Divorce: we're all talked out
This is my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
The debate about divorce, such as it is, seems increasingly distanced from the world – as opposed to the two small islands – in which we live.
It feels as though the referendum is about to take place in some kind of parallel universe. There is a curious air of unreality about it all, as though we have moved with Alice through the looking-glass.
The campaigners for the Yes and No vote are upset at the lack of interest, but their surprise and dismay are misplaced. Interest and engagement peaked a while back and are now in freefall.
The whole thing has been a mess from start to what looks to be a spectacularly messy finish with a resounding No result, and the exercise seems ever more futile and silly – and a needlessly expensive and unwanted disruption. Over and above that, lots of people have problems with the referendum itself, either with the question or because they disagree that the matter should be put to a referendum vote at all.
They will not be voting, or they will be doing so against their will and their conscience, in the spirit that the end justifies the means. All of this does not make for motivation or for spirited debate.
But the real problem is that people are bored of it all. After decades of chat, there is absolutely nothing left to say. Malta Today tries to keep the divorce flag flying, dedicating plenty of space to the subject and even practically an entire edition a couple of Sundays ago, I suspect largely because Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando is its new best friend.
But it falls flat.
Bar the politicians, the religious zealots and those who want a divorce for themselves and to hell with the wider issues, apathy has increased while the No vote has hardened. I have no polls to look at, but I have a bit of a sixth sense for these things.
Those whose stance is essentially anti-democratic where this matter is concerned, like the prime minister, very many MPs on both sides of the house, and the anti-divorce movement, are entrenched in their views and nothing will change them. They have a great deal of support among the electorate, not because of religion as many mistakenly think, but because the democratic spirit in Malta is very, very weak.
People simply do not grasp basic democratic principles, and when even the greatest exponents of democracy in Malta – the present and former leader of the Nationalist Party – cannot understand just how they are breaking faith with their core values, which are all essentially about democracy and the fact that the individual must never be sacrificed to any perceived common good, then it is time to give up.
Strangely, the very thing that should have motivated people and turned divorce into a topical issue – the looming referendum – has instead had the reverse effect of putting people off and engendering apathy.
Divorce has been reduced virtually overnight to a non-issue.
The political parties’ wrangling about the 2,800 new adults who have been left off the electoral roll has taken on the aspect of two drunks brawling outside a public house while the rest of us carry on talking and drinking inside, barely aware of the punch-up.
Interest in the referendum debate is not great because many people are resentful of the referendum itself. Resentment is the polar opposite of enthusiasm.
It’s a damned shame that neither party leader had the strength of character and grasp of democratic principles to commit his party to divorce at the next general election. The country will now have to pay the price for their failure.
Divorce will not go away with a No vote. It will merely prolong the boredom and the futility of staving off the evitable, to no discernible end.
38 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The whole divorce debate has become an exercise in trivialities.
First we had the theatricals and ‘colpi di scena’ regarding the presentation of the bill.
Then the hemming and hawing about whether to have a referendum or a vote in parliament.
Then the fighting about the Oh-so-important referendum date (lest Our Lady of Sorrows influences voters).
Then the long-drawn out ‘fundamental’ issue of the wording, seen as a struggle for democracy.
The fuss is now all about the publication of the President’s writ, another ‘fight for democracy’.
Yesterday I heard on the radio something about the police not being able to distribute the voting documents. Yet another trifle to squabble about.
Daphne, you are right: a long-overdue social reform has been turned into a farce and made as petty and boring as possible.
Be that as it may. The most important issue is this: Any cheap flights for Maltin ezilj— er, jghixu barra?
Who actually pays for these cheap flights every time a vote comes to town?
We all do. Troppo taxation bastardo!
@ Antoine Vella
Divorce is a farce. So what do you expect?
@ Antoine Vella
Madankollu jien nahseb li fl-ahhar gimghat il-kwistjoni tikkarga. Jiddependi hafna jekk il-knisja tiddecidix li taghmel Krucjata jew krucjata. (capital K or small k).
Nahseb ukoll li sa certu punt il-votazzjoni se tkun skond il- partiti politici u b’hekk tkun mock-general election. Hekk naraw kemm id-disafettazjoni fost in-Nazzjonalisti hi kbira.
Nispera li zbaljat. Nerga nghid, jiddependi x’tip ta “krucjata” se taghmel il-knisja. Prezentament il-kurja mimlija kretini u dan se jahdem kontra Nazzjonalisti. Ironikament l-ikbar asset li ghandu l-Labour bhalissa huma n-nies cwiec li qed jokkupaw karigi importanti fil-knisja. Ha nsemmi cucata cioe il-projbizzjoni tal-konsum tal-birra fil-festi. In-nies fit-triq qed jghidu li Il-gvern qed jimxi bil-policies tal-knisja!! Issa din cucata … ahseb u ara fl-issues l-ohrajn.
Our prime minister has most unfortunately committed the grave error of mixing religion with politics. That’s something you would expect of a priest, but not a politician.
You may be right, but I have a feeling that the debate is apathetic because most people have made up their mind on this issue already.
This is not a general election, a fight till the last breath as to who is more adequate to run the country. I am pro-divorce and do not have much interest as to what Zwieg Bla Divorzju have to say.
I find their views personally annoying and ignorant, as much as I respect their right to say them, and if a referendum were held 10 years ago I would have had the same identical opinion. On the other hand, no amount of convincing will change the stance of the hardened ‘no’ voters, who are mainly motivated or imprisoned by their religious mindset.
What you say is true. I’m one of those people who ignores the subject completely. I will not vote and quite frankly I don’t care what the outcome is.
The common good? Shut Paceville down at 9pm every night.
Shut down what? The limited number of bars and discos?
Or the endless amount of ‘gentlemen’ clubs which are very popularly frequented?
“People simply do not grasp basic democratic principles, and when even the greatest exponents of democracy in Malta – the present and former leader of the Nationalist Party – cannot understand just how they are breaking faith with their core values, which are all essentially about democracy and the fact that the individual must never be sacrificed to any perceived common good, then it is time to give up.”
Daphne, thank you for making that statement.
Daphne, I agree with all the causes listed above but I would like to venture another reason for this shift.
Recently, something unusual happened to the Maltese government, something which hasn’t happened for years.
The recent Libya war (?) suddenly put our government and its decisions under international scrutiny on matters which affected international affairs rather than simply internal ones. As a result an issue like divorce seemed parochial at best and ridiculous at worst, especially to those who don’t think simply on parochial terms.
If it is as you say and the “no” vote has hardened because the democratic spirit in Malta is very weak, the situation is even more depressing than I thought.
Somehow, if people had religion as an excuse it would be almost acceptable that people oppose divorce – but to think that people oppose such basic social reform because most of them have dodgy ideas of what a democracy is, and what living in a democracy should be like: that says so much about the society we live in and none of it is jolly.
To know that most people oppose divorce because they wish to continue believing that they can (and should) tell other adults what to do with their lives is totally unsettling.
It has arrived at a stage where I wish I could up and go, run away, get out of here – the faster the better. And no, it’s not because I need a divorce myself that I feel this way – I don’t and hopefully things will remain that way. It’s just the fact that I cannot stomach people telling other adults what to do with their lives and how to live them.
I was going to vote ‘Yes’, but since the referendum question was hijacked I will be abstaining and mailing my voting document to JPO.
So mature of you.
If I remember rightly not so long ago the outcry was that the divorce debate was ousting the Libyan rebellion and resulting refugee problem from the public interest! It would seem that there is no way to please some people.
The ingrained fear of sin, hell and all other religious mishmash has got most of our parliamentarians thoroughly on the side of religious zealots. The strength of the family is not jeopardized by having divorce available to those who require it , a family’s ability to stay together lies with the individuals in the union having the ability to simply stick it out in face of what gets thrown at them.
Women are a key factor in recent Maltese history. Until a few years ago the percentage of women with a weekly income was very low so they could not pack their bags and leave a lousy husband (drunkenness and violence are enough reason to leave). Now the situation is different, and many have gained financial independence. There are different reasons for failed marriages, and keeping divorce at bay is a blinkered way of trying to sort out our society .
Deep down everyone knows that divorce is 100 per cent negative. There are no positive aspects to divorce. Ask grown-up children of couples who have divorced.
Ah yes, the wife beater’s doctrine.
Unless it was a church annulment in which case the grown-up children must be cock-a-hoop.
Child 1 in playground: Did your parents divorce?
Child2: No, it was a church annulment.
Yeah right
Sure, agreed. No-one wishes for any couple to separate, whatever the type of “formality”. No one can say that there is positive to any of this. No pro-divorce person actually wishes for anyone to need the option.
But that’s not the point, is it? Unfortunately the antis, if not driven by religious beliefs, simply can not understand this and correlate voting for divorce as voting for the separation of married couples.
The whole point is that when that irreconcilable separation occurs, divorce is a hell of a better option than any of the others.
What are the “positive” aspects of divorce vis-a-vis the children?
Divorce is neutral to children. It is their parents’ separation that might harm them. Do you believe that it should be illegal for parents to separate, for the sake of their children?
That depends on why the couple separated in the first place.
Double the presents at Christmas.
Red Nose See it from this aspect then, what are the positive aspects of an annulment vis-a-vis the children?
I believe that whoever is in favour of divorce legislation and is choosing to abstain is, in a nutshell, cutting his nose to spite his face. And doing no favours to the country at all.
Coming up with arguments such as ‘I don’t like JPO’ or disagree with the question or whatever is nonsensical. The issue is divorce … not JPO, not Joseph Muscat, or whatever else. The ‘no’ camp are, on the other hand, united in their views. They just don’t want it … full stop.
It’s the first time the Maltese are asked about a moral question, and a resounding ‘no’ will only give the government a further green light to continue pursuing his ultra-conservative stances on social issues.
Daphne, why do you say that ‘they have a great deal of support among the electorate, not because of religion as many mistakenly think, but because the democratic spirit in Malta is very, very weak’? I agree with the point you make about individual rights vs common good – but don’t you think that in reality BOTH elements are at play i.e. religious influences plus lack of this ‘democratic spirit’?
I mean if it weren’t for the religious prohibition on divorce we probably wouldn’t be having a debate about divorce in the first place, so weak are the non-religious arguments against its introduction.
[Daphne – I really do think it has very little to do with religion. We don’t have a great tradition of sticking to religious diktat. We break every rule in the Catholic book. So why is divorce a problem religiously? It isn’t. Listen to the anti-divorce arguments and you’ll see that there is something deeper at work. In some cases, I get the feeling that those who argue against divorce are seeking to convince, above all, themselves. In others, that they are trying to justify their position and validate their personal choices – e.g. the availability of divorce and watching others divorce will force them to call their own situation into question. Listen hard to the men who talk about ‘making it possible for men to ditch their wives’.]
SPOT ON.
Just like those men who preach against promiscuity.
Good point and I do agree that the sense of ‘calling your own situation into question’ may well be playing a part.
However I would not be so quick to dismiss the influence of religion.
First of all there clearly ARE some religious individuals for whom the religious prohibition IS all-important – you only have to look at the comments on timesofmalta.com to see a few tragicomic examples.
Secondly, it seems to me that there is a chunk of the population which IS influenced by the religious argument, but sort of understands that it has to bring other arguments to the table since they sense that the religious arguments by themselves will not hold water (e.g. I think the leaders of the no movement would fall under this category).
However the people in this latter category would likely not be making these pseudo-rational arguments at all if it weren’t for the underlying religious motivation.
“I really do think it has very little to do with religion. We don’t have a great tradition of sticking to religious diktat. We break every rule in the Catholic book.”
Ah yes, but Daph you are overlooking the fact that those rules are the ones that “we” may commonly need to break ourselves.
As for allowing others to break rules that we may not need to break? Ma tarax! Let’s stick to the Bible, shall we?
Hypocrisy and double standards at their best.
Nothing different to drivers who think it is OK for them to break traffic regulations “just a little bit” but woe betide anyone else daring to do likewise.
It is true that there is complete lack of interest in the issue but not because of the reasons you pointed out.
The whole affair was mucked up because the real reason for putting forward this bill and even the referendum itself was not the greater good but personal interests, on the one hand, and the hope that this issue would damage the party in government, on the other.
There is no real leadership. Who is championing the cause? Nobody, even the leader of the Opposition is half-hearted about divorce because his intent was opportunistic not something he was truly convinced about.
You cannot lead by staying on the fence and not taking a stand.
Political parties play an essential role. We all think politicians are a bunch of idiots wasting our time and money and yet look what happens when parties and politics do not work or do not have the enthusiasm to work.
The split in the Nationalist Party has taken away a lot of its fighting spirit. With the Nationalist Party out Labour is hoping to win yet another vote by default but they should have learnt by now that it doesn’t work that way.
The timing is disastrous. Labour and JPO were in such a hurry to get a referendum going because they thought now is the time. The world is going haywire and we are discussing divorce. I think that the mood is such that at the moment many feel the issue is completely irrelevant.
The RC church is only doing what it should be doing and that is defending the sanctity of marriage. It is not interfering and even if it did there is nothing wrong. Everyone has a right to say what he thinks. I think that we can safely say that the Maltese in general do not follow blindly what the RC church tells them to do.
As for Maltese having a weak democratic spirit, I hope you are wrong. I believe that in general we have a very strong democratic spirit – maybe not perfect, but who is?
You seem to be saying that those who argue that divorce will give people the chance to ditch their wives are saying so because they would do that themselves. Again I disagree. I am 100% sure of this.
[Daphne – That is not what I wrote. I wrote that their arguments sometimes lead me to conclude that they are trying to convince themselves above all.]I am sure that
As soon as we have divorce legislation in Malta more and more men will leave their wives and more and more women will leave their husbands and most will leave on a whim. You will have people going in for marriage with less of a commitment knowing there is an escape clause and more tahwid in general. One can always argue that that is what’s happening at the moment anyway but with the same argument so many people are taking drugs so why not legalise?
[Daphne – Nobody marries on a whim, and nobody leaves a spouse on a whim, either. The difference in attitude towards marriage that you see in, say, Britain has nothing whatsoever to do with divorce. It goes way, way deeper than that, right back into history and the way society was organised. Italy has had divorce for decades, and regards marriage much as the Maltese do – again for historical reasons.]
Dear all, please note this is not a war between PN or MLP or Catholics against unbelievers. I for one am a Catholic and will vote PN and prefer Lawrence Gonzi to all the others, but for this referendum I will vote Yes and many of my friends will do so.
I met Labour supporters who will vote No too. Yes, that is democracy.
Jiena Nazzjonalist minn dejjem imma se nivvota “IVA”.
Inhoss li l-PN tefghana lura hafna meta ddikkjara li huwa kontra d-divorzju. Ta’ l-inqas messu ma hax posizzjoni.
Ghaliex jiena, li m’ghandix bzonn id-divorzju, ghandi nivvota LE u ncahhad lil haddiehor li ghandu bzonnu?
Tajjeb mela, LE ghad-divorzu u IVA ghall-koabitazzjoni. Halluna tridux.
L-Arcisqof kien qal li l-knisja mhix ser taghmel krucjati kontra d-divorzju. Jista’ jghidilna mela x’inhi taghmel?
Sa anke mistoqsijiet fl-ezamijiet hargu barra kitbiet ohra fil-fuljetti u leaflets ohra li hemm ippreparati biex jitqassmu fid-djar.
Li jonqos biss hu li naraw xi monsinjur jaghmel xi meeting fuq il-fosos.
Inhoss li jekk irridu nkunu demokratici u naghtu d-drittijiet li min ghandu bzonn ghandna bi hgarna nivvutaw IVA fir-referendum.
Imbaghad wara naraw kif ser jagixxu dawk il-bulijiet li hemm fil-parlament li suppost qed jirraprezentaw lilna.
Meta jigu bzonna huma tarahom b’wicchom infurrat gejjin ihabtulna l-bibien. Meta jakkwistaw dak is-siggu plus il-paga u hafna perkacci ohra, imbaghad addio kollox u ahna l-poplu nintnesew fi ftit zmien.
GHALHEKK VOT IVA HUWA IMPORTANTI.
1) Il-kelma t’Alla, ghal min jemmen u ghal min ma jemminx, hi importanti aktar mid-demokrazija u minn kull ideologija politika ohra.
2) Id-dibattitu fuq id-divorzju qatt ma ghandu jsir, fl-ebda parti tad-dinja: min hi dik il-kreatura li tista’ tghawweg kelmet il-Kreatur? Kull darba li l-kreatura tghawweg Kelmet il-Kreatur ifisser li qed tinqata’ frotta ohra mis-sigra tal-gherf (ara l-bidu tal-Genesi) b’dannu ghall-bniedem stess.
3) Id-dehriet tal-Madonna, madwar id-dinja kollha, dejjem seddqu dak li diga’ hemm miktub fil-Bibbja fuq id-divorzju.
4) Il-qalb tal-bniedem trid tinbidel biex jieqfu l-problemi. Il-ligijiet ma jhollux diffikultajiet. Bil-ligi gdida b’rizq id-divorzju mhux se tinstab soluzzjoni ghall-problemi interminabbli li hawn. Jieqaf id-dnub, jieqfu l-problemi fiz-zwigijiet, ma jkunux hawn separazzjonijiet.
5) Iblah min jahseb li nies bhali huma happy-go-lucky fi zwieghom. Iz-zwieg tieghi mimli diffikultajiet – u allahares tkun tafu x’tip ta’ problemi ghax iggib ghajnejk wara widnejk – imma sakemm jien u l-mara nibqghu haga wahda ma’ Gesu’ u nghidu r-ruzarju kuljum iz-zwieg taghna mhux se jfalli.
6) Apparti l-ispiritwalita’. F’kaz ta’ divorzju t-tfal, possibilment, qed nimpostaw fuqhom step-mother jew step- father gdid u half-brothers u half-sisters godda. X’demokrazija hi din?
Carmel Scicluna, ee careful when quoting the Bible. It becomes dangerous when people forget that the Bible is not one book but a collection of manuscripts written thousands of years ago.
A Roman emperor became Christian and that act started the Roman Catholic Church. The Bible was then compiled from various texts, some were even left out completely. Scholars today are still trying to piece together some very old parchments from the same era that might or might not deserve to be included.
There have also been serious challenges as to various translations into Latin from the languages and dialects of the Middle East. There is reference in the Bible regarding a father selling his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21: 7-11). Do we take this literally and consider it a right or have we matured to a stage where we can read the Bible bearing in mind the time period that it was written?
There is also reference to separation of man and woman in the Bible. Look it up; iit is interesting reading. For myself I believe that should there be a God he (she) would have a very open mind and that ultimately we are all responsible for our own actions.
Dear Daphne,
I will be in Malta for a few more days and I’m doing a study on the possible introduction of divorce and I would love to speak to you about it. I’m sorry to ask you like this but I could not find an other way to get in touch.
Best
Laura