“Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital…” Aaron Levenstein (American author and business lecturer).

There is a time-tested adage that says “you can’t mess with numbers”, supposedly meaning that numbers give you an objective description of the situation they are describing. Governments, politicians, business people and the like often try to make use of numbers in order to give their views on a particular issue an objective tinge. The bottom line invariably is that our opinions can diverge, but statistical evidence proves us to be right, and as you all know mathematics and numbers are not opinable.

Statistics is a very powerful tool that helps scientists study particular trends; however one has to fully understand the limitations of this tool in order to use it effectively. When quoted out of context and without considering the limitations of the study, statistics become an instrument for justifying the unjustifiable. We witness this whenever the government decides on the (in) famous COLA (not the fizzy drink, but the cost of living adjustment), somehow the increase in the cost of living experienced by consumers tends to be higher than that indicated by the retail price index. This is a matter of “Torture numbers and they’ll confess to anything”, as Gregg Easterbrook aptly put it.

The No to divorce front, made up of a loose alliance of politicians (mostly but not exclusively Nationalist politicians), Presidents Emeriti, members of the clergy and Moviment Żwieġ bla Divorzju (ŻbD) has resorted to this strategy; quoting statistics ad nauseam, without informing the electorate of the context in which the research was carried out, in order to justify their stance against the introduction of what has been labelled a “conservative” divorce law. Probably hoping that if they repeat the “studies have shown” mantra enough times, they will manage to convince enough of the electorate to vote No.

I suspect that this obstinate (ab)use of statistics hides three features of the No campaign: Their inability to come up with a single, rational argument to justify their position; their inability to propose a suitable solution in order to remedy the current situation (which is becoming unsustainable), and the fact that they seem to be more interested in the symbolic aspect of this electoral contest.

Let me be very frank – ŻbD’s main argument during the press conference in which their PN style logo (both the words used and the colours seem to have originated from the drawing boards at Tal-Pietà) was launched, that is, that divorce has accelerated family breakdown (and is the major cause of unhappiness in children) because it has increased cohabitation rates, and because it has increased the number of children born out of wedlock, is flawed to say the least, and is a case of abuse of statistics. As has been previously argued, in a Malta without divorce we are also witnessing an increase in the number of couples opting for cohabitation, and in the number of children born out of wedlock. It is clear that there are other factors that are causing these changes in Maltese society. Going by the same drift, one can click on Eurostat (the European Statistics Portal), attribute the facts that Malta is at the bottom of the list when it comes to school expectancy, employment rate for females and government spending on research and development (as a percentage of the GDP), to the absence of divorce legislation in the Maltese statue books.

The fact the trends handpicked by ŻbD (cohabitation rates, children born out of wedlock) deal with changes in society’s attitude towards the ‘traditional’ family does not mean that there is more of a causal link between them and the introduction of divorce than there is between the latter and the trends I handpicked from Eurostat. Ignoring a host of other factors which could have contributed to society’s attitude towards the family and singling out divorce is tantamount to “torturing numbers” in order prove your point. This is why I started my article with Levenstein’s quote “statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital”.

I reiterate the assertion of The Times’ journalist who interviewed ŻbD’s chairperson during the launch; separations and annulments cause as much unhappiness to children as divorce. In Malta’s case, one would be allowed to file for divorce only after the couple has been separated for four years; this means that the marriage would have already broken down, the couple would have already separated, so why not officially sanction the termination of a defunct union. In this case, divorce is a merely formality, which would allow the person who has gone through the traumas of marriage break down and separation to start a new life with another partner. It cannot and will not add more unhappiness to the children. ŻbD’s objection to divorce is not going to make the children any happier because the couple would still go through break down and separation, the children will still suffer (unfortunately) and, to add insult to injury, the couple would be prevented from moving on with their lives. The fact is that more than half way through the referendum campaign, ŻbD and the No front have not managed to articulate a single, rational, secular argument against the introduction of divorce legislation in Malta.

Another lacuna of the No front is that they have failed to provide a legal solution out of the mess we are in at present. Our current legal and social quandary is made up of a variety of “ingredients” which render the situation grossly unfair and unsustainable.

First of all, notwithstanding the No front’s objections (rational and not) to the introduction of responsible divorce in Malta, Maltese courts in fact recognise divorce decrees issued by foreign courts according to Article 33 of the 1975 Marriage Act: “A decision of a foreign court on the status of a married person or affecting such status shall be recognised for all purposes of law in Malta if the decision is given by a competent court of the country in which either of the parties to the proceedings is domiciled or of which either of such parties is a citizen.”

This means that “all” a Maltese citizen has to do in order to obtain a divorce, is take up residence in another country (nowadays with Malta being a member of the EU, this is relatively easy), file for divorce in the country of residence, obtain a divorce and register it in Malta. This is, by no means a hypothetical solution, in fact more than 750 people availed themselves of this possibility from 1980 onwards − the only stumbling block being the availability of a sufficiently large bank account to enable the person to take up residence in another country. This per se is discriminatory, as people who have enough financial means to do so are allowed to obtain a divorce and get along with their lives, while those who are not so wealthy are expected to stay put.

In fact, those people who are not so wealthy and who want to get along with their life try to go around this by filing for an annulment. Technically, an annulled marriage is a marriage that never existed. The highly subjective criteria for annulling marriages lead to a gross disparity of judgements; a number of people who have solid grounds to ask for the annulment of their marriage, might have their case assigned to a conservative Magistrate and their request is refused, while other luckier people are granted annulments when they have much less of a case and with a decision based on a very liberal interpretation and adaptation of the law. People might argue that this divorce à la Maltaise does at least allow a chance at the dissolution of a lapsed union; however the disparity of judgment undermines the principle of Equality before the Law.

One could opt for an ecclesiastical annulment, but in this case the procedures are even shadier, as they do not exactly respect the rights of the parties to a fair hearing (including the right to be represented by a lawyer of trust) and, notwithstanding this, the decisions of the ecclesiastical tribunal have civil repercussions in Malta, thanks to the Church-State agreement of 1995. However, procedural aspects aside, the outcomes are not any fairer. A case in point is the notorious gentleman who happened to be the son of the right person and who managed to obtain an ecclesiastical annulment twice!

When the “annulment route” fails, one tries to move on with his/her life just the same, through the formation of unofficial, non-recognised unions such as cohabitation, with all the consequences. It is a recognised fact that this has forced a number of people to live in a legal limbo, which will not be solved if we try to patch up things, the way the Nationalists want to do through the regulation of cohabitation. One can’t fail to ask the question “why is divorce any less palatable than separation and regularised cohabitation with the second partner?” To note also ŻbD’s total silence on the issue of cohabitation, will it make the way they perceive marriage any stronger? Will cohabitation make the children from the preceding union any happier? Perhaps they should change the name of their movement into ŻbDuK (Żwieġ bla Divorzju u Koabitazzjoni).

However, we can rest assured that the Iva għal Kristu, le għad-divorzju group, in contrast to ŻbD(uK) and their other friends on the No front, did propose a solution out this quandary … prayer!

In a nutshell, the No front lacks any convincing arguments (this is also highlighted by the fact that they have resorted to jingoist slogans) and of any concrete solutions (with the exception of the Iva għal Kristu, le għad-divorzju group) to help us out of a solution that will become unsustainable. Considering the fact that the introduction of responsible divorce in Malta will in no way affect all those who are against divorce; after all no one will be forced to leave a spouse he/she is happy with; the crux of their “battle” is a symbolic one. Certain people take pride from the fact that Malta is the last bulwark of Christianity in heathen and secular Europe. If the No vote prevails, then this would be a symbolic victory for all those who want to prevent Malta from becoming a truly secular and liberal democracy. As far as the No front is concerned, this is the main issue. I strongly suspect that it is not about divorce, as very little will change for them if the Bill proposed by Bartolo and Pullicino Orlando goes through, however they are afraid of the fact that come 30 May, Malta will wake up a tad more secular and for this reason they are willing to compromise the happiness of thousands of people – this attitude falls squarely within their interpretation of the concept of “common good”. They are willing to keep thousands of people in a legal limbo in order to prevent what they perceive as being the advancement of secularism in Malta.

On 28 May I shall be voting in favour of allowing all those who have been through a failed marriage to turn over a new leaf, I shall be voting in favour of allowing all those who were abused by their spouses to finally find happiness with their new partner, I shall be voting for equality of treatment for all citizens, I shall be voting for the rights of individuals to live their lives as they deem fit (as long as this does not harm others)…

On 28 May, I shall vote YES.