Pullicino Orlando questions PN's 'toothpaste and chocolate' liberty

Speaking during the last session debating the divorce motion, divorce bill promoter Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando expressed concern at the approval of the PN's executive committee resolution against divorce when the same party had for years fielded pro-divorce candidates who “when it came to the crux, had come out against divorce.”

“I cannot understand how a party that embraces liberty could take such a step,” he said. “Was the liberty we fought for under the 'Work, Justice, Liberty' banner of the 1980s only limited to the choice in toothpaste and chocolate?” he asked. “Is not the liberty to choose within one’s family and happiness not valid?”

He questioned how others could expect to make that choice for them. “What rights do people have to determine the freedoms or others, or limit those freedoms?”

He said that if the party didn’t believe in the concept of family, he wouldn’t have not been so active within in it for the past decades. However, referring to the principle of solidarity, Pullicino Orlando said the party's mask was coming off. “For some, family seems to be limited to those lucky enough not to have fallen on hard times. Other families don’t seem to exist.”

He questioned how the PN could believe in the principles of solidarity when it was ignoring all those children who are finding themselves in broken families, and end up with less rights children lucky enough to be brought up in families without marital breakdown.

He said that the PN believes in family, “but is it just the family that has had a serene history? Or do second families who live in harmony and have had children not worthy of this appellation?”

“Is it just the people who got it right at the first go who are entitled to a family? Are we perpetuating a caste system?” he asked.

Pullicino Orlando also accused those who claimed the divorce referendum question was misleading or sugar-coated, saying they are only seeking to impose their morality on others. He said that so far, all those opposing the wording of the referendum question “have not yet said what is precisely wrong with it.”

“I have been saying from day one that if we can improve the bill, my colleagues are welcome to deliver their feedback. Nothing is written in stone,” he said. "Since this was not the case, and the referendum question (along with the private member’s bill it was based on) those opposing the bill are doing so not because they think there is something wrong, or because it would be damaging to society, but because they want to impose their morality on others."

“This is the crux of this debate,” he said.

He also said that the referendum question that was put to the Irish population is identical to that proposed by the Opposition’s motion. “There is a strong attempt to divert public attention away from a proposal that would address the problems and suffering that many families are currently facing.”

He also accused the government of resorting to parliamentary procedure “to put hurdles in the private members bill so that it never gets to referendum."

The MP said that he had initially disagreed to hold a referendum on divorce at first. “Like Eddie Fenech Adami, I felt that minority rights should not be submitted to referenda, but following discussions with the Prime Minister, I understood that since there was no popular mandate, we should therefore go to the public with the issue.”

He also said that should the divorce question be a simple 'yes or no' question, he would militate in favour of the 'no' vote, as he said he would not feel comfortable with a blank-cheque divorce.

However, he said that even others within the PN executive felt that the party was going to be damaged through these parliamentary obstacles – “even those who oppose the introduction of divorce.”

“I am not happy with voting in favour of an Opposition motion, but this is what I feel I must do... We shouldn’t obstruct the public from making a free and informed choice on the issue.”

He also hit out at claims by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who said that Ireland’s divorce was worse than the proverbial Las Vegas-style divorce, describing these statements as “ridiculous".  He called on politicians making such statements to accept the responsibility of attempting to deceive the people in such "a gross manner".

Replying to criticisms that the bill does not incorporate the principles of ‘fault’, Pullicino Orlando also said that all those countries who had introduced fault-based divorce had eventually removed it, due to the damage it had on families and children during the process of separation and divorce.

He said that those bringing these arguments to the table “know that there is nothing behind these arguments. When I hear these ridiculous arguments, the misleading agenda behind the statements becomes clear to me.”

Replying to Minister Tonio Fenech, who was heard muttering loudly in dissent at this point, Pullicino Orlando sarcastically ‘invited’ him to be silent. “If you would like me to take up your time by interrupting you, as you are doing now, I will gladly do so,” he said as the Speaker called for order.

“What value does the word family have for a couple that has been separated for years? What is the good that comes from calling a couple who have no love or desire to be with one another, a 'family'? What good comes from denying them the choice to dissolve that bond and move on?”

Again hitting out at statements made by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, for saying it was not yet the time for the introduction of divorce, Pullicino Orlando said that “if not now, then when?” He referred to studies commissioned by the Curia said that until 2015, there would be 75,000 who underwent the trauma of a failed marriage.

“People are social animals,” he said, adding that it is rare to find someone who lives alone these days. This meant, he said, that in time, these 75,000 could very well end up cohabiting. “Is it responsible for a legislator to allow this to happen to allow this to happen without attempting to address the situation?

He said if left unchecked, it might lead to a situation there management-by-crisis, “which could lead to situations where drastic measures are introduced quickly and without time to consider them properly.”

One of these, he said, could very well end up being a quick-fix divorce, “Las Vegas-Style.”

Responding to how the Prime Minister had brought up the issue of abortion, Pullicino Orlando accused Gonzi and other MPs who conjured up the issue that they should be ashamed of themselves for "trying to scaremonger by bringing the abortion issue into the debate.”

He also responded to statements that “insinuated” doubt on his agenda, claliming he was trying to introduce abortion. “Have you worked as much as I did to oppose the introduction of abortion?" he told MPs. “They should research my speeches before spitting out such malicious arguments as these,” he said.

Referring to comments by anti-divorce Zwieg Bla Divorzju chairman Andre Camilleri, who said battered women should not divorce because it would allow abusers to remarry, Pullicino Orlando asked: "should this abusive partner separate from his wife, cohabit with another partner and proceed to beat her as well – as he freely can? Would this be ok with him, then?”

He said that Maltese law does not defend abused women who are not in stable relationships. “Does Camilleri think women should be nothing more than punching bags?"

He queried 'contradictory' statements by MP Beppe Fenech Adami who has spoken out against divorce, first saying that it would bring about instances where people remarry multiple times, and then saying that the current bill provides divorce only to the rich who can afford such divorce. “Which is it? Is it a case of everyone remarrying too much, or not enough people affording to remarry?” JPO asked.

He also rebutted claims that the referendum question for EU accession in 2003 had been a simple 'yes or no' question, referring to claims by Allied Newspapers director and anti-divorce campaigner Austin Bencini. "Let us stop deceiving the public... The question asked if the people wanted to join the EU in the light of the 2004 enlargement, not if it was in favour or against Malta’s entry into the EU in panicle.

“Democracy is not to be resorted to when it is convenient... After today’s discussion I vow that if the majority votes against the introduction of responsible divorce in a referendum, I will abstain from voting on the divorce law in parliament,” JPO said.