If you are toying with the idea of not turning up at the polling station next Saturday (28 May), for any of a multitude of reasons, maybe you have lost interest in the divorce issue or perhaps you were never interested in it in the first place.  

Perhaps you think that you do not need – or will never need – to avail yourself of divorce. You might be one of those who are disappointed by the fact that an issue dealing with the civil rights of a minority of the population should have never been settled through a referendum or perhaps you might consider the divorce legislation that has been proposed is too conservative. You might have qualms about the referendum question or might have been disgusted by the show put on in parliament in order to decide on how to settle this issue.

If you have not decided whether you are going to vote YES or otherwise, then sit down and think carefully. Your decision on 28 May will have profound consequences on Maltese society – consequences that will go beyond the introduction of divorce in the Maltese statute books and the ripples of which will shape the type of society in which we live for years to come.

All the surveys indicate that the two camps are so close to each other, that it is virtually impossible to predict the outcome – indeed the difference between the two sides is less than the survey’s margin of error. In addition, all the surveys indicate that there is a high proportion of undecided voters. Keep in mind that if there is one thing we can be sure of, then that is that the motley crew of “naysayer” will use all possible means to ensure that those supporting their cause will flock to the polling station on Saturday to prevent Malta falling into what they define as the “throes of heathendom”. We’ve all seen it happen at general elections – sick and elderly people being forcefully dragged to the polling booths. I need not elaborate further on this.

I will not mince my words: a lot is at stake on 28 May and, in fact, the issue is much wider than divorce. The civil liberties and freedoms of each and every one of us, the keystones of democracy, are at stake and I am not exaggerating. Let me put you in the picture, or at least try to. The movement against Divorce is in favour of the indissolubility of marriage, which means that introduction of divorce will in no way have an effect on their lives.  If they are so convinced of their ideals, then they will never resort to divorces, come what may.  However they have arrogated for themselves the right to decide for you, for me and for everybody else.  They are willing to impose their view on all and sundry, irrespective of the circumstances anybody else might be in, irrespective of your beliefs.  For them, the fact that a number of people are forced into a cohabiting relationship, following the collapse of their marriage makes no difference.  They are in the “right” and their ideal should be safeguarded at the expense of everybody else’s happiness.  It doesn’t matter if they impinge on your right to a particular lifestyle.  If your lifestyle is not in agreement with what they perceive as being the “norm”, then you are the misfit.

The anti-divorce movement and all those who have jumped on the “naysayer” bandwagon have their own warped vision of society, one that leaves no room for individualism, for free and critical thinking. People are expected to accept what comes from higher up. Am I exaggerating? Have I spent too much time reading 1984 and other novels depicting a dystopian future? Have I spent too much time watching V for Vendetta? Take a look at how the Qatari TV station Al Jazeera describes Malta:

Malta joined the European Union in 2004. For tourists it is a sunny place, somewhere to unwind and relax. But behind this tranquil façade, the locals live according to a strict sense of tradition and ceremony … divorce is forbidden, … and art and literature that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow in other European Union Member States can lead to censorship and even jail for authors…

Malta’s cry for Freedom – screened on 6 April 2011.

Think about the campaign conducted by the No front, which sheds light on the underpinning ideology of their movement. They have spent the whole campaign presenting their own version of the facts (most of the time presenting claims that are way too exaggerated, misinterpreting the issues and twisting the basic facts); journalists are not afforded the luxury of questioning them, nor is anybody else, for that matter. The anti-divorce movement asked the Broadcasting Authority to increase the time allocated to spots at the expense of the time allocated to debates between the two sides. What does this infer? It shows that they expect the public to swallow their own fabricated version of the truth “hook, line and sinker” without discussing the issue at stake, without raising any questions. Clearly, the strategy is to instil fear in the minds of the voters rather than to convince them with valid arguments and by engaging them in discussions and debate. It’s all one way traffic with the anti-divorce movement. In its view, it is “fighting the good fight” (a phrase used by an over-zealous naysayer) and it does not matter if, in order to achieve their goal, they misinterpret or twist the facts or exaggerate their claims, it’s all for a “noble” cause and everything and anybody else is fair game.

Today, everybody else recognises that fact that, without a free press, without freedom of expression there would be no functioning democracy. The press is duty-bound to ask uncomfortable questions at the expense of looking and sounding unbalanced. The press is duty-bound to ‘hit where it hurts’, because only an informed society can take the right decisions. To put it in the words of the co-chair of the Greens in the European Parliament:

Balanced information does not exist! Do you think that Mr Nixon thought that the information on the Watergate scandal was balanced? Surely not! Do you think that Mr Bush thought that the information on the Abu Ghraib detention camp was balanced? Surely not! Do you think that Mr Berlusconi thinks that press reports on his personal life and on his politics are balanced? Surely not! The press is there to challenge us (politicians) and it does challenge us and at times it “hits us below the belt”… Democracy has never been “killed” by an excess of freedom, on the contrary Democracy is killed when freedom is curtailed.

Speech delivered on 19 January 2011.

This is why one of the very first measures taken by dictators is the abolition of the free press, because otherwise they would not be able to control the information relayed to the public in the way most congenial to the regime.

Last Sunday, the Nationalist newspaper Il-Mument (echoing earlier claims made by the anti-divorce campaign front-liner Dr Andre Camilleri) launched an unprecedented attack on six of the seven Sunday papers, which are supposedly “guilty” of having an opinion that is diametrically opposed to the official position of the party that owns the paper. The fact that most of the newspapers hold an opposing view did not lead the people at Il-Mument to question their position, oh no! Everybody else is mistaken, and perhaps in bad faith (sic)!  Dr Camilleri even went so far as to complain to the Broadcasting Authority about the fact that two-thirds of the journalists present at his movement’s press conference were pro-divorce. What do Dr Camilleri and il-Mument expect the other newspapers to do? Keep quiet because they don’t share its views? As far as il-Mument is concerned, I am sure that PN supporters are mature enough not to feel bound by party propaganda when it comes to voting on issues such as divorce. Indeed, quite a few Nationalist friends of mine are in favour of divorce and will vote YES next Saturday.

Incidentally, where was il-Mument during the EU referendum campaign? Weren’t most newspapers accused of favouring a Yes vote on 28 May also accused of being in favour of Malta’s EU membership? The latter are being consistent with their European ideals, il-Mument is not. I would like to point out that a free market without civil liberties would transform Malta into another China. When I read features such as the one published by Il-Mument last Sunday, I get the feeling that I am not living in a modern, liberal and democratic state but in a China in the Mediterranean.

In the No campaign’s view, society should be bereft of diversity; each and every person should espouse the same morals. The individual is seen as just another cog in the wheels of society, and their moral codes oil the machinery of society. According to them, all individualism should be lost to what is deemed by them as being the “greater collective good”. If the press dares to voice an opinion that opposes their ‘grand plan’, then the press is unbalanced and perhaps acting in bad faith. Look at what a notorious PN acolyte had to say on the divorce referendum issue:

The truth is that the electorate is not ready to take such a momentous decision…

Austin Sammut, The Times of Malta, 17 May 2011.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw it. The Maltese electorate is NOT capable of saying whether it agrees that the State should sanction on paper the dissolution of a marriage that is no longer functioning. This is the momentous decision you and I are supposedly incapable of taking. Why is this? Is it because the opinion of a large number of voters happens to be different from the one of the party in government (which includes Ministers graced with the gift of Counselling Our Lady)?

I will be very frank with you; should the No vote prevail on 28 May, Malta will face a conservative backlash (see the report carried by the press on the infamous Hamrun parish church meeting) aimed at reigning in the civil liberties acquired so far. To a certain extent it has already started with a tightening of the censorship regime and other attacks on freedom of expression and it will go on targeting other sectors of the population considered as misfits by the “naysayer” bandwagon.  

For this reason as well, I urge you to go out and vote next Saturday. In Malta there is a majority who want to live in a democratic state that respects their liberties and does not intrude in their private lives. There is a majority against the anti-divorce campaign’s control mania. It is up to all those who, like you, cherish democracy and civil liberties to turn up at the polling booth and CHECK THE YELLOW BOX on the ballot paper. It is up to you to prevent a major conservative roll back of our liberties and freedoms. It is up to you to make sure that divorce makes it on to our statute books because we might not get a second chance in the foreseeable future. Make sure that you, your friends and your families go out to VOTE YES next Saturday.

[email protected]