In the ongoing statements and counter statements being issued by both political parties, as well as interviews being given to the press by politicians, there seems to be a growing tendency to resort to fear tactics by the anti-divorce camp.

As the debate heats up, and as the day draws closer to a possible referendum, it is understandable that tension levels will rise, however this is precisely why now is the time for everyone to step back and review the issue more calmly.

There is nothing worse than asking people to vote on such a crucial issue when they are being bombarded with misinformation, rather than the facts. The type of almost hysterical rhetoric being used, which seems to be aimed at scaring people (especially women) that their spouse will leave them for a younger, more attractive person just because divorce legislation is introduced, is simply playing on people’s emotions rather than asking them to use their logic.

Objecting to divorce as a matter of principle and because of one’s moral convictions is highly preferable and certainly more honest than whipping up hypothetical scenarios which are not only misleading, but also represent a glaring contradiction. For, taken one by one, each argument against divorce (people will walk out of marriages on a ‘whim’, there will be ‘no fault’ divorce, men will have to support children from different women) represents a scenario which is already taking place, and has been taking place with growing frequency over the last 30 years; in a country where it is impossible to obtain a divorce.

In the present situation, people still leave their marriages on what others might consider a whim, separation proceedings in Malta are already ‘no-fault’, and some men are already supporting two sets of children from different relationships. It is bordering on the deceitful to hint, or in some cases to plainly state, that it is divorce which brings about these scenarios. It is people who make these sometimes questionable choices, not divorce. It is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate to present them with these highly emotive images when the wreckage of broken families living precisely in this same way at this very moment, are visible to everyone with eyes to see.

To be fair, even some of those who are pro-divorce legislation are not completely well-informed either, and are labouring under misconceptions based on hearsay and what they see happening in other countries. Just to cite one example, divorce does not mean that a spouse who has been betrayed will automatically be entitled to higher financial compensation.

Along with the media, politicians have a duty to present voters with correct facts, so that when it comes to a vote, people will be basing their decision on concrete reasons rather than out of an intangible and often misplaced fear.