Edwin Vassallo conjures up the spectre of abortion in divorce debate

Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo said MPs should bear witness to their personal faiths in public and warned them not to fall into the “trap of moral relativism.”

Quoting Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas est (God is Love), Vassallo said that even laymen, in their public roles, had to live their faith. “The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society… is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State… they cannot relinquish their participation in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.”

He said the worst thing MPs could do was to ‘privatise’ marriage – referring to the pitfalls of relativism – “We would be threatening our economy, and social position, especially with the unrest we are experiencing in our backyard,” in a reference to the Libyan conflict.

Vassallo also claimed there was a divorce every 30 seconds and an abortion every five seconds in Europe “because of our liberalism… do we open up to this culture, or do we fight it?”

In tackling the question as to whether voters could choose a form of ‘responsible’ divorce by opting for a dissolution of marriage after a four-year separation, he said anything else was superfluous to the matter of whether people “want divorce or not… full-stop.” “Take abortion… some people call it pregnancy termination, but it is still abortion.”

At this point, divorce bill promoter Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando protested at this line of reasoning, and could be heard audibly over the microphones in calling the Speaker’s attention.

Vassallo started again: “Let’s not forget that three Labour MEPs voted in favour of abortion…”

Here the Opposition leader Joseph Muscat raised a point of order, saying Vassallo was being factually incorrect. “The MEPs voted against a specific clause calling for abortive services, but voted in favour of the entire report which called for the eradication of poverty.”

Vassallo, resuming, said that once divorce would be introduced, whether ‘responsible’ or not, it would have been introduced. “This is the mentality of the permissive, the theory of relativism and secularism, accepting everything as long as we are accommodated.”

Earlier on, Vassallo said the holding of a divorce referendum would undermine any discussion in parliament or the importance of MPs in deciding on the matter, if this takes place before a bill is voted upon. He outlined the MPs supporting divorce and the media for “distorting the facts as they saw fit” by attributing some form of mandatory authority to what would be a consultative referendum.

Only last Sunday, a survey by the Sunday Times found 58% would vote in favour of a referendum question as proposed by the Labour motion.

Vassallo claimed the consultative referendum did not bind MPs to rubber-stamp any such legislation. “This interpretation is being used, as MPs and the media use it, to say that if MPs vote against the result of the consultative referendum, they would be committing something grave. This is the kind of arm-twisting that is taking place. For me, this is ‘irregular’ behaviour.”

Vassallo said that going for a referendum now would “remove the importance of a discussion in parliament and undermine MPs’ moral duty to take a decision as it benefits the electorate.”

The Labour motion for a referendum was presented in parliament days after the Nationalist party approved a party resolution against the introduction of divorce, giving a free vote to its MPs on the divorce bill, and then hold a referendum only if the bill passes.

Vassallo pointed out that parliament was not discussing a matter of conscience, that is debating divorce itself, but whether it should approve a referendum on divorce without a bill having been passed.