It’s like a battle between David and Goliath.
Goliath, a huge, monster-like giant, armed to the hilt and carrying a protective shield, challenges David who refuses all armour and chooses to fight with just a sling and five stones. The Old Testament narrates the story of how David was laughed at by Goliath’s Philistine followers, only to hit the giant in the forehead with his first attempt and kill him as he fell, stunned, to the ground.
This story has since been used every time a mighty force is challenged by an opposition which, on paper, is weaker but which ends up as the winner. It has been used in sport on many an occasion, but has also been mentioned in other instances when, unexpectedly, the underdogs emerge victorious over more powerful adversaries.
We have a similar situation in the divorce issue; the only difference is that we are still to know what the outcome will be, and whether the underdogs will repeat history.
On the one hand, we have the campaign against the introduction of divorce, supported by the Church and the Nationalist Party, who have unlimited financial and human resources and well as a large section of the Maltese media working in their favour. To this, one must also add government resources, as we have already heard stories about people in government employment who are using their time to work on behalf of the anti-divorce campaign.
Like Goliath, the anti-divorce movement has strength, power and facilities.
On the other hand, we have a handful of people who have come together in the Yes for Divorce movement for this particular issue, and who therefore do not have the organisation, funds and assets that their referendum opponents have.
Like David, they only have determination and courage on their side. And reason too, because their arguments in favour of divorce are logical, unselfish and correct.
The imbalance in the referendum campaign is already evident, and it is likely to grow the more as we approach the day when we will be asked to vote.
The media owned by the Nationalist Party, but not only, is already out in full blast to support the stand taken by its leaders. No surprise there, but watching Net TV news has become nauseating.
For one thing, they have stretched the story about the 2,800 young voters beyond the limit of decency, each day presenting us with some high official backing the position taken by the PN and blaming Joseph Muscat. At one point I was even expecting them to interview the stray cats roaming around Pieta on the subject.
Probably they did this to hide the PN’s part of the blame. After all, the PN had a not insignificant role in the mix-up – the Prime Minister himself seconded the motion presented by the Opposition leader.
But day after day, one of the headline news on Net TV referred to the “froga” (which, in this case, means a mess, not an omelette) made by Joseph Muscat when, frankly, the PN contributed its own ingredients to deprive these youngsters the possibility of voting in the referendum.
Net TV, and its printed version, then did not even bother to report the activity that was held by the pro-divorce campaign last Sunday.
That the Broadcasting Authority also accepted the proposals submitted by the anti-divorce movement, with regard to the type of productions to be transmitted on PBS before the vote, is also a sign that the anti-divorce movement wields more power where it matters.
The pro-divorce movement preferred more debates and press conferences, where the public would have been able to confront the different ideas and possibly form an opinion in favour or against, based on the arguments put forward. But the anti-divorce movement suggested more TV spots instead. The Broadcasting Authority chose the latter.
Naturally, the anti-divorce movement, with the financial support it has, is in a better position to produce slick spots that will have a bigger impact on the public at large. But, to me, it shows that the anti-divorce movement is afraid of being confronted with valid arguments in favour of divorce – simply because they have no reply to them. So they took the cowardly way out, and the BA accommodated them.
What annoys me more is that the anti-divorce movement – and this includes a number of politicians from the PN side and priests – are using the great advantages that they have in this campaign to mislead the public. This is grossly unfair. Many people lack enough knowledge and rely on statements made by others who, they think, will provide them with correct information.
But this is not happening. Instead, the misleading campaign continues, and this is often accompanied by scaremongering tactics. I myself received a call from a priest telling me I will go to hell if I continue writing in favour of divorce. I know enough to argue with him – one thing I told him was that I stand a better chance of avoiding hell than priests who abuse children – but others would have been overwhelmed. Imagine what kind of influence this priest has on his congregation.
The Church, a 2,000-year institution with roots in every corner of Malta, is resorting to tactics that were used hundreds of years ago – attempting to frighten people. Divorce is not a matter of faith, but a matter of civil rights. But the Church pretends not to understand the difference.
The same goes for those politicians who have taken a militant and fundamentalist stand against divorce. Their crusade is insensitive and selfish. They find nothing wrong in turning up for exhibitions where swastikas are displayed, offending the memory of those who died to save the world from Nazism, but then want to impose their beliefs on others.
There has been – and there will be – a great effort in Church schools to influence children with the aim of getting to their parents. In recent weeks, there has been a surge in extra-curricular activities which might not have dealt with divorce directly, but which show an attempt to encourage religious sentiment. Children are being asked to join Christian groups where, it is clear, they will be brainwashed.
Post-Easter blessings of the house come at the right time for the Church to make door-to-door campaigning against divorce, and I would not be surprised if Easter – a time when more people go to Mass than usual – is used as an excuse to hold fund-raising campaigns that would go to sustain the anti-divorce campaign.
As you can see, it is an unbalanced scenario. But not all hope is lost. After all, David did beat Goliath, didn’t he?
[email protected]