Defender of the bond | Beppe Fenech Adami

He carries the weight of his father’s aura, and prides himself to be an echo of those same principles and values he was brought up to not only believe in, but also to defend.

Second-born son to PN grandee Eddie Fenech Adami, 42 year-old Beppe, who was elected to Parliament in 2008, considers divorce as one of the “biggest decisions” to be taken by the country in the last 30 years.

Adamantly against the introduction of divorce in Malta, Beppe insists that should the country legislate in favour of divorce, it would “radically change society.”

But why does he think so?

Fenech Adami contends that beyond the religious argument, where marriage is considered an indissoluble institution, it is also becomes a matter for the State, which must ensure the protection of its citizens.

“What we are being asked to legislate is a ‘no fault’ divorce, where anybody can just walk away from a marriage, and obtain a divorce,” he says, adding that the law would practically give a free hand to any man or woman to walk out on his or her spouse, run off with a younger partner and remarry, leaving the first spouse high and dry.

Matters become worse when the first marriage would have borne children who would need to be maintained, and the subsequent marriage that would also bear children would also need maintaining.

“Remarrying would automatically give the new spouse the right to half of her husband’s earnings, besides caring for the children born out of the new family.

“Now consider a situation where the father would have had children from the first marriage, and is obliged by law to maintain them: can you tell me how he will afford this, unless we pass a divorce law that says whoever remarries must double his salary?”

As I try to interrupt him in a bid to explain that separated fathers or mothers who have had children from two relationships are still obliged by law to maintain children, and that the proposed law specifically provides for the protection of children, he insists on what he defined as a “catch” in the proposed bill.

“Don’t be blinded by the icing that coats the pill,” Fenech Adami says, adding that words like “guarantees for maintenance and protection of the children are hypocritical illusions.”

Fenech Adami insists that a normal working man earning €1,000 a month who would obtain a divorce could never afford to maintain a new wife and children.

“It would be absolute madness, because €500 of that salary would now belong to his new wife, then he would have to provide for his new children and also for the children from his previous marriage, and possibly also for his previous wife.

“If you had to ask me what I, as an MP, am being called to legislate, I would reply that this is a recipe for disaster, unless you brand it as ‘the rich man’s divorce’, because only the rich will eventually be able to afford one.”

So doesn’t Fenech Adami think that things would be different with cohabitation?

“Cohabitation exists and is not illegal, whereas divorce is illegal because it does not exist in our laws, so by regulating cohabitation one would simply be recognising certain rights to unmarried couples or persons under the same roof.”

Asked to expand, he says that it is dishonest for anyone to hit out at government over its intentions to present a law on cohabition rather than introduce divorce.

“Cohabition is legal and must be regularised for the benefit of all parties who share the same roof. It could be an unmarried couple, siblings or students or whoever, who would be granted certain rights to protect their interests should something go wrong between them while they live there.”

Fenech Adami however insists that cohabiting couples must never be granted the same rights and obligations as married couples.

I point out that it is specifically for this reason that pro-divorce campaigners insist on the huge difference between regularising cohabitation and legalising divorce.

“Government can never look at regularising cohabitation as some sort of substitute for divorce, as cohabitation is not marriage,” he insists.

On annulment, Fenech Adami states: “I am all for a more reasonable time in obtaining annulments, especially in cases which are straightforward.”

Is that all, however?

“Well, beyond the argument of responsible and prepared couples who enter marriage, the State must ensure that families remain healthy by constantly introducing family-friendly policies.”

Fenech Adami strays from time to time into criticising the opposition, who according to him has been “irresponsible” by simply “playing to the gallery” on the matter.

As he explains that no political party has a mandate to introduce divorce, it was obvious that a referendum must decide the issue.

“So while Joseph Muscat initially expressed himself against a referendum by even stressing that it would be a waste of time and money for the country, he is now insisting on one, conveniently playing an opportunistic game.”

“The worst part of it all is that Labour persists in playing to the gallery and refuses to take a stand on divorce, while conveniently fomenting confusion.”

I take him up on the word ‘confusion’ and refer him to the way the PN is handling the issue.

One week ago the PN’s Executive Committee voted by show of hands to take an anti-divorce stand, while also deciding to hold a referendum after a parliamentary debate.

The decision triggered an immediate reaction from pro-divorce campaigners who stressed that the referendum on divorce risks not being held, as anti-divorce hardliners were preparing to shoot down the bill in parliament.

That same day, Prime Minister and PN leader Lawrence Gonzi stressed during a press conference that he will vote against the bill but “hoped the people would have their say in a referendum.”

But that position changed on Monday, after Gonzi expressed his “readiness” to consider a referendum before a debate in the House, while also going a step further by changing his position on the question to be put to the electorate.

“What did you expect the Prime Minister to do when the Leader of the Opposition, while refusing to take a stand on divorce, starts to change the goalposts?” Fenech Adami asks.

“We are a political party and we must react whenever the goalposts are changed.”

Fenech Adami is of the opinion that the House commands an anti-divorce majority.

This situation poses a critical dilemma for the Prime Minister, who holds a single-seat majority in the House.

MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has already declared that he will not be giving in to any changes to the bill, and on many other issues related to the divorce debate, including the question to be put to the electorate.

Fenech Adami takes a swipe at his backbench colleague Pullicino Orlando for presenting the bill without consulting the Prime Minister and fellow MPs, while standing by the Prime Minister’s proposal to have the referendum question reduced to a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to divorce.

He claims that the way Labour’s motion has proposed for the questions to be is “biased.”

Biased?

“Yes, because the questions that Labour proposed for the referendum are not objective, and conveniently highlight the nice parts of the JPO bill, and ignore the perils to our families and society the same bill will bring.”

Fenech Adami adds that the question: ‘do you agree to divorce after four years apart, all avenues for reconciliation have been exhausted while maintenance is guaranteed and children are protected?’ is an “outright biased, unfair and distorted interpretation of the proposed legislation.”

While he insists that Muscat has turned the divorce issue into a political contest whereby he is instigating an anti-Gonzi vote, Fenech Adami says that the electorate is being blinded to the “real threats” behind such legislation.

“I insist that this bill proposes nothing more than a ‘no fault’ divorce, where any spouse can walk out one another and obtain a divorce without the other part even consenting to it.”

Fenech Adami remains unfazed by the fact that Malta remains the only country – except for the Philippines – to resist divorce. “Who cares if we are the last or the only? This is not a competition, but a matter of protecting our society from unnecessary decadence, and increased suffering to those who are already suffering.

“Those who would really benefit from divorce are those few who would find it convenient to probably run off with a younger partner, remarry and cast aside the previous spouse, causing further suffering, not to mention the children.”

So with such a hardline view against the introduction of divorce, Fenech Adami says that he will be making his voice heard during the ‘campaign’ towards the referendum.

“I will make my voice heard and definitely will not sit still, as it is my duty to warn the electorate about the high risks to our society by introducing divorce.”

But in the hypothesis that the majority of the electorate would say yes to the introduction of divorce, what would Fenech Adami do when the bill comes up for debate in the House?

“I will stick to my principles, and let us not forget that what the Labour Party is proposing is a consultative referendum. How can we ever change our fundamental beliefs?” he asks, though he admits that it has now become quite a complicated issue, given that Pullicino Orlando is adamant not to accept any changes that are expected to be pushed through by the hardline anti-divorce faction.

“Yes, it is a problem, and on many fronts it is a big problem! On the one hand it proves the PN right when issuing its resolution (that a parliamentary debate was necessary before the referendum); and on the other, the way things have changed now – should a referendum favour divorce – it would could potentially send the House back to the drawing board.”

The whole issue risks jamming the entire parliamentary process, as Pullicino Orlando persists in standing his ground.

The Prime Minister himself is one of those considered to be adamantly against the introduction of divorce, and should the House approve the bill leaving government without a majority on this ‘big decision’, as previously described, does Fenech Adami forecast a showdown?

“Well, let’s not be too dramatic about it. We’ll cross the bridge when we come to it.

“After all, this is what democracy is all about.”