In many ways, I blame myself for blocking Andre Camilleri’s move to become a judge.
For I pointed out at the time that he did not have the required 12 years practising as a lawyer in court under his belt, which is a prerequisite for anyone to sit on the Bench.
He would have made, I am sure, a supremely good and upright judge. Moreover, he has the gravitas the office requires (as do the two newly-appointed judges).
It was not to be. Possibly because he did not have the required years of practice, possibly because of my comment.
Over the years, without ever getting to know them personally, I was, on and off, in touch with Dr Camilleri and his wife Sonia and I remember how important family life and the proper upbringing of children was and is for them.
I have nothing but respect for such high principles and even if, as I explained last week, my position on divorce is radically different from theirs, I respect and admire their life-long stand.
Some of the arguments I heard Dr Camilleri make against divorce do not, in my opinion, make a strong case, but the best case there is should be the way in which they live and have lived.
Having said that, I must however admit to a niggling doubt, which does not regard Dr Camilleri alone but also, and even more so, Minister Tonio Fenech, and on the other side Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Evarist Bartolo.
Let me put it in terms of Dr Camilleri, for this is how it can be better understood.
Dr Camilleri is the Chief Executive Officer of the Malta Financial Services Authority. This is no sinecure at all: in this age where financial services are increasingly an important component of the Maltese economy, it is Dr Camilleri’s task (and of the entire MFSA) to attract further investment to Malta, to ensure that the financial services regulation is of the highest quality and to protect investors from any kind of fraud or irregular practices.
This is Dr Camilleri’s daytime role and it is an important one. How to balance this with his justified, deeply-felt need to defend the institution of marriage against the introduction of divorce is a very important issue. It would be remiss of him if, having those principles, he focuses on his daytime job to the exclusion of speaking to the community. As it would be remiss of him to focus on the anti-divorce movement to the exclusion of focusing on his daytime job.
The same goes for Dr Galea Salomone, but I do not really know this person.
The same goes too for Minister Tonio Fenech, the latest addition to the anti-divorce brigade. Although I disagree with much of what he wrote in this paper’s sister daily, I must admit I have come to realise that this is no posturing, no positioning: this is Tonio Fenech through and through. I disagreed with him when he spoke about marriage in Parliament in terms of a Ferrari car, but this is him, take it or leave it.
I happened to be in court some weeks back when Mr Fenech was testifying on the issue regarding work done in his house and I empathised a lot with his anger at finding himself engaged in a tussle with a contractor and a sub-contractor, and getting all kinds of political brickbats thrown at him for making a stand and not wanting to pay for something that came unaccompanied by a VAT receipt.
Mr Fenech has enough daytime charges to cripple anybody – Air Malta, Enemalta, the eurozone issues, and so on. His duty to the country lies in his tackling these huge issues (none of which were of his own making) to the best of his ability. Theology is not his forte, but that does not mean he should keep silent on the divorce issue. It is all a question of balance.
I also note that other ministers and important people on the PN side have kept silent on an issue about which they are, perhaps, more intellectually, culturally and academically suited to speak. While Minister Fenech has stuck his neck out and put in his twopenn’worth, others who can contribute far more are still very much below the parapet.
The same can also be said as regards the other side.
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s daytime job is pulling out teeth: should that stop him from expressing his opinion? Why does everybody seem to think that JPO’s aim in being for divorce is to settle his personal situation?
Evarist Bartolo’s daytime job is teaching at university: should that prevent him from expressing what has been, for so many past years, his innermost conviction? Or why do some people think that to be in favour of divorce something must be amiss in that person’s marriage?
Even on the Labour side, though to a lesser degree, other people who may contribute are holding back and trying to pass unnoticed.
But my biggest beef in all this is with what passes for current affairs programmes mainly on TVM. Suddenly Bondiplus, Xarabank and even Dissett have started focusing on issues such as weddings, popes, the loony fringe on the most extreme Catholic right wing but have yet to put up a completely balanced and open programme where people of either conviction can express their opinion with clarity and freedom.
Rants, shouting matches, people interrupting each other, we have had plenty. Everything, in fact, except what people really need: some light on a decision that is hard for anyone to take.
There are two conflicting currents in the country: on the part of officialdom there is the raising up of drawbridges and the closing of ranks. On the part of those for divorce there is an escalation of contrary fundamentalism.
On either side there are discernible tendencies to politicise the issue according to a person’s political beliefs. This perhaps is the most dangerous of trends: to turn this issue into a pre-run of the coming election.
Even here, in the coming weeks, it will be important for one and all to strive to be balanced.
[email protected]