State should uphold duty to ensure stable families - Azzopardi

Speaking in parliament during the ongoing divorce debate on Monday 7 March, Azzopardi said that he could not understand how Maltese state has not assumed responsibility of participating in the preparation of couples about to get married..

“That responsibility was abdicated and left to the hands of the church,” he maintained, adding that because of this, “not everyone takes them seriously – and we cannot oblige them to.”

“But if the state feels that families are so important for the solidarity and stability of Malta, shouldn’t the state also participate in the proper preparation of couples for marriage?”

He also claimed that current statistics on the subject are flawed and a measured and reasoned debate required reliable statistics.

He claimed that the percentage that 22% of Maltese families are broken down and separated was incorrect and represented “intellectual dishonesty”. The true figure, he claimed, was either 3% (when compared to the whole population) or 7% (when compared to the total number of married couples).

He also said how, despite being exposed to Roman, French, and English legal systems during Malta’s time as a colony, the country’s legal system had never felt the need to absorb the concept of divorce.

Azzopardi also hit out at the proposed question, saying it is simplistic loaded, and leaves out issues and considers that are crucial to the ‘identity’ of divorce.  “It will not help the people to vote on an issue in a manner that does the population justice,” he said.

Azzopardi also countered claims that the majority was imposing their morality on others, he said that such thinking represented a dictatorship of relativism and that there is also the social reality that the debate needs to consider.

He referred to the experiences of other countries that had opted to introduce divorce, pointing to “the explosion of social benefit costs, and drastic drops in marriages” as the effects of such laws.

He also claimed that studies show a link between divorced parents and criminality within youth, as well as links between increased social benefits and divorce.

In his own address, Nationalist MP Robert Arrigo remarked how the divorce debate had become a game between political players. “We have entered a situation where the political mileage has been put above the issue,” he said.

He maintained the issue should not be turned into a political issue that parties should not be turned into a political ball, and that debate should be measured and meaningful, not for politicians to parade in front of the media and on the headlines.

He also raised concerns that the children involved will be “voiceless” in the issue, as nobody is so far representing their interests in the ongoing debate.

During his own address, Labour MP George Vella reiterated more than once that is against divorce, but that, at the same time, one must recognise the current reality and keep one’s feet grounded in the present.

He said that, in the face of families that have broken down and are suffering because of it, “we cannot expect to think as if we are in some heaven and act as if others are not suffering due to the current situation.”

He added that while his convictions are of the Catholic persuasion, “my job is not simply to represent Catholics in parliament.”

He also drew attention to the inherent ‘contradiction’ of how while the government was opposing divorce on moralistic and ethical grounds, nothing at all was heard with regard to cohabitation – something that is roundly condemned on moral principles by the Christian faith.

He also hit out at the way individuals can obtain a divorce abroad, pointing out that government had never found a problem with this situation and had never attempted to rectify it, either.

He also dismissed arguments that divorce is against the common good, describing these as ‘logical acrobatics’. “So it is fine to be in a broken marriage and separate, but suddenly it is against the common good to break up that marriage?” he asked.

“Are children not already suffering when they see their families breaking down?” he also asked, reacted to concerns that children would be further harmed through the introduction of divorced.

Speaking in parliament, Labour MP Justyne Caruana also maintained that if divorce ideally were to be introduced into Malta’s legal system, “it should be part of a holistic effort towards strengthening family.”

She hit out at government’s “hypocrisy in claiming that it is opposing divorce because it is protecting the family, as it itself is the biggest threat to the family in recent years.” She maintained that never before have the family been under greatest threat and the country is witnessing “a record” in family break up numbers.

She maintained that we cannot sweep our problems under the carpet. “I am determined that if we keep sweeping problems under carpet we would be adopting an ostrich mentality and approach top politics.”

Caruana also hit out at Dolores Cristina’s claims that divorce would harm children, claiming that her position shows that she possesses no knowledge “on the ground.”

She maintained that as far as children are concerned, it doesn’t matter whether we are talking of separation, annulment, of divorce, because what matters to them is a loving nurturing family.

The question is what is government doing for these children? “There is a lot of suffering among children that is due to their parents and family breaking up.” She referred to comments that said this damage lasts for longer than 40 years of suffering – this, she said, to government means nothing, it seems.

She said that despite how Malta’s legal system supposedly deems the children as most important, “the system often allows them to become a weapon in the hands of the children, children do not have any voice,” and also how they are not protected by a supposed Commissioner for Children.

She maintained that the PN shouldn’t have taken a stance and bound its MPs to speaking in a certain way and adopting a certain position, and augured that should the referendum approve the introduction of divorce, this would lead to a responsible approach to divorce legislation.

In his address, Nationalist MP Philip Mifsud said the PL’s position on the referendum was one of convenience. He also said that the Opposition had a blemished record with regard to referendums, also citing the Labour Party’s reactions to the EU accession referendum result.

He questioned whether the Opposition “would measure the result with the yardstick of 8 years ago, or would it conveniently adopt a new yardstick, as convenience dictates.”

He also reiterated the PN’s arguments that, aiming to undermine the PL’s position on divorce, refer to statements made by PL Leader Joseph Muscat wherein he said that divorce should be introduced by parliament, and not by referendum.