs and a number of others who are narrow-mindedly and selfishly supporting the no-to-divorce campaign disregarding the misery of all those people whose marriage has gone down the drain.

I wonder: do these Nationalist MPs consider their party headquarters as being in Floriana?

* * *

One of the arguments that was made was that nobody should have the right to impose pro-divorce values on others. Well, turning the argument around, it can be said that the anti-divorce brigade is imposing its beliefs on those who want divorce. Or does the anti-divorce brigade think it has more rights than the rest of us?

I respect their opinion – they have every right to it and to vote ‘No’ in the referendum. But there is a difference between freedom of expression, which I defend, and the imposition of one’s beliefs on others, which I argue against.

In the same way that the rights of minority groups, religious or otherwise, should be respected and protected by the law, so should the rights of people who want to end their marriage and start afresh, on their own or with someone new. It’s simple. Nobody is imposing divorce on anyone, but those who want to divorce should be able to do so.

* * *

In an ideal world, a decision on the introduction of divorce should not need to be taken through a referendum. Divorce is a sacrosanct right that everyone should have, and it should not be a case of a majority imposing its will. But if that is the only way in which divorce can be introduced in Malta, then we have to go through the motions – and hopefully the ‘Yes’ vote will prevail.

Just to put the record straight, I will not be rushing to my lawyer to get my divorce papers if and when the legislation is passed through Parliament. I write this because I believe in the principle of divorce as a way out of a collapsed marriage. I believe everyone has a right to happiness, and I believe that divorce is a better solution than an annulment.

As Joseph Muscat said in Parliament last Wednesday, it is more traumatic for children to be told that their parents’ marriage never existed than it is for them to be told that their mummy and daddy once loved each other, were married to express their love, gave them birth through that love, but now they are no longer in love and want to lead separate lives. Isn’t it better to have been born to a couple that was once in love, than in a family that never existed?

* * *

Some Nationalist MPs went so far as to bring up issues that have nothing to do with the question of divorce, in the hope that they would be instilling the fear that, once the doors for divorce are opened, it will be the first step towards legalising abortion.

These MPs are either silly, or else they want to manipulate or mislead. And I think it is the latter, which is worse than being silly.

Hearing divorce legislation – which is a personal issue that concerns only the two people who are divorcing and not society as a whole – being compared to the killing of immigrants as they approach Maltese shores, the killing of babies in their mother’s womb and the mercy-killing of helpless elderly people is unacceptable and insulting.

I’ve said it several times through these columns and I’ll say it again, hoping that it will be the last time. We are not stupid. Capito?

Still, their mixing of issues does unfortunately have an impact on people’s minds. The fact that even The Times website, in one of its entries last Wednesday, spoke about an “abortion question”, instead of a divorce question, says it all.

* * *

Nobody is advocating divorce just for the sake of it. You get divorced if your marriage fails. Couples whose marriage is fine will not get divorced just because they can. Full-stop.

As things stand today, only those who can afford to go abroad to obtain a divorce can do so. The rest have to resort to an annulment – and not everyone is awarded one. The well-connected stand a better chance and, even here, one needs a load of money to be successful.

Come to think of it, perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Church opposes divorce; it stands to lose so much money if divorce is introduced, because couples will no longer seek to annul their marriage – they will simply opt for divorce.

* * *

In my professional life, I’ve had a number of tiffs with both Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett. There have been times when we did not see eye to eye. But I must raise my hat to them for having had the guts to vote against their party to enable us to have a well thought-out referendum question, and a chance of divorce.

A simplistic question on whether or not one agrees with divorce would have opened the way to a Las Vegas type of legislation. Such a question would have pushed those in favour of a responsible divorce to either vote ‘No’ or abstain – and this was probably why the PN (as a whole) wanted this type of question, as it would have made it more difficult for the ‘Yes’ camp to win. It is the PN that wanted a deceitful question.

With the detailed question as proposed by the Labour Party, which was approved by all Labour MPs and the two Nationalist MPs, we will have a more responsible question that will, if accepted, lead to responsible divorce.

Dr Pullicino Orlando and Mr Mugliett may have compromised their political careers by going against the party line, but I would rather have people like them in Parliament.

Apart from those who hold hands with the Church and who act as if they are its ministers rather than politicians, I am sure there are other Nationalist MPs who are in favour of divorce and yet do not speak up publicly in this way because their main concern is their political gain and personal ambition.

So they sit quietly and toe the party line, going against their conscience. Voting against the party is not the way to endear oneself to the party diehards who elect officials and party leaders, is it?

[email protected]