Less haste, more prudence | Joyce Cassar

Secularism is hard to come by in Malta at the best of times. At the height of an increasingly hysterical divorce campaign, the prospect of encountering secular arguments among ‘No’ lobbyists appears impossible.

But appearances are deceptive; and when I meet Joyce Cassar for this interview, she prefaces her entire contribution by affirming that she is “not a fundamentalist.”

What is it, then, that has prompted her to take a front-seat role in the campaign?

“First of all, I resent the fact that the divorce issue has been hijacked,” she begins. “The way the private bill was put forward in such a rush implies that no consideration has been given to how sensitive and delicate the matter really is...” 

More than the principle of the thing, it seems that Cassar’s primary objection is to the apparent haste with which the issue has been forced onto the public.

“I ask: what’s behind the frenzy of escalating the issue, as if it were a death-and-life matter? By this I am not being insensitive and ignoring the suffering of people; on the contrary I have a broader perspective of the various forms of suffering involved...”

Turning to the law itself (as proposed in the private members’ bill) she proceeds to dissect the individual proposals one by one... rather hastily, or so I thought as an interviewer trying desperately to keep up.

“When a divorce law does not make any distinction between victims and… others (not to use such an ugly term as ‘culprits’); when it gives the same rights and benefits even to the one responsible for infidelity, violence, abandonment…  when divorce gives the absolute right to separate without consent from the other party (except in very few cases, such as when the partner who is a perpetrator of violence and abuse will not consent to divorce or accept to undergo therapy); and when, for no reason other than the fact that you want a change, you ignore your commitment and responsibility… Divorce in this form will in the long term be more detrimental than beneficial to society. It will not solve the issue of suffering, except in few cases. Instead, it will increase the level of such suffering and the number of victims in future. This, in my opinion, increases social chaos.”

But doesn’t this social chaos already exist? I bring to her attention a question that is often asked in this context: in what way does divorce differ from separation in this regard? Why is the introduction of divorce considered such an earth-shattering prospect, whereas separation, with all its analogous results, is simply accepted as part of the scenery?

Cassar concedes that separation does take its own toll, but comes back with a surprisingly pragmatic reply. “You can’t legislate against separation, because you can’t realistically legislate against people upping and leaving their spouses.”

This perplexes me somewhat. Doesn’t the same apply to divorce, I ask? She shakes her head vigorously. “No, because divorce entails giving rights to those people who have abandoned their spouses. There is a difference between acknowledging that a reality exists, and changing how society works in order to accommodate people’s whims…”

This brings Cassar to one of her main arguments: in an age when professionalism is expected in all matters, she is frustrated by the apparent amateur way the country has approached such a serious issue.

“In a modern society, the State and other stakeholders opt to have impact assessments on virtually anything which is proposed – roads, bridges, public projects, etc. – in order to evaluate the consequences on both the individual and society in the short as well as the long term. So why are we not conducting an impact assessment on divorce, which is bound to have a profound impact on society… especially in such a small country?”

At this point I interject with a rather hackneyed question: does size really matter? Would it have been different, if Malta was a much larger country? And if so, isn’t this an unfair distinction to make?

“The issue of the size of our island is not being mentioned in any sense of inferiority; it’s more a question of logic. In larger countries, issues like the percentage of children who, in some years’ time, might to some extent or other be related, are on the increase. I am aware that this can happen anyway with cohabitation and separation; but if the consequences of divorce impact our society with the same increases experienced by other countries, can you imagine what structures we would be promoting?”

We agree to come to the supposed impact of divorce later. In the meantime, I point out that her arguments so far appear to be more concerned with how the bill was drawn up and piloted… rather than the issue of divorce in itself. Would it be fair to say that she is campaigning against the proposal in its current form, but not against divorce in principle?

“It’s true to say that I honestly don’t know where I’d stand, if I felt that a divorce proposal were responsible, had solid parameters for protection of the most vulnerable… including the children and victims of abuse, abandonment, rejection and infidelity, and so on. But as a responsible citizen I cannot be in favour giving rights to all arbitrarily! In society we have rights, yes, but these need to be closely bound to responsibilities. We cannot give rewards indiscriminately because in the long term this is what causes negative influences on mindsets especially the most vulnerable groups…” 

But would she consent to divorce legislation if it were presented in a way that met all these considerations? She pauses before replying.

“Let’s just say that, should the divorce issue not have been proposed in the manner it was, I personally would have had different considerations…” 

Among these considerations are a few important ones that have admittedly not been given their due prominence in the debate: for instance, fiscal issues.

“I am not a financial expert, but simple mathematics direct me to understand that if a country such as the UK has been considering introducing a new tax on divorce – proposed by the coalition government in the past months – this to me is indicative of some points of concern.”

Divorce rates are increasing in the UK, Cassar continues, and this constitutes additional economic burden on the state and taxpayer. 

“Our economic realities certainly should make us aware of the consequences on different levels; and therefore my claim that an impact assessment was necessary prior to any referendum is not only about the impact of a change on society as we know it, but on other issues, too.”

She points me towards article in The Telegraph by Ed West which purports to show divorce is ‘contagious’. 

“If divorce is contagious, then it changes the way we should look at something regarded as a fundamental right. Perhaps we should consider taxing it instead…”

Turning back to the proposed legislation, Cassar argues that it would only exacerbate existing social problems.

“The current proposal does not limit the number of times when a person can opt for divorce. The state and the citizens will therefore be bearing the brunt of such instances even if people would want to divorce a second, third and fourth time. Besides, the ‘no consent’ requirement presents a situation against the party who does not want to divorce… who might want to work and find a solution to the difficulty in the marriage. This is even more so when one considers that while at present we have a proposition for a divorce after four years of separation. There is nothing stopping this from changing at any time in Parliament. A year or a few years from now, it could be reduced even to six months. It can,” (she insists as I open my mouth to object) “and this has not been contested by the ‘Iva’ movement.”

Maybe not, but I’ll try and contest it now. Isn’t this true of any legislation passed through Parliament? There is nothing stop future legislatures from amending any law, if it has a majority in the House… and besides, the ‘alternative’ question (a straight Yes or No to divorce under any circumstance) would allow even more liberty to future generations to change the conditions as they deem fit.

Cassar acknowledges this, and even admits that she is not comfortable with the question as proposed by her own lobby group. But this, she argues, is all the more reason not to rush the legislation in the first place.

But the cornerstone of Cassar’s argument – secular though it undeniably is – is nonetheless virtually indistinguishable from the altogether more traditional argument we have come to expect from the ‘No’ lobby. Divorce changes the fundamental nature of marriage itself, with far-reaching social consequences.

“Divorce erodes the concept of marriage as a reference point,” she begins. “People are influenced by societal and cultural realities in their development both as children and also as adults. What becomes law is often equated to what is ‘right’. But that is not the case...”

I interrupt to point out an inherent flaw in this argument: few people would today argue that adultery should still be illegal (as it was before 1974 or thereabouts). But at the same time nobody would realistically argue that adultery is ‘right’. So isn’t it already possible to have something which is ‘legal’ without necessarily also being ‘right’?

“I am not saying that adultery should have remained to be an illegal act, no… still less that when culprits are caught they are to be stoned! I do understand that people have weaknesses, but the fact that it is not illegal has undeniably changed our mindset towards it.  People are becoming less secretive about it… and, might I add, often even boast about it. It is corroding healthy relationships, whether married or not, for infidelity happens anyway, in cohabiting and divorced couples. Does it make it right because it’s legal? This is my point with divorce and separation. While nobody can be forced to remain in a union if they want to leave, the fact that it is perceived to be a breakage of a union is possibly a deterrent for some people. I know many people who at some time or other had a moment of folly or weakness, and had a fling or even a relationship. But because they did not have the option of divorce – which would have given them the same rights and social recognition – they remained in their marriage. Today, 10 and 15 years later, they are still with their wives and husbands. Is this hypocrisy?  Or is it making an effort to make a relationship work, with all the ups and downs that life offers? I admit it can be a bit of both, but what I do know is that their families and children have benefited from their decision to stay together and have been spared the great pain of separation.”

Again, however, the objection practically raises itself: the ‘pain of separation’ still exists. The only difference is that in Malta we don’t call it ‘divorce’, and that the separated couples can’t remarry…

Cassar counters this with a sudden flood of statistics to prove that divorce has increased separation and cohabitations cases wherever it was introduced.

“To appreciate the impact on our society, we need to consider realities that occurred in Ireland – on whose divorce legislation the proposed bill was modelled. The Iona Institute studies indicate that in the 10 years since divorce was introduced, the number of separated and divorced went up by 100% while the number of cohabitating couples went up by 400%.  Children being raised outside married families constitute 26%...”

Possibly, but for every statistical study, there is one which produces equal and opposite results. I reply by pointing out a study which showed that the rate of separation in Ireland actually stabilised after the introduction of divorce… but Cassar returns fire with still more statistics.

“But percentages of children born out of wedlock have not stabilised or reduced anywhere where divorce was legalised. A Council of Europe study reveals that in France it stands at around 50%; Germany 30%; Spain 28% and Norway as well as Sweden around 54%. I’m not claiming that divorce is necessarily the culprit for this state of affairs; but neither has it solved the problem. I would say it is part of the contributing factors to such realities. Our percentages, on the other hand, are very different…”

By the same logic, Cassar reasons that legalising divorce will result in people perceiving separation as the right and correct thing to do. 

“This will destabilise even the way our children and young adults look at what is constant and stable, and the committal of contracts (if one wants to put it at this level). Nothing will remain permanent and we will increasingly become a society of disposables not only of goods but also of people. Ultimately, wisdom is what keeps societies strong and not absolute rights.”