I am referring to basic fundamental human rights that allow us to associate ourselves with any organisation or cause we may fancy. We all have a fundamental human right to express ourselves publicly, and we all enjoy freedom of speech. These are not written in our Constitution for mere formality or to be acceptable with other democracies we rub shoulders with. These should be upheld by us all and safeguarded by those who have some influence.

I was surprised how the Labour media singled out a number of personalities who have chosen to involve themselves in the No campaign. The particular media reports list the places of employment or places of influence these personalities may have and imply that there is backing from high places and that they are more of a prestanome, rather than having real conviction in their cause.

I am not writing in defence of the No campaign leadership, but my mere preoccupation is that there is a sector in our society that believes that people should not have a right to express themselves and take an active part of any campaign or make their voice heard in any issue.

The motive of a person to involve himself in any campaign is personal. Saying this, I believe that the more transparent those who throw themselves in the limelight the better, but we must accept those who involve themselves in one issue or another have no ulterior motive, but have strong belief on that particular issue and do not want to take things lying down.

The fact that there are people who are advocating for divorce because, if it is introduced, they will be the first to apply for a divorce, is totally irrelevant in my books. The arguments that both sides may bring should be the focus of our attention. It’s whether Malta is better off if divorce is introduced that should grab the attention of potential voters, and not the place of employment of the person who is making that argument.

The Church

Another aspect that has amazed me in this referendum campaign is how the Church is being treated by certain quarters. There are those who are arguing that the Catholic Church in Malta should shut up because we are discussing a civil right that will be enacted in our civil laws, and so this is not a spiritual matter.

The Church in Malta is not only a representative of a religion, but an institution and has its fingers in many pies: Culture, education, philanthropic, just to mention a few. The Church has not involved itself in party politics for around 50 years, and mental scars can still be seen today, where veterans of the Labour Party are still justifiably offended of being interdicted by the Church because of their political involvement.

The attacks by former Prime Ministers Dom Mintoff and Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici on the Church-run hospital and schools can also be justifiably interpreted as having been revenge attacks. Clearly history has shown that two wrongs do not make a right. Thankfully, since then, there have been few incidents between the two.

Would anybody have expected the Church not to take sides in this particular issue on divorce? Even a non-Roman Catholic knows that the Church is dead set against divorce and considers that a second marriage is a sin and goes contrary to its own teachings. This has been the position for the last 20 centuries and I cannot imagine that this will change, at least in my lifetime.

We are all in agreement that the Church should not dictate what the State does and how it runs its affairs; however, it can and is expected to have a strong voice in our society on what it deems important. The strategy it uses is up to the Church and it may take calculated risks on repelling a section of our society if it is too strong and dogmatic; however, that is the Church’s decision.

Undoubtedly, the Church’s influence throughout the years has declined in our society, but it is still very strong. I know of people who are voting against divorce on purely religious considerations and the fact that Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and the PN spoke out against is irrelevant. They believe that God is against divorce and that is enough for them. On the other hand, you have those who, although Catholics, believe that ‘marriage and divorce’ is a personal choice and this right should be available. Therefore, they will be voting Yes on 28 May. This spectrum of opinions is the fruit of the campaigns that are being carried out. Expecting that the Church does not use its influence is naïve.

Instead of engaging the Church in a serious debate, there have been ridiculous attacks, such as that the Church is financially motivated, since it will lose out on annulments. If the Church wanted to have a financial gain, it should have joined the wedding industry and charge exorbitantly for the use of the churches, and charge the same rates of the wedding halls, catering, flowers, wedding dresses and the rest.

We have a golden opportunity to discuss an issue on its own merits, once both parties have extended the free vote from their MPs to their activists and supporters. We will not elect a government and the results will have no bearing on the next general election. The exponents have good reason to simmer down and impress us with the arguments in favour or against divorce.

Dr Mifsud is a Nationalist Party candidate