The statistical facade

The stats produced by the anti divorce movement are a façade for strong religious convictions like those expressed by Eddie Fenech Adami on Thursday.

James Debono 29 January 2011, 12:00am

3 min read

Rather than being drowned in statistics divorced from a sociological context, the yes camp must turn the tables by campaigning for individual freedom and against paternalism. This is not a battle against religious convictions but a battle for the respect for individual conscience.

I refuse to engage in the battle of statistics simply because I refuse the whole lousy idea that individual rights (recognized by all countries in the world but two) should be sacrificed for the "common good".

For me the whole issue revolves on the freedom of individuals to make their own personal choices. If divorce is introduced everyone will be free not to make use it. If they really believe in marriage they should not be so scared of divorce which is all about giving a second chance to those who want to use it. The notion that this erodes the security of others leaves me baffled.

That is not because I don't believe in the common good and the state should not assist families in things like childcare and an educational system geared at increasing social mobility. For example, if the government believes in strengthening families it should not join the race to the bottom by dishing contracts to companies which barely pay the minimum wage.

But I do not subscribe to the notion that marriages break down because of social factors. Surely family-friendly policies will make the life of families better but that won't stop people from falling out of love with each other. Most marriages break down because people make mistakes and it is only human to err.

Even if divorce is introduced most people will still marry with the idea of a permanent and stable relationship in mind. But with or without divorce people will continue to make wrong choices or to fall victim of circumstances beyond their control. These people are simply creating new families through cohabitation. What we have here is a forced cohabitation regime. Given a chance some of these people would choose to re-marry. If we legislate on cohabitation without introducing divorce, we end up institutionalizing this forced cohabitation regime.

On the other hand divorce gives these people a second chance in building a stable long-lasting relationship.

Blaming social problems on personal life choices is an old trick of those who ultimately are only interested in retaining the status quo. It is social problems which need collective solutions to ensure a better family life for divorced and non divorced alike. Instead the anti divorce brigade seeks to impose a collective solution on individuals who would otherwise choose to divorce and remarry.

What I suspect is that many are hiding behind the common good argument simply to refrain from saying that they are simply against divorce for religious reasons. Ultimately as Eddie Fenech Adami himself declared in yesterday's radio discussion: 'Jesus Christ said divorce is wrong and that is the truth'. The stats are a façade for a purely religious argument.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

Alfred Galea •

Mikey, that was one dumb comment.

Albert Zammit •

@ LOLA: Listen, and this is the truth: most married men and women, but especially men, are unhappy with their lot! It's a fact. If they could, if they were free, they would turn the clock back, they would leave their wives and start again, or live alone - they would prefer it, believe me. I notice married people around me: they are BORED TO DEATH! THEY ARE SO F****ING BORED THAT YOU SEE IT WRITTEN ALL OVER THEIR FACES: IT SAYS 'BORED'! Women are the same thing: most of them don't like having more sex and to look good to their husbands, after their first child or, at best, after a certain age. They don't give a damn about looking good for their husbands, they don't want to have sex with their husbands - have 'eadache! - and they push their husbands away, physically. This is the truth: whether you are courageous enough to admit it or not, it's there for all to see! And that is why many people are afraid of divorce: because the carpet is slightly swept off from under their feet and guess what? THEY FEEL THREATENED!

•

How has the 'common good', as defined by staunch fundamentalist Roman Catholics, helped victims of domestic violence who were encouraged to keep their mouths shut in the interests of their families? How has the common good helped victims of abusive priests by being encouraged not to report these cases of abuse to the authorities? The 'common good' is there for the benefit of those who are in a position of influence and able to dictate to the rest of society what it is that makes up the 'common good'. For me, the 'common good' is treating citizens as adults who are quite able, thank you very much, to make up their own minds. Catholicism is, not to put too fine a point on it, totally bankrupt, run by closeted homosexuals and pedophiles, deluding themselves that they have a divine vocation when in reality their decision to join the infamous ranks of the priesthood and religious life is motivated by self-interest which interest amounts to no more than a career move. And no I am not saying that homosexuals are pedophiles but there is no denying that some are ... just as there are heterosexual pedophiles ... and bisexual pedophiles.

•

@ Pedro: "Te difference lies here, being against abortion personally but in favour of te chpoice for abortion is hardly the same as Brtiney Get a Life". That was my whole point. Each issue should be taken on its own merits or demerits. Not lame at all. "I agree with Lola, those who are pushing divorce will later push for abortion. Not all, but the main thrust of the liberals will". Then how do you explain the simple fact that the majority of pro-divorce people in Malta are actually anti-abortion? And even if this were not the case, divorce and abortion are separate issues. "No to divorce means a no to abortion". Actually it doesn't. Being the distinct issues that they are, they would both require separate legislation. It is possible to have a divorce law without legalising abortion as it is possible to have no divorce law and having abortion legalised. It is also possible to have neither.

•

Keenth Cassar, How lame. Te difference lies here, being against abortion personally but in favour of te chpoice for abortion is hardly the same as Brtiney Get a Life. I agree with Lola, those who are pushing divorce will later push for abortion. Not all, but the main thrust of the liberals will. No to divorce means a no to abortion

•

@ Lola: "I have heard the same argument you just used for divorce used for abortion. To say that you are personally not intending to ever use divorce but in favor of legalizing the choice for others is just a weak argument. The same logic is used for abortion". Its not even an argument...its a declaration of intent. And it is not only used for divorce or abortion. It is used for anything under the sun. Here's an example: "I will never buy a Britney Spears CD, but I will defend your right to buy one". Of course, you will tell me that there is nothing immoral in buying Britney Spears CDs...but this goes to show that even though the same "argument" (read declaration of intent) can be applied to anything, each must be taken on its own merits.

Jessica Chetcuti •

Lola, Is there such a thing as a floating voter when it comes to the subject of divorce? You are either for or against, there is no in between. One thing that you haven’t mentioned, are you happily married or not? If you are, then your opinion seems to be FU Jack I’m all right. If you are not married, then who are you to dictate why other people in a bad marriage cannot find happiness by obtaining a divorce? Incidentally you seem to be under the illusion that the only reason that people want a divorce is to remarry, this is simply not true. There are equally as many people who will clearly tell you...... Never again! However what is disturbing is the thought that this country is contemplating holding a referendum on the issue. As far as I’m concerned the only people eligible to take part in this referendum are people who are already married, in other words those who fully understand the issue. But that wouldn't be democratic would it? Incidentally I have been married for 47 years, but I recognise the fact that not everyone is as fortunate as I am. So who am I to deprive anyone of having some future happiness?....

•

@ lola biex tikteb u temmen lil Alla tieghek halaq lil Adam U Eva ma nafx jien LOLLLLLLLLLL possibli temmenn dawk l-istejjer? taf li dawk just huma stejjer bhala ezempju? almenu ghal min jemmen? madan kollu dawk huma kolha stejjer miktubin min nies - fl-ahhar mill-ahhar ma hemm xejn verita fil-0bibbja hlief gideb- u jekk wiehed jaqra il-bibbja sewwa u jifhem xhemm miktub jara xi hnizrijiet hemm ta kemm qatel nies inocenti eccetra nghid ghalija nisthi kieku nadura alla bhal dak. qatel trabi etc.. hemm miktub almenu... u halluna mohkom mimli bi hmerijiet.

•

@ Debono I have heard the same argument you just used for divorce used for abortion. To say that you are personally not intending to ever use divorce but in favor of legalizing the choice for others is just a weak argument. The same logic is used for abortion. This is why I am very hesitant to favor a divorce law for Malta. We will surely end up with the same arguments being used to push for abortion at a later date.

•

@Debono, you cannot say that divorce does not affect (not effect) others without providing some backing for your declaration. You are presenting an opinion and expecting it to be taken up without anyone questioning your position. On such a delicate issue, statistics are essential. Do you think that JPO and his elves should therefore not quote statistics?

•

@officer I also mentioned abortion, except it is not in the criminal code of many nations. It,like divorce is billed as a personal choice. This is the trouble with the lame argument tabled by J Debono, to say that one is personally against something they disagree with is simplistic and lame. It is dangerous and not a congruent argumentation

•

Ergajt insejt tafx. Andrew Farrugia alias

•

Nahseb qed nistenna xi professur tad-demokrazija bhalek biex tghallimni. Hallini tridx u tkomlix iddahhaq!

Peter Cassar •

@andrew farrugia you cannot even distinguish between public opinion polls (which simply provide a photograph of public opinion at a particular point of time) and statistics on things like cohabitation, re-marriage etc which must be studied in a social context. For example the availability divorce is not the sole factor effecting any increase or decrease in these phenomena. Obviously there are a variety of social and economic factors at work. This is a basic sociological fact. Secondly I never pushed an opinion by using surveys.

•

Skuzani ta, dejjem ninsa. Andrew Farrugia alias

•

Miskin, fejn irid ma jibbazax l-issue fuq l-istatistika! Il-princep tas-surveys! hahaha.

•

@past prime My cousin.s annulment procedure took 12 years and costs over 10,000 Maltese liri. My cousin's family are well off, but I pity the others who can.t afford it. Is this the kind of justice that our Church is willing to dispence ? God and Jesus Christ want us to be happy and not to despair in misery.

•

Those who insist on bringing in religious interpretation into the divorce debate are making a great disservice to the Maltese Catholic Church. Because in so doing, this people will highlight the fact that from the many key Christian Churches, (I repeat Christian) it is only the Catholic church that has no tollerance for divorce while they dispense annulments as a substitute. So please should we not keep the debate on civil ground and look at the fact that all the countries in the world have a divorce legislation underpinned by their substantial academic and cultural power?

Peter Cassar •

@ lola My whole point in the article is that i refuse the premise that this an issue which should be decided on the basis of statistics. Divorce is not imposed on anyone. It is a choice. Personally I have a happy marriage. I married with the intention of spending the rest of my life with my wife. I personally believe that marriage is a life long commitment. But I won't dream denying a second chance of happiness to others who were unlucky. Secondly the introduction of divorce does not effect my marriage and my personal choices.

•

can a journalist just do some digging and find out how long EFA sons annulments and his daughters husband's annulment took? can this be compared to the average time taken for such annulments by other Maltese during the same period? I had to wait more than 5 years for mine and know for a fact that their's did not. EFA cannot be considered anything but a hypocrite if he has his own church lackeys do the job for his family

•

Ah! This is good; i get it. Only the stats produced and interpreted by the great James Debono have value. Monstrously intelligent! Hahaha!

•

Ms. Lola The crimes mentioned are in the criminal code of ALL countries not just Malta and the Phillipines. Just like divorce ALL of these crimes are also crimes against human rights. Please think before attempting a reply!

Luke Camilleri •

Are statistics on Annulments kept? Does the Fenech Adams family hold the record ?

•

There are many hypocrites and fundamentalists who are using religion to come up with many different arguments against divorce. Obviously there are the advantages and disadvantages of divorce. It seems that many religious or pious people are very scared. This could be because their own religious marriage is built on a lot of false values and fear. It could also be because people, have sets of values forced down their throat. It is evident that nonsense, religious arguments and indoctrination have been used to brainwash these people who come up with stupid arguments. Good secularity needs to be achieved in Malta. There needs to be a separation of religion and the state. Whatever one thinks about divorce is his or her personal business, he has absolutely no right to force his or her beliefs on others. The government seems to be bringing up divorce and using religion and hypocrisy to try to distract the public from other things and issues which are more serious and require immediate attention. These divorce arguments are just a storm in a teacup. If people want to embrace true religion they should try to respect themselves more, they should start by helping those in need, loving others, not fighting, trying to improve themselves and their attitudes etc. etc.

•

Now I realize that this paper is pro-divorce. But don’t you think that readers deserve a little more than knee jerk responses based on emotion? If you are to convince the floaters, don’t you think that you could do more than recycle other people’s opinions and come up with something a little bit meatier?

•

Mr. .Debono, you claim that divorce gives people a second chance in building a stable long-lasting relationship. I am sorry, you are wrong on two accounts as was Karl Gouder yesterday. First of all, negating ones responsibilities in the first marriage for a ‘better chance with someone else later, is the sort of selfish attitude that is causing the very problems we are being faced with manifest by the numbers of separations in Malta. Secondly, I have not managed to find any research, try as I may, to prove that second or indeed, third marriages are more successful. If anything, I only seem to be able to locate information from Ireland, the UK and the US that says that subsequent marriages have increased chances of failure. I am open to being convinced about your opinion if you can provide me with any information to back up your opinion.

•

Mr. .Debono, the common good has been the stable foundation of all good democratic decisions. This is why we have made murder, rape, abortion, euthanasia, drug dealing illegal in this country. The individual criminal may see these as his or her individual right but their choices affect all of society. Divorce in a society where marriages are not breaking down at the exaggerated pace the pro-divorce people want us to swallow is not wise. One cannot ignore ow divorce will affect all of society.