Stay out of the pigeonhole, Karl
Pigeonholes are for documents, not people.
I’ve just been reminded of one of the reasons why I prefer the Nationalist Party to the Labour Party (the other reason is that the Labour Party is rubbish and getting worse by the day).
It’s not all mouth and no trousers, which is precisely the phrase that springs to mind when I see the comic Labour trio – Joseph, Anglu and Toni – performing on some Sunday meeting stage.
The Labour Party blathers away, telling us that it is progressive while the Nationalist Party is conservative, and then it tackles homosexuality with all the tact of a blunderbuss in the hands of Colonel Blink, corralling the queers, pufti, homos, lezzies, nisa-rgiel and trannies (I use those words deliberately as they reflect the thinking of Labour’s core vote) into a special cage in its party HQ zoo.
Meanwhile, the Nationalist Party doesn’t mention the word ‘gay’ and ignores people’s sexuality as it promotes them through the party ranks. Whether you’re homosexual or heterosexual, all that matters is that you’re trustworthy and can do the job you’re paid to do.
This is the way it should be. The logical conclusion of everything gay rights activists are supposed to be fighting for is to be treated no differently to anyone else. If the sexuality of heterosexuals is completely ignored as a non-issue, then the sexuality of homosexuals should be ignored too.
It’s just not relevant.
This attitude was summed up by another Nationalist politician, Sliema councillor Cyrus Engerer, who is also homosexual, who told the press: “The prime minister said he has no problem with his candidates being gay, as long as they have no problem with it themselves.”
To make an issue of ‘gay rights’ in 2010, as the Labour Party’s official line has it now, is atavistic – but not anywhere near as atavistic as the homophobia and contempt for pufti and nisa-rgiel manifested everywhere else in the Labour Party, which accurately reflects how their very non-progressive, ultra-conservative electors feel about shameful freaks and sexual deviants, as they see it.
So while the Labour Party blusters on about the Nationalist Party being anti-gay – something it is able to do because its audience doesn’t know just how many gay people are promoted through and by the Nationalist Party without any trumpets being blown because their sexuality is a non-issue, the Nationalist Party takes one of its promising information office people and co-opts him to parliament to replace Michael Frendo.
The man happens to be homosexual. The Nationalist Party says nothing about it, for the very same reason that it wouldn’t issue a press statement announcing the co-option of a ‘heterosexual MP’. Malta Today trumpets a front-page headline: “PN chooses Gouder, first openly gay MP’, setting the stage for the young politician to be defined by his sexuality.
Meanwhile, a cheesed-off Labour Party says nothing, having had the rug smoothly whipped from beneath its feet on this one.
The newsroom irritants have begun to circle Karl Gouder already with their questions about gay rights, gay issues and gay votes, revealing that they cannot see beyond his sexuality and that, to them, he is the token homosexual in our All Sorts parliament.
If I might offer some advice to Gouder by means of this column, it would be this: be emphatic in your refusal to allow yourself to be classified as a homosexual politician. Do not lend yourself to anything that begs your participation primarily as a homosexual. Politely refuse to be pigeonholed as the politician to whom journalists resort when they need an opinion about gay rights. Stand your ground on this or you will in the end be undermined and moved out of the mainstream.
Women have been through this already and many have defeated their own aims by allowing themselves to be defined primarily as women: women politicians, women columnists, women artists, women bankers, women lawyers, women this and women that. Get on the minority treadmill and you’re stuck there for good, spinning in circles.
If you’re going to join the race at all, join the main race – the one in which the (straight) men are running. I learned this lesson a long time ago, when I was just starting out, from Ena Cremona who went on to become a judge at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
I rang her sometime in the late 1980s and asked whether I could interview her for an article about women and work, and she said no. “I never pigeonhole myself as a woman lawyer,” she told me, “and I avoid participating in seminars, interviews and articles that pigeonhole women as special cases. It implies that men are the mainstream and women are not, and it is self-defeating.”
I didn’t abandon the feature article – I had been commissioned to write it, so write it I did as there were other women to interview – but I certainly changed my outlook. From then on, I decided I was going to run with the men, and if that meant I was going to be seen as an honorary man, then so be it. I can tell you that it’s a hell of a lot better than being a token woman or the habitué of some perceived minority ghetto.
I believe I read somewhere that Dolores Cristina, too, avoids specific ‘women’ questions and nobody has ever suspected Giovanna Debono of being a token woman.
It is in the Labour Party that this obsession with tokenism and quotas and special treatment manifests itself so utterly. Labour politicians play up the fact that they are women as though they are stuck in the early 1970s. Marlene Mizzi made use of a really silly motto recently – I forget where, but it was probably on Facebook: ‘Whatever men do, women can do backwards and in high heels.’
Such rubbish – what sort of mind would divide the abilities of the human race according to gender rather than, say, intelligence quotient and aptitude? There are legions of incompetent women and legions of incompetent men, and it just so happens that I know far more incompetent women than I know incompetent men, but that’s almost certainly because most Maltese women have been out of the workforce since the age of 25.
They’re not incompetent because they’re women, but because they have little or no training and experience.
Karl Gouder starts off with an inestimable advantage. He is a man and doesn’t have to elbow his way into the men’s race while the women cling to his ankles and try to drag him down into their self-consoling ghetto. But he’s got to avoid being given the ‘women’ treatment.
He will be besieged by pests asking him for his views on gay rights, just as back in the early to mid-1990s when a woman in the forum was a novelty, I was endlessly harassed by requests for participation in women’s seminars and women’s talk-shows and interviews about women and juggling work and family and all the rest of that annoying tosh.
I said ‘yes’ to some requests just to help out and invariably regretted it. Five years in an all-girls convent school have given me a lifelong horror of large groups of women, but mainly it’s because I don’t like ghettos of any sort. Homosexuals of both genders shouldn’t make the mistake that many heterosexual women made: they should stay in the mainstream and refuse to countenance any attempt at pigeonholing. Nobody can pigeonhole you without your compliance.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
51 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
You mention the trio Joey-Anglu-Toni. I cannot understand why the three have to appear together all the time.
It would make sense for the three amigos to appear together – holding hands, for instance, as if they were pop stars – if they were the leaders of a coalition.
In Italy, for example, it is OK for Berlusconi to appear with Bossi and Fini (despite the recent boat-rocking), because they are the three heads of the three formerly separate parties which then coalesced into the PdL.
But the Labour Party is not a coalition of parties. It is a party with three leaders.
The whole idea was a brainchild of Doctoralfredsant. But in his case, he was justified, as there really was a Lino Spiteri current (embodied in George Abela) and so there was a sort of coalition between the Santians and the Spiterites-Abelans.
But ever since Spiteri and Abela left the fray, things have changed. Keeping Joe Brincat and George Vella, and then the Lion of Change and the DNA Notary by his side was a big PR mistake for Sant.
Needless to say, he used it as a safety net in 2003 when he got rid of Vella and Brincat – but that was not the real need the triumvirate should have been satisfying.
Why is this triumvirate show still on the road? Is Toni Abela the head of a minority current within the Labour Party, like the other Abela was before him?
It wouldn’t seem to be the case. Farrugia is far from being a national figure or a heroic one. Toni Abela does not lead any minority current within the party. What’s the mess they’re hiding?
Wow. What a great insight into a very current topic. So succinctly wrapped up. Please Daphne, publish a book with all these essays. They’re great. Jeremy Clarkson does it with his ramblings on cars, as well as his Sunday columns, and they sell by the million. Why not you?
I printed them all off for free from the archive on this site, warts and all, hope you don’t mind , Daphne.
If they sell by the million, that’s because of:
1) the marketing engine plugging his mug and his bunion-headed program on national television;
2) the willingness of semi-educated twits like you to buy into any fad that is currently making the headlines. ‘Top Gear’ is a showcase of overrated technological fluff billed as ‘essential television’, presented by stereotyped male twits who are meant to come across as erudite and expansive just because they can memorize a script and hock it out with lots of clipped ‘r’s and dropsied ‘q’s; and in front of a studio audience of sycophantic morons.
3) the solipsist imbecility of a populace that can no longer distinguish between essential and unnecessary literature. What works for them is what works for everybody, and therefore that is what sells and what gets, in fact, printed.
Kill yourselves.
So true, Spiru. Once again, good free advice from Daphne, this time for Karl Gouder. Mark my words, this man will take the advice in his stride.
D, once again a perfect situation analysis, clear and articulate and a pleasure to read.
You seem to write about this subject quite a lot; I think it is probably because you are nervous about PN loosing a generation of gay & lesbian voters. The facile notion that one’s sexuality “is just not relevant,” could only be held by a heterosexual who has never experienced anti-gay bigotry first-hand and does not have gay or lesbian friends comfortable enough to share those experiences with her.
[Daphne – Only a man would say that. Women have been there and done that long, long before gay men came out in public. Like I’ve always said, in the past a gay man would hide his sexuality and get ahead of women who couldn’t hide their gender. When I started writing my newspaper column – in 1990, not the dark ages – The Sunday Times and The Times employed no women in the newsroom as a matter of policy and I was the first woman ever in Malta to write a newspaper column about politics and current affairs with my name and photograph on top. And people used to stop me and ask me, in all seriousness and without being aware of just how shockingly offensive they were, whether my husband or my father helped me write them, given that I didn’t have a brother. Been there, done that, can write the book and teach the gays. All my homosexual friends of both genders lead normal lives and do anything and everything they please without being discriminated against. That’s why we have time for each other. I can’t bear whiners.]
It is precisely BECAUSE so many traditional Labour voters hold anti-gay sentiments that an LGBT section of Labour needed to be established to confront that bigotry head-on through a special initiative.
By not having a LGBT section the PN is not saying, “We accept you as an equal citizen” as you suggest, but rather saying, “We don’t want to talk about that.” That kind of willful ignorance will never lead to full equality for Malta’s LGBT population.
[Daphne – I guess you haven’t read my article properly or understood it. Think of yourself as LGBT and you’ve stuck yourself in a minority. Take your sexuality for granted and everyone else will follow suit. Nobody cares, honestly. They just want you to do what you’re paid to do and shut up about your personal problems.]
Furthermore, any comparison to the trials of women in Malta to the trials of LGBT people strikes me a rather spurious. Although I’m sure you could provide me with ample anecdotes of male chauvinism, being a woman was never illegal in Malta; however being a gay man was only decriminalized in 1973, within your lifetime Ms. Caruana Galizia.
[Daphne – Look, if you’re going to draw your sword for gay rights, at least get your facts right and avoid making a fool of yourself. Being gay was NEVER illegal. To make homosexuality illegal is as impossible and pointless as making blue eyes illegal. It’s something you’re born with. What was illegal was sodomy, and it was an illegal act between men and women as well as between men and other men. But even so, you could sodomise any willing participant to your heart’s delight and you were screwed only (metaphorically) if your sexual partner decided to denounce you to the police in exchange for having charges waved against him/her. Did it ever happen? No. Not that I know of. The Oscar Wilde sodomy case made the news at the time precisely because it was so unusual, in addition to the participants being well known. But there was plenty of sodomy, rest assured, between men and women as well as between men and men. it was sodomy that was decriminalised in the early 1970s. And might I remind you that adultery was a crime, too. The comparison to the situation of women is far from spurious. If anything, the situation of women was far more grievous than that of homosexual men. Homosexual men had the full rights and status accorded to men by virtue of their gender. Women, whether homosexual or heterosexual, had virtually no rights at all. Gay men had the vote; women, whether gay or straight, did not. I consider the right to vote to be more crucial than the right to sodomise and be sodomised, but then it takes all sorts and people have different priorities.]
The idea that LGBT Maltese are not marginalized is made laughable by the above point alone, not to mention the thousands of rights and privileges not afforded to LGBT Maltese who do not have their partnerships legally recognized by the government. That inequality cannot be rectified by ignoring the problem; it has to be given special attention.
[Daphne – Take a crash course. Sodomy wasn’t illegal only in Malta. That’s why Oscar Wilde was jailed in the home of democracy and the free press: for sodomising his boyfriend when his boyfriend’s father brought his full weight to bear. And though the law stayed on the statute books in Malta until the early 1970s, it had long since become what is known as a dead letter. The last sodomy trial in Malta was….when, exactly? Now you’re going to tell me that this was because nobody sodomised anyone else in Malta in the 20th century, when it was one of the services openly promoted on Strait Street for a start.]
Like it or not, by virtue of being a pioneer, Mr. Gouder will be called upon to be a voice for Malta’s gays a lesbians. He should answer the call with pride, rather than shirking the issue as the majority of his party seems content to do.
[Daphne – As if, God forbid, how old-fashioned and backward-looking. This is 2010 not 1960. Karl Gouder should no more be a voice for homosexuals than Dolores Cristina and Giovanna Debono should be a voice for women. To hell with tokenism.]
It’s funny how people who do not ACTUALLY want to see gay and lesbian equality use semantics as a way to distract from the real and ongoing issue of discrimination.
Sure “homosexuality” (a term that came about largely AFTER the Wilde trials) was not the word used in the criminal code, but the illegality of sodomy coupled with the stigma afforded to homosexuals (as we understand them today) by a pseudo-theocratic society made being gay a de facto crime.
[Daphne – No, being gay was never de facto a crime. Crimes are always acts and can never be states of being. Homosexuality is not an act but a state of being. The act would be sodomy. And that was a crime even between men and women. Women whose husbands tried to sodomise them (and if they wanted to rid themselves of those husbands) would report them for attempted sodomy, even if it were not true. The fear of and resentment towards male homosexuality has a long socio-cultural history and very little of it actually has anything to do with religion, and by religion I don’t only mean Roman Catholicism because it spans the major world religions. Religion did not instill this fear and resentment, merely shored up a fear and resentment that existed already and ran with it. Women homosexuals were not similarly feared. The source of this embedded resentment is actually very primitive and centred on the obsession with reproduction and child-bearing in early societies that were threatened constantly by famine, disease, warfare and early death. A man who did not do his duty by coupling with women and bearing children was a dead weight and a threat. Women did not enter the equation of fear, even if they preferred other women, because they were routinely forced into marriage with men to whom they were not attracted in any case. In the Graeco-Roman world, for men to have sex with younger men was normal and acceptable – but then this was the mitigating factor: they were also expected to fulfill their duty to society by marrying and bringing children into the world, and they did so. Don’t get irritated, please – this is just an interesting discussion.]
Even if we can’t come up with specific instances of these charges today due to the hushed-up history of Malta’s gays, the threat of prosecution and ostracisation was very real. So no, I do not have my facts wrong at all, but nice try.
[Daphne – The hushed up history of Malta‘s gays? Do you know of any other society in the world where men could be openly gay at the time? ]
You seem to think it was a blissful time for Malta’s early 20th-century gays, living in the closet with the constant fear of blackmail and social and economic ruin at the hands of a spurned lover…but hey, at least they could vote! These negative societal attitudes die hard and required a special effort by those who first break them. I’m sure you as an obviously oppressed Maltese woman (for someone who doesn’t like whiners, you do go on…) should know that by now.
[Daphne – I was not at all oppressed, actually, and that is just my point. I told everyone where to stick it and just carried on, and my advice to gay people is to do the same. True, I have a strong character and tend not to give two hoots what people think, and that really helps, but to get anywhere in life you must have that attitude anyway – whether you’re heterosexual, homosexual, a man or a woman. The meek might inherit the kingdom of heaven, but they sure as hell won’t get anywhere on this earth. True, I have to put up with the inevitable ‘madonna, qisa ragel’, but I don’t think of it as an insult. And you would no more catch me posing in a ‘successful woman’ interview than I would ever recommend that anyone pose for a ‘successful homosexual’ interview either. The thing is this: when life doesn’t deliver up the goods, it’s easier to blame society, one’s parents, schooling, sexuality, or gender than to blame oneself. Yes, in the past it was very difficult for homosexual men (who were open) and for women, but nowadays? Society is completely free. There is no longer any excuse, so don’t try to find any excuse to cling to. I agree with Edward’s point that gay men in prominent positions are reassuring role models for confused teenagers, and I know for a fact that I was a reassuring role model for young women back in the days when I was one of the few women in the forum – but that’s about it. The real problem is parents. If parents accept their children lovingly then those children can take on the world.]
I wouldn’t expect you to understand quite how damaging living a closeted life is, but it is beyond clear to me now that your lapdog gays (you know…the one who don’t whine) have done little to educate you.
[Daphne – Marelli, what an insufferable person you are! I would say that your problems are largely due to your chippy attitude and not to your sexuality. Somebody with that kind of attitude is going to have interpersonal problems even if heterosexual. Lapdog gays? Educate me? Read my lips: I do not sort my friends and work colleagues into pigeonholes marked ‘gay’ and ‘straight’. ]
It’s a nice thought that gays and lesbians the world-round should just live their lives without any special attention to their marginalized social position, but it is all too Utopian and beneath an obviously intelligent writer such as yourself. We’ll get there someday Ms. Caruana Galizia, but not within either of our lifetimes. Until then, your complacency and denial are part of the problem.
[Daphne – We are there already, sir. You haven’t noticed, just as you haven’t noticed that Malta has become one of the most laissez-faire societies in Europe.]
I don’t think we are one the most laissez-faire society in Europe but we are definitely not the worst either.
I remember how surprised two Italian friends (man and woman, 22yr old) were when they saw Maltese gays walking in and out of a gay bar on the Sliema promenade without any care in the world.
They obviously expected that in a country where divorce is not legal, gays would be far more looked down upon.
Incidentally, Daphne, how do you interpret this seemingly paradoxical situation whereby divorce is still in some ways linked to ‘evil’ and being gay is not.
[Daphne – Divorce is considered evil for the same reason that homosexuality was considered evil in the past (I wrote about it in response to another comment here): a perceived threat to the established order. Gays were evil in the past because they represented a threat to reproduction and the family unit. Divorce is evil in 2010 Malta – and quite frankly, I don’t think it’s really seen that way at all – because it represents a threat to the family unit. And I don’t mean for religious reasons, either, but for social and economic reasons. The fear of divorce has very little to do with religion. Religion is just the excuse.]
In the UK in the 1990s, it was legal to sodomise a man but illegal to sodomise your wife.
“… because it represents a threat to the family unit … And I don’t mean for religious reasons, either, but for social and economic reasons. The fear of divorce has very little to do with religion. Religion is just the excuse”.
I tend to disagree with you on this one, Daphne. The Prime Minister once said something on the lines of “I want to fortify the family and also help separated families. Divorce is not the answer. It is only a coincidence that this is the same as what the church preaches, but the church has got nothing to do with it.”
This I find very, very hard to swallow.
Then, some other Nationalist MP also said that he would never support divorce legislation because he is a Catholic, and it would therefore be against his religion.
That’s from the Nationalist side.
Nothing on this planet can convince me that the ‘fear’ of divorce has got nothing to with religion. It has everything to do with it in my opinion.
[Daphne – The Roman Catholic religion says that members of its flock should not divorce. It does not say that members of its flock should oppose divorce legislation which ends civil marriages. And that’s why only unsophisticated ‘Catholics’ like Marlene Pullicino say that they will vote against divorce because that’s what their religion tells them to do. It has less to do with religion and more to do with sheer ignorance.]
From the Labour Party side, well, Joseph Muscat’s recent take on divorce is self-explanatory.
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2010/02/25/oh-go-on-joseph-put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is/
So in a few words, this country is condemned for divorce to be introduced when pigs fly.
[Daphne – I don’t think so. We’re heading for a crisis, for a start. This is only the first mass wave of broken marriages and new relationships that we’re dealing with, and already there’s chaos. We forget that marriage exists for a purpose and that purpose is social organisation and economic support for a ‘breeding unit’ and has little or nothing to do with religion. It never did. The government is going to try and sort this out by introducing laws on cohabitation, but it’s only going to make the situation worse by creating a form of bigamy: married to one, cohabitation rights with the other. Ridiculous. Divorce, remarry and have done with it.]
‘Funny’ thing is that with the cohabitation law in the making (a Nationalist initiative), homosexual couples will, for all intents and purposes, be afforded the rights that heterosexual married couples currently enjoy. But still, no divorce for heterosexual separated couples who wish to remarry.
[Daphne – No cohabitation law can give the same rights as marriage, for the simple reason that what makes marriage marriage, as opposed to cohabitation, are precisely those rights. In order to get those rights, and their concomitant duties, you have to sign a contract. That’s what marriage is: the contract.
I wish to make it clear that here, I am not saying that homosexual couples are anything ‘beneath’ heterosexual couples.
I am merely saying that in the rest of the world, divorce has always ‘come before’ any kind of legislation that ‘caters for’ homosexual couples.
[Daphne – Definitely. Anything else is sheer insanity.]
But of course, we are in Malta, where the ‘logic’ of chronology is non-existent in some cases. In this one, it seems we would rather fix something with a piece of Sellotape (biex nifthemu), rather than buy a new item.
And this is none other than the Roman Catholic Church’s doing.
[Daphne – I can’t see how it is the RC Church’s doing. If the RC Church objects to its flock divorcing, then it objects to its flock living together, too. It’s the popular vote, pure and simple. Support for divorce legislation has, until last year, been well below 50% of electors. It is only recently that it began to edge towards and even just past 50%. Another five percentage points and the political parties will be fighting each other to be the one who promises divorce legislation first.]
Sorry for my overly-strident reply. I’m new here and I thought that was the tone of this blog judging by your reply to me. :)
Really though, it is frustrating to see you write about how everything is just hunky-dory when I’m constantly hearing accounts of the physical and emotional violence inflicted on LGBT people for the very fact that they are different.
I agree with everything Edward wrote below. It’s refreshing to read your very enlightened attitude about sexuality, but only a minority of people share it with you. So no, I don’t think we’re there yet.
The only way to get a society that fully accepts LGBT people the way you do is through exposure, familiarity, and honesty. Like it or not, by virtue of being the first, Mr. Gouder is part of that process. And by writing about him as you have above, you’re part of that process too Ms. Caruana Galizia.
I would urge you to consider a more honest assessment of the social position of Malta’s LGBT community (who are often pigeon-holed no matter how hard they struggle against it). Your present view of “the most laissez-faire society in Europe” simply does not mesh with reality for most people.
” In order to get those rights, and their concomitant duties, you have to sign a contract. That’s what marriage is: the contract.”
Agreed; and this is my point exactly. The new cohabitation law will create a registry of sorts, where the couple has to go and register. Registry or contract, it’s the same thing. The registry will just be a place where a couple go to register, i.e. sign the whatever, that they both going to be ‘bound to be bound’ to the cohabitation law. It’s merely another name for a contract.
The details of the cohabitation law are not known in great detail at this point, but it surely consists of legal matters such as inheritance, a ‘community of acquests’ of sorts, what will happen if the couple separate thereafter (rights and obligations), rights concerning, for example, hospital visitations, and so on and so forth.
Bottom line is that in other words, couples registering at the whatever will have practically the same rights and obligations as a married couple (minus the right to adopt I believe), and this through registering / signing (a contract of sorts) or whatever.
It is merely the signing of a contract, just like marriage.
Heterosexual couples (separated or otherwise) who just want to live together with no strings attached will just keep on doing so. No such couple in their right mind will go and register, or get married at that.
So what’s the point of this cohabitation law for separated heterosexual couples who wish to remarry?
Divorce should be introduced through a minor addition to the current separation laws, allowing separated couples who want remarry to do just that; and be done with it already.
Dejjem induru mal-lewza jahasra, u iktar naghfguha.
Except for you, Daphne, giving sound advice to Karl Gouder instead of making an issue out of his sexuality and urging him what to do/not to do, all this, because he happens to be gay, is in itself a mistreatment of equality, which is contrary to what the LGBT Foundation was meant to be. Such an issue should never had been raised from the beginning.
As you had mentioned in a previous article of yours, isolating the LGBT was equal to creating a, ”group with a difference” i.e. discrimination.
Actually, the first case in the Collection of Judgments is a case going back to the 1860s – if memory serves me right – and it is about a man trying to sodomise his wife.
In the early 1900s a mother was giving her daughter some last minute pre-marital tips. “Some men are perverts ” she warned “and they like to stick it up the wrong hole. Beware.”
After about a year’s marriage, with a decent enough sex life, the husband said to his wife: “How about a bit of variety tonight? Let’s try it from the front for a change.”
“No way” she said “my mother warned me about men like you.”
I was told this story by an elderly lady, who assures me it’s gospel.
“When I started writing my newspaper column – in 1990, not the dark ages – The Sunday Times and The Times employed no women in the newsroom as a matter of policy and I was the first woman ever in Malta to write a newspaper column about politics and current affairs with my name and photograph on top. And people used to stop me and ask me, in all seriousness and without being aware of just how shockingly offensive they were, whether my husband or my father helped me write them, given that I didn’t have a brother.”
Did they really? It takes a person of exceptional gifts to write with the kind of venom that you continually engage in.
Keep flying the PN flag! Your Labour’s best asset.
[Daphne – Why do bitter people always favour Labour, even if they emigrated to Australia decades ago and their bitterness is the result of their homosexuality and nothing to do with politics? It’s amazing. Mr Chips. Gay chips, Labour chips – what else?]
And why are you so preoccupied about my age. I have no hang ups about it or getting old. Do you worry about getting old and becoming an old rag? Is not the alternative less pleasant? Many have not made it this far. One other thing: is there anything good with Maltese Labour? And you may well be wrong about my political views at least within the Australian context. For the record I am no great admirer of federal Labour. But if I were in Malta I would not demean myself to vote PN.
Great article. You impressed me. Thanks!
Charles Crawford seems a bit irritated with the way the Maltese, including you, are treating him…. look at this:
http://charlescrawford.biz/blog/malta-rubbish
[Daphne – Yes, I apologised for not posting a link.]
I think Mr Crawford is hyping it up himself by being overtly touchy over a few nonsensical blog comments. Otherwise, the Maltastar ‘exclusive’ has long been buried and it’s not like the whole island is buzzing with his name.
(Excerpt from my comment on Jacques’ blog – http://www.akkuza.com/2010/04/30/netiquette-no-longer-the-stuff-of-bitching/comment-page-1/#comment-3125 after visiting Mr Crawford’s whinery… or is it whingery? Pity the words don’t exist.)
[Daphne – The strange thing, Kevin Ellul Bonici, is that you and Jacques both like to think of yourselves as intellectually superior beings who condescend to pop in here once in a while, but the reason that you do is because this is where the action is. The alternative is talking to the few people who hang around your own spaces or mixing with the ghastly subliterate nutcases (and I mean nutcases) on sites set up by fixated bunny-boilers for the express purpose of vilifying me (and how obsessed do you have to be to do that?). Jacques just can’t get over the fact that nobody reads his blog because it’s so damned boring and irrelevant, and likes to make out (and kid himself) that the reason people read this is because it’s trashy. I guess it’s too tough to admit that I know how to do my job – communication – and he doesn’t. Here’s a tip, Jacques: try writing things that people want to read. If you haven’t got yourself an audience in five years, I’d say it’s time to give up.]
I know where the action is – no qualms about that. And I know it’s got to be gossipy for it to be entertaining. And I don’t particularly mind your double standards – no one is perfect. Since your blog is meant to entertain, it says more about the state of the so-called Maltese intelligentsia than about you.
[Daphne – Kevin, this might not have occurred to you, but even ‘intellectuals’ like to have fun. And the smarter intellectuals know how to talk to everyone, not just other intellectuals. Who uses that word, anyway? Straight out of the Soviet Union.]
But if your sole aim is to entertain, you cannot expect to be taken seriously when, at times, you believe you’re writing about the most critical issues that hit us. (The most threatening issues in life are generally very boring and tedious – and they emerge from afar.)
[Daphne – This blog is VERY serious, Kevin. That’s why the Labour Party feels so threatened by it.]
The fact that I don’t take you seriously is precisely why I sound condescending, when in fact I’m not.
[Daphne – You’re obviously not going to take me seriously if your standard is Sharon, but the least said about that the better. Maybe I should dress up as a cow and set up NO”EU and then you might listen admiringly.]
I have my own agenda, but I come here mostly because, yes, it’s entertaining. I work on the net so your bottegin is always ‘next door’. At times the laugh is on Gejsin & Co., but most often it’s more a matter of ‘what is she coming up with next?’ As I wrote some months ago, it’s a reality soap on a tabloid blog. Having said that, you are well on target when you switch to your alter ego (this article is a case in point).
If I had to take you seriously (as a political threat this time) I would have ignored you completely (let alone report your actions to the police!). And had I been a PL official, I would have been ever so thankful for your free and regular critique.
As it is, I have the best of both worlds. Plenty of laughs – not to mention TYOM, the Vladi site, which acquires added value whenever you retaliate. You should be flattered.
[Daphne – Flattered? No, I’m bored of the attention. I’ve had two decades worth of it, Kevin, certainly more than any politician still currently on the scene. It’s no coincidence that this sudden resurgence of obsession has happened now: 20 years is long enough for an entirely new generation to come on the scene, completely unaware that I have box-files of cuttings from 1990 with exactly the same insults they are using now, plus some different ones relevant to those times. This new generation of Labour bunny-boilers are so cut off from the scene that they don’t even know all this: I only came to their attention when I began using the internet to put my views across. That’s why they talk about me as though I’m a new phenomenon: because they’ve just discovered me.]
“Jacques just can’t get over the fact that nobody reads his blog because it’s so damned boring and irrelevant, and likes to make out (and kid himself) that the reason people read this is because it’s trashy.”
Oh, who could ever think DCG is thrashy! She is so, so, so sophisticated. A model for women. Just like the Virgin herslef.
[Daphne – The last person who knows what the ‘model of a woman’ should be like is an embittered homosexual man in his 60s. In the contemporary world, nobody speaks of models of womanhood anymore, except for your favourite target, the Roman Catholic Church. You can take a man out of the 1950s, but you can’t take the 1950s out of the man.]
Daphne, a wee bit off topic, but I refer to another ‘oppressed’ group. The Belgian government, an hour ago, passed a law outlawing the burka in Belgium. Would very much appreciate your opinion.
Very good article – my thoughts exactly, and by the way, Ena Cremona said the same thing to me once. In fact, I believe that she was the first womane lawyer practising in court in Malta and earned the great respect everybody had for her just by being “one of the boys”.
Why can’t these idiots who keep popping up in your blogs learn a lesson from women like Ena Cremona? You said that the Labour politicians are all mouth and no trousers, and these pseudo “successful women” appearing in all sorts of stupid interviews in their “antique laden” living-rooms – are all pozi and no brain, I tell you!
[Daphne – Yes, I know. One is either successful or one is not. Defining oneself as a ‘successful woman’ is ridiculous. The unspoken words there are ‘look, even though I’m a woman I’m successful’ or ‘I’m not that successful overall, but it’s not bad for a woman.’]
I’m ambivalent on this but on the whole I agree with you. A politician is there to serve all constituents and should act as such. Doesn’t mean s/he should ignore these issues that, after all, s/he know so much about and should bring their personal perspective to bear.
A distinction should be made between celebrities promoting certain issues… like Princess Diana and land-mines.
On the other hand, it reminds me of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy of the US military or the Republican party’s large number of self-hating closet gays in a homophobic party.
It never seems to be the time to openly take a stand on certain issues. If you asked whites about desegregation in the 1960s the overwhelming majority said “it’s too early, now’s not the time, blacks are happy as they are, etc…”
Changing public opinion is not something a politician can manage by virtue of his place in society, when they think that, then it’s the beginning of the end of their career. It’s NGOs as pressure groups that are best suited for the role.
Also in the UK up till the 1950s and the US up till now the police had patrols baiting gay men discretely cruising/cottaging.
To be fair I’m under the impression that unless you’re a foreigner caught with drugs, you can do pretty much whatever you want on these blessed islands…
Daph
Hold your horses about Oscar Wilde as it was Wilde himself agaist the advice of all his friends who sued the Marquess of Queensbury and that was his great faux pas.
Queensbury would have never sued Wilde because of his son Lord Alfred being implicated so the marquess who was a bit peculiar by all accounts foulmouthed Wilde in public and Wilde decided to sue himand ended up in Reading Gaol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Douglas,_9th_Marquess_of_Queensberry
Daphne, I believe that you have the correct attitude, one that should be adopted by all members of our society. However, it is not an attitude that is commonplace, especially in a country like Malta. In fact it is very rare.
No, Karl Gouder’s sexuality is not the be all and end all, nor should he make it so, as you suggested. However I do not think he should disregard the fact that somewhere in Malta there is a gay teen who sees him as reason for relief while he or she is being told by parents, teachers, priest or friends that gay men and women only live dirty, seedy lives and end up sick and on drugs and that there is no hope for them. This is not a cliche. I am talking from personal experience.
Growing up as a gay teen in a country like Malta is not all that great. As a gay teen in Malta you not only have to put up with the usual problems of puberty and the teenage years. You also have to go about lying and inventing yourself in order to change yourself. Not to mention praying and hoping against hope that one day you will be straight.
This happens not only because being gay in a teenage world is tough, but also because you are constantly told that gay people do not amount to anything and that they will never know true fulfillment.
If this very same teen, who has been made to believe that his life is forfeit because of his sexuality, then sees an openly gay man in politics and in parliament, this teen then has proof that all the stories of depravity and dirt are lies.
Women know how this works. If someone were to say that women cannot be in politics because they will never be good enough, women will name all female politicians past and present as proof that that statement is wrong.
I am happy that people who think like you exist, but shouldn’t you then acknowledge that there are people who do not think that way? And shouldn’t the government actively work to change the mistaken mentalities and open up the forum for discussion on the matter with members of the Roman Catholic Church who do not stop demonising homosexuality and spreading homophobia?
Why stay silent on a problem that is so blatant and unchallenged? And why belittle anything that, for gay men women and teens, is actually quite a comforting thought?
Just because you are not homophobic does not mean that homophobia does not exist. Just because you do not discriminate against homosexuals does not mean that there should not be laws specifically to protect homosexuals from discrimination. Sure, the laws we have do protect gay people from these things, but only up to a point. There are some acts of homophobia that the law in Malta does not protect gay people from.
Homophobia does exist in Malta. There are many Maltese who need to know that gay people are everywhere and that they are not just fashion designers and make-up artists, but doctors, lawyers, and politicians too.
“You also have to go about lying and inventing yourself in order to change yourself.”
F**king hell, don’t we all. Do you think heterosexuals can go about life “being themselves”? You have to lie to score a chick, lie to be in a stable relationship, lie to get a job, lie to be respected. Is this the sort of tripe that gays feed themselves?
[Daphne – This is actually an important point. The sense of isolation and of being different and ‘tortured’ is common to all in the post-puberty years, but precisely because of that sense of isolation, we are not aware at the time that we are not unusual but ordinary. So I would understand that a teenager wrestling with homosexuality would blame ALL his or her difficulties on that sexuality, rather than just some of them. The fact is that even heterosexual teenagers have massive problems with their parents and it is a problem when they DON’T have these problems of aggravation, separation and rebellion, because it means that normal development has not taken place and this will throw up all kinds of psychological difficulties in full adulthood.]
I was only trying to say that heterosexual men don’t have it any easier than gays. In fact, life may be much easier in the “gay community”. They help each other because they see themselves as victims. I’ve yet to see a single gay male. They all seemed to be hitched to someone.
I’m afraid you have it wrong. It is true that all teens have it tough and that teenage years are all about isolation and the things you have mentioned. However I do not know of any heterosexual men and women who are terrified of themselves. Nor do I know of any heterosexual teens who are told that their entire existence is a sin, and that they have to be alone forever.
Being teased because you have braces, are chubby, have spots or study too much is nothing like being gay and having to hide it from the world.
I’m sorry, H.P.Baxxter – but you do not know what it means to grow up as a homosexual in a heterosexual society, especially one where you are told by teachers, and, as in most church schools, priests, that you are mentally ill, that you will suffer forever and that there is no hope for you in life.
Even if you are teased for having braces, or being spotty, you are in an environment controlled by adults who will not agree with such childish behaviour and will stand up for you and tell you that they are wrong and provide support.
However, if you are gay, you are not only teased by peers, but you also have a bigger problem since even the adults around you do not want to tell you that you are normal. In fact, it is most likely that they will think you need psychological help because they’ll think you are sick.
I am lucky enough to have parents who accept me and love me. But others might not. And it is not fair to let them suffer just because you think they are victimizing themselves. Forgive me, but that demonstrates your total disregard of the real situation. You are cut off from the reality of it all.
I am not talking about wanting a longer curfew or more pocket money, or even wanting more space and freedom. I am not talking about rebellion. There is a reason why a gay teen is up to four times more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts, not to mention that those LGBT teens who have been rejected by their families (which, let’s face it, is not out of the realm of possibility) are 8.4 times more likely to attempt suicide, and it is not because they decided to victimize themselves. There is no psychologist who will agree with you on that, I don’t think.
Suppression of sexuality is nothing like having acne.
It is as I said before. It’s a great thing to be able to meet an LGBT person and not give their sexual preference a second thought. But to assume that the whole country is like that shows that you do not live in the same world as I do. And to then use that assumption to laugh in the face of a gay man or woman who faces homophobia every day and tell them they are just being silly is as oppressive as homophobia itself.
Edward, many heterosexuals have been told that they have to be alone forever, by members of the opposite sex who have refused them.
What can I say? The grass is always greener on the other side.
Yes it is true that everyone is faced with people who will tell them all sorts of things to put them down. However you are talking about two very different things.
If a teacher tells a white boy that he will amount to nothing, the boy will be upset, but after will get over it. Maybe this student will report the teacher to the Headmaster/ mistress and maybe something will be done about it.
Now if a teacher tells a black boy that they will amount to nothing because they are black, then there is a very different type of bullying going on, one which is rooted in Fascist ideals.
Luckily, racism is something the world is against and does not want to promote. However accepting homosexuals is not on the same playing field.
If a gay teen is told that they have to be alone forever because they are gay it is more oppressive than a heterosexual person being told the same, since a gay teen will not be in an environment that will encourage them to be comfortable with themselves. At least that is how things stand in Malta.
Name one school where teachers tell their students that homosexuality is normal and that, should anyone find that they are gay, they should not take any abuse from anyone, nor believe what is said about them by the conservatives. I know of none.
Like I said before, there is bullying, and I am sure that everyone gets bullied at least once in their lives, but then do not say that it is the same as homophobia, or even racism, or ageism, or any other type of discriminatory behavior for that matter. You will only be kidding yourself.
And are you seriously going to compare a break-up or unrequited love with homophobia, which manifests itself in teachers ganging up against a student, parents disowning their children, being attacked publically every way imaginable, and results is pain and embarrasement that is hardly tantamount to a broken heart.
You raised an important point: young people need positive role models and Karl can be a positive role model for gay teens. Unfortunately, as Daphne already pointed out, Labour’s gay role models seem to be vaudeville characters rather than contributors to society.
I don’t agree with you one point – I’m a practising Catholic and I have absolutely no problem with gay people – and neither do any of the priests I know. Some of the nicest, kindest people are know just so happen to be gay.
What I don’t understand is why Catholics are told they’re homophobic because they do not agree with gay marriage. It isn’t as though we’re going around flinging stones at homosexuals and calling them names – at least, not proper, practising Catholics (u mhux ta’ l-isem).
Living my faith does not preclude me from having gay friends. If I were homophobic I wouldn’t even have gay friends. My religion does not require me to be homophobic and neither does the Roman Catholic Church. Quite the opposite in fact.
It’s a bit sad that because we oppose (or disagree) with certain things we are labelled a bunch of homophobes.
You’re not flinging stones but doing something worst:
You’re telling a gay couple that they cannot have the legal protections heterosexual couples get. I doubt the local situation is as bad but in the US you get stories where a patient is dying in hospital and their partner cannot be with them because they are not next of kin. Maybe these are sob stories for media consumption but the law is discriminating against fellow citizens who are supposed to be your equals.
Jellybaby88- Good point. You, like many other Catholics, have no problem with homosexuals. There are also many Catholics who have no problem with gay marriage either. Tony Blair spoke about this once in a newspaper article.
This shows how the Church is very out of touch with its people since most do not actually support its stance on homosexuality. In fact the majority are against the Church on this one.
The Church has a very round about way of being OK with homosexuality. They cannot call being gay a sin because they know, like everyone else, that one is born gay. You cannot be a sin. However the church says it is the act that they are against.
Many people think this is fair, but they do not truly understand what it means for a gay man or woman. Telling someone that they can never know a loving relationship that is intimate, both emotionally and physically, is evil. Do not tell me that a friendship and a marriage are the same thing since the love in a marriage is expressed in a very different way.
If both were the same thing then no one would get married, or we would all marry anyone we think we can get along with, and no one would bother going out on dates and finding Mr/Mrs Right. Clearly there is a big difference between a normal friendship and a deep meaningful and loving relationship one shares with a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend. Everyone has the right to both.
Telling someone they can never know what it is to love someone in such a way is wrong.
Yes, telling someone they cannot get married and have their union recognized as marriage for a reason as fallacious as ” because you re not straight” is discriminatory. You do not see this because you are not at the receiving end of it.
If you oppose anything about gay people then you are homophobic too. If you were not homophobic then you would not only have gay friends, but go to their wedding, and encourage them to ignore any claims that homosexuality is wrong in any way.
I understand that you might think what I am saying is harsh. It is after all your opinion and you are entitled to an opinion and should not have someone else’s opinion thrust upon you. This is true. But I am not telling you to go and get married to someone of the same gender. I am not the one expecting you to live by my rules and opinion.
If our country introduced gay marriage, you will still be able to not agree with it, and you will still be free to not get married to a person of the same gender. However, as it stands, it is gay people who have to live by the rules and opinions of the conservatives, who have made their opinion law. This is wrong.
To bring this back to the original blog entry, having a gay man in parliament does give gay people more of a voice and it is reassuring to know this as a lot of the time our opinions do not seem to be heard by our government which is made up of heterosexuals and therefore people who do not understand what conservative ideals mean to our lives.
@ Edward Caruana Galizia
‘This shows how the Church is very out of touch with its people since most do not actually support its stance on homosexuality. In fact the majority are against the Church on this one.’
It is people who are out of touch with the church. They are ridiculously expecting the church to change to fit to their beliefs.
I suppose you could see it that way if you choose to. However, in a democratic world, people do not bend to the will of authorities, or subscribe to anything that goes against their own opinions, regardless of who the authorities are. It is the authorities who are expected to provide for the people and be in touch with the people. We do not live in a dictatorship.
The Roman Catholic Church can stand its ground, and can voice its opinion on matters, but clearly it is losing more and more support, even from its followers too. This difference in what the Church says and what its followers say is likely to grow over the years, especially if it refuses to budge on issues that the rest of the world has moved on from.
If something does not change with the times, it dies out and stops existing. Its like a language in that respect. The Church cannot dictate to people what to think and how to live any more than a president or political leader can.
I understand why the Church takes a long time to change. It is a religion and like all religions is very protective over what is known to be the truth. However, it feels more and more as though the Church is standing it s ground and laughing in the face of science, psychology and, in fact, its own ethos of loving and accepting everyone.
Telling someone that, even though they are born different, they have to live in a way that will deprive them of the things others get without question, is not showing them love, respect or compassion. It is oppressing them.
“…and then it tackles homosexuality with all the tact of a blunderbuss in the hands of Colonel Blink, corralling the queers, pufti, homos, lezzies, nisa-rgiel and trannies (I use those words deliberately as they reflect the thinking of Labour’s core vote)”
To prove your point, whilst watching the live footage of the Pope on that memorable Sunday late afternoon on SUWPER WAN, the commentator, (that short guy – and a sorry excuse for a queer, to use the preferred terminology – who represents the Labour media and has been around since time immemorial) was discussing the Pope’s private meeting with the victims of abuse.
Do you know how he referred to them? L-abbuzati. The term he used threw me back a couple of decades to when persons with disabilities used to be referred to as l-immankati. Talk about political correctness, talk about being progressive, talk about that famous but elusive ‘terremot’. Some things never change, and old Labour is one of them.
Daphne and Edward are correct in what they are saying. I think they are both agreeing on the same things but from different view-points.
The first example I could think of was Tiger Woods (pre-home wrecking). To me he is an amazing golf player it doesn’t matter to me that he is black or not. However, a black child from a poor area will see him as a pillar of hope and show him a life beyond what he currently sees.
As for Karl, it is fantastic he is in parliament and he is going to be that hope to many gay people in Malta of any age. I think it is a fantastic step but it’s based on his hard work and success not for any other reason. I agree with Daphne when she says Karl should avoid becoming some major gay and lesbian spokesperson as it will inevitably overshadow his other achievements.
I don’t think the majority of people care about his sexuality as long as he is doing a good job. I think it’s enough that Karl is in this new position without his sexuality being a defining factor.
As Edward said, not all gay people are fashion designers. People need to see that gay people are working in top positions and being successful. This is the only way perceptions can begin to change. I think having Karl being a speaker at large gay events waving flags down Republic Street won’t have the intended effect.
This will only help to marginalize this group of people from the rest of society. I think being a hardworking member of society will go much further in helping to change perceptions.
Well said, S K.
The Labour Party has a gay MP too: the surgeon Anthony Zammit.
That’s something that neither the Labour Party nor Zammit himself talk about because homophobia is rampant among supporters of the progressives.
So they set up an LGBT section as a bit of eyewash and then conceal from electors the fact that the would-be Labour health minister is homosexual.
The concealment stretches so far as concocting an entire thriller plot to explain why Zammit’s household help found him tied up one morning and with nobody else around or any sign of a break-in, and with men caught by the security camera entering and leaving his house using a key.
It’s hard to take Labour seriously on LGBT issues and ‘gay rights’ when it plans to give us a health minister who’s too scared to tell Labour voters that he’s gay.
Zammit does not use Facebook to advertise his “affairs” as some PN members have done. How bloody cheap! The reason you do not take the PL seriously on gay and lesbian issues is because you are a PN supporter. Get real.
As with many other issues, this involves a delicate balancing act. My advice to Karl would be the same as Daphne’s. Pigeonholing himself and defining himself in terms of his sexuality will, rightly, not get him very far.
This is not to say, however, that gay rigths are a non-issue. Of course even heterosexual teenagers have massive problems, but the ones gay teenagers have tend to be on top of rather of than instead of those which straight teenagers have.
Homophobia is still rampant in most societies and simply ignoring this will not deal with the problem. Neither does dressing up in feathers and parading down Republic Street!
As I said, a delicate balancing act is involved, but the issue remains one which needs to be recognised and acted upon.
@ Isard du Pont. And he probably managed to get elected because he was ‘ the leader’s surgeon’ during the election campaign.
I loved this article. I personally know LGBT people who preferred to continue their professional life abroad not because of homophobia, rights or such other stigma-inspiring slogans. It was just because this of ‘pigeon-hole’ mentality, or as I prefer to call it, ‘forced moulding’. People whatever their orientation, gender, religion or preferences should be treated as equal not as a special case with special requirements. That system does not work in a small and united society.
Of course, improvements can be made in our society (as all), and there are instances where a minority of people try and viciously abuse other people because of their differences, and such things should be stopped. However, closed-minded people exist everywhere.
I wish Karl Gouder the best for his career as an MP, not because he is gay, but because he has always been hard working and a good politician. Gay or not, he was a very good choice in terms of his professionalism and experience.
I think that the “progressives” creating political ghettos should be tearing their hair out right now, as their should idea of social “diversity” (like animal classification systems in biology) is a big step backwards for (their definition of) “ugwaljanza”…
We have already experienced their idea of “open (garbage) mentality” especially with the Vladimir saga on taste-your-own-medicine. Well one thing for sure… Not even the Italian Far right parties (such as Lega Nord) make such a fuss about one’s sexuality… they are all alone on this now!
Keep it up, Daphne, and good luck to Karl Gouder.
Perhaps Hibernating Away from Malta should tell us his real name.
RESTEPC lil Karl Gouder. Darba, lura fin-1997, kien qalli:
“Jekk tipprezenta ruhek b’din l-attitudni, se jkollok il-problemi.”
Kliem profetiku.
“The newsroom irritants have begun to circle Karl Gouder already with their questions about gay rights, gay issues and gay votes, revealing that they cannot see beyond his sexuality and that, to them, he is the token homosexual in our All Sorts parliament.”
Why are you so surprised that newspapers are interested in his views on homosexuality and homosexual law reform? He is, after all, the first openly gay member of parliament. Like it or not, Gouder has to address these issues. He and his party cannot keep avoiding the question of human rights for gay men and lesbians and our struggle for equality. If Karl fails to answer the questions on what is or should be a matter of public interest, he is nothing more than a token homosexual, chosen by the PN to neutralise the positive approach of the PL. Voters need to know his views and Karl has a duty to tell them.
No one is suggesting that Karl should limit himself to discussing only gay and lesbian issues. I would hope that he is sufficiently intelligent to deal with more than one topic. Is he?
As for the PN being gay and lesbian friendly, you have to be kidding! We’ll see how free Karl is able to talk on gay and lesbian issues. I suspect he would toe the party line and make sure that we remain invisible.