|
Alan Castillo
Xemxija
St Pauls Bay
For years on end, this government has put forth various arguments to justify its unwillingness to introduce divorce in Malta. In the face of rational argument and statistical evidence to the contrary, its reasoning has been shown to be grossly unfounded on several occasions.
The government also claims that religion per se has got nothing to do with this matter.
However, the current Prime Minister is on record saying: “My priority is to strengthen the family unit and at the same time to help broken families. Divorce solves absolutely nothing. This happens to be similar to the teachings of the Church, but it is not dictated to us by the Church,” - ‘The deputy's hot seat’ - MaltaToday - 30 June, 2002.
And the current Social Policy minister has said: “I would vote against divorce in Parliament, I am a staunch Catholic and I have never made a secret of it. If people want divorce, they will have to vote for someone else,” - ‘My religion does not allow me to support divorce,’ (MaltaToday - 21st September 2003).
Besides the painfully obvious conclusions, how does this attitude of directly mixing religion and politics fare within the EU?
Vis-a-vis the above, I wish to share with the reader some extracts from the 2003 European Union report on Human Rights with regards to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
“Whereas religious freedom as enshrined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is defined as everyone's ‘right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ and ‘includes freedom to change his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance; whereas the right not to confess any religion is implied and deserves equal protection.
“Whereas religious beliefs and non-beliefs belong to the realm of individual freedom
“Whereas it is incumbent on governments to ensure that the rights of all persons to freedom of religion and belief or non-belief are fully protected
“Whereas the State should, by definition be areligious and whereas, in the absence of separation of State and religion or belief, it is sometimes difficult for believers or non-believers to live peacefully together, and problems for minorities might arise.
The statements being made by our politicians - as listed above for example - are, therefore, simply unacceptable. They are also anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
Besides being a restriction on the human right to marry, it would seem that the refusal to even want to discuss the introduction of divorce in Malta, could also be classified as government inaction and therefore, may even constitute a breach of right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Our Constitution enshrines the Catholic faith as our national religion. It is part of who we are. The Constitution guarantees freedom of practice. In essence, this means that Catholic values are embraced by the majority, but respect for minorities and their rights are also safe-guarded.
Whilst Maltese citizens who are currently suffering due to the lack of divorce in Malta are a minority, there are also many others who, despite their personal beliefs, do recognise it as a civil right.
It is accepted that should a couple opt for a divorce instead of a separation, they would be going against the teachings of the Church. However, this choice would be their own personal one by right, in the same way that Catholics may choose to use contraceptives for safe sex or to plan a family, have pre-marital sex and cohabit.
The laws of Malta do not provide for divorce, but they will recognise a divorce obtained in another country. Just as an example, this would be comparable to the government not allowing contraceptives on import licences, but would have no objections for individual citizens to bring them into Malta from abroad for personal use. In such a hypothetical scenario, the government would not be able to come up with sound reasoning to justify its actions. Such situations would be seen by the general public to be an intrusion over personal civil rights and choices, despite their Catholic faith.
The subject of divorce is no different. It is a personal civil choice.
Instead of causing more unnecessary suffering to the citizens concerned, it would only be humane of the government to embrace the democratic principal of discussion and put divorce on the national agenda.
Despite what some may say, divorce is not a threat to Malta's Catholic values. It is only the Church in Malta that sees it as a threat to its influence on our politicians and, consequently, to its vice-like grip on power.
Discussing divorce on the national agenda would simply be the government's duty in following our own Constitutional principals, as well as the values that are practised and upheld in all EU member States, including staunchly Catholic Ireland, Italy and Poland.
|
