Like 1980s batwing sleeves, Il-Qahbu and Il-Qattus are back
Il-Qahbu minn li jkollu jaghtik.
Joseph Muscat treats politics like a game and fails to realise that it’s serious business, with serious consequences. Sant is a crack-pot, but credit where it is due: he corralled the Mintoffian element in his party and held the thugs at bay.
The first thing Muscat did when he became leader was rehabilitate – Stalinist word used deliberately – Dom Mintoff. Then he announced that the party was wide open once more “to all those who felt pushed away over the last few years”.
He has brought back Alex Sceberras Trigona, out of whose Merchant Street ministerial building thugs emerged one day in 1986 to severely beat protestors, one of whom was in bed for weeks (I, several months pregnant, was pulled to safety by post office employees).
He has embraced Joe Debono Grech, Sharon Ellul Bonici and Maria Camilleri. He has begun using Mintoffian terminology like ‘suldati tal-azzar’ and acting bolshie about state protocol and good manners.
But he didn’t have the wisdom or the foresight to predict what would happen. The thugs who made life hell for us, sidelined since the early 1990s, now feel welcome again. They feel that Labour is their party once more.
They are confident that they can throw their weight around. They have interpreted Muscat’s messages in the obvious way, even if that wasn’t quite what he meant.
So the inevitable has happened. Earlier today, Edwin Bartolo – known as Il-Qahbu – and Il-Qattus (I haven’t a clue what his real name is) were walking in and out of the Zejtun polling-station as though they owned the place. The police were summoned to remove them.
They raced up to two agents of the Nationalist Party, Joe Brownrigg and Grezzju Bondin, and accused them of reporting them to the police. Il-Qahbu yelled ‘Pufta!’ as Il-Qattus beat up Grezzju Bondin.
Now they’re all just left the police station.
If Muscat doesn’t take a stand on this one immediately, and explain that when he said everyone is welcome to return to the Labour Party he doesn’t mean people like Il-Qahbu and Il-Qattus (even if every vote counts), they’re going to railroad right over him.
Just as Jason Micallef has done already.
BREAKING NEWS – THE FULL REPORT FROM MALTASTAR – BUT DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH
Man injured outside polling station
06 June 2009 19:13
Police reported that on Saturday afternoon a man was slightly injured when a number of persons got involved in an argument outside a school in Zejtun, where voting for the European Parliament election is taking place.
The incident took place at around 1530hrs.
Police investigations are underway.
120 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
People, for all it’s worth, you have been warned.
Keen on EU politics, are they? Interesting.
People like Kevin Ellul Bonici laughed at me during the last election, saying that I made people laugh behind my back when I predicted this would happen. It has happened. The thugs are back. All of you who did not vote to spite the PN, this is your bloody answer.
Come on, let’s not be sensationalists. First of all, were they provoked? Because no one mentioned this.
[Daphne – No one mentioned it because the reporting of political incidents on the day before polling and on polling day is not allowed. So the only place you are going to hear it is on this blog. PBS are still arguing about whether to report it or not.]
I’m sure that no one in the Labour Party wants these type of persons.
[Daphne – Excuse me? Who in the Labour Party doesn’t want them? The people who didn’t have any problem with them before – Alex Sceberras Trigona, Anglu Farrugia, and the rest? Joseph Muscat is so wet behind the ears he won’t know what’s bitten him in the backside.]
If you want to get out the hardcore Nationalist vote, try other methods.
[Daphne – The hardcore vote has gone out already. I am merely living up to this blog’s reputation for being the first with the interesting bits.]
It’s not sensationalism. I know Mr Brownrigg and Grezzju Bondin. Two old people, and none nicer could you meet. They would never provoke those criminals. If I am not mistaken, il-Qattus has just come out of prison. As for no one in the MLP wanting them, a lot of rank-and-filers of the MLP think that they represent the good old days, my friend, and they want them back, and how.
[Daphne – Just to make things clear: somebody has remarked that Il-Qattus – the one we knew and loved – died several years ago. The person being referred to here is his son. Il-Qattus is the family nickname.]
Dear Daphne,
Would I sound a tad too cheesy if I mentioned the catch-phrase of this political campaign “Skont iz-zokk, il-fergha”? ;)
What about the infamous Toto – the one who lived in Toto House (yes really)? Is he still around?
So now we have the kitten.
“STAGUN POLITIKU GDID – DIREZZJONI SUCCESS” – Is the Qahbu and Qattus story part of the earthquake promised by Muscat?
David Ellul, do you realise that when you ask if the thugs were provoked you are re-enacting the old Labour reaction to political violence? MLP supporters like you have traditionally used the provocation excuse to justify anything from the beating up of elderly voters in Zejtun to the burning down of The Times. As soon as the thugs come out to do their dirty work we get people like you trying to excuse them; you and il-Qaħbu are parts of the same tactic – using violence as a political tool.
It gives me the shivers to think those people and others like them will be running the country in four years’ time!!
If only the government side could cut down on arrogance possibly avoiding a defeat in the forthcoming general elections.
If not, I suggest we put up the following inscription at our ports and airports:
“Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” – Dante’s spelling not mine!! Before I get a barrage from some self-appointed linguist.
Nice one, Joseph.
On timesofmalta.com Albert Gauci Cunningham wrote that he walked into the Labour glass palace and was amazed at how nice the people in there are.They welcomed him with open arms. I am sure he enjoyed Qahbu’s bear hug.
[Daphne – That’s the way it goes: systematically going after the weak and those who feel bitter and sidelined, and who blame it on others rather than on their own personality. Did you ever watch Louis Malle’s Au Revoir, Les Enfants? It’s the record he made of his own experience at a Jesuit school during the Nazi occupation of France. The Nazis knew that the Jesuits were concealing the identities of Jewish boys by using false names and pretending they were Christian, but they couldn’t work out which of the boys these were. So they ‘welcomed with open arms’ the playground reject, who felt ‘different’ and was bitter because of it, and rewarded him for betraying his schoolmates. They were taken to their death, along with the headmaster – who spoke the words in the title, ‘Au revoir, les enfants’ – and several other priests. I cried my eyes out. It was such a chilling assessment of human nature, and of how the bitter ones are invariably the weakest link because they are so vulnerable to manipulation.]
OK, excuse my ignorance but who is “Albert Gauci Cunningham”?
[Daphne – Google him. Before the general election last year, he was all over the internet promoting the Nationalist Party in CAPITAL LETTERS AND PLENTY OF !!!!!!!?????? Then something happened – he either came out of the closet or suddenly realised he was gay or something (the usual big deal and zeal of the new convert) and decided the Nationalist Party isn’t liberal enough for his liking but the Labour Party is very liberal indeed. Tiresome, tiresome – a real screaming queen, in the true sense of the expression.]
Maybe someone should let Pia know who il-qattus and il-qahbu are before she proudly casts that vote!
She knows who they are. Probably hero-worships them.
This is the earthquake Joseph promised us?
I just returned from voting…there were some interesting types at our polling station.They act like they’re entitled to the country..if I can say this…
You mean the voters or the electoral commissioners? In my little quiet village there was one who looked like a blast from the past. Busty, bleached blonde and tasteless attire. Oh yes, and an inch of make up… I wonder…
No, not the ECs but hangers on around the polling stations
Ah, deja-vu. So people will only read it in the morning when it’s too late. Please note, you Maltese who decided to stay home just to give the government a ‘tbezbiza’, move your asses to the polling-station and get your duty done. I am sure there are lots of you out there who remember the sacrifices we went through in the 1980s.
Do you know what we get if you vote Labour or abstain? We get thugs.
I think it’s whoever is running the police force who should take an immediate stand on this one.
[Daphne – They have. When I rang Brownrigg and Bondin’s lawyer they were all still down at the police station. It’s the ‘pufta’ bit that’s really interesting. On the one hand you have Muscat and the rest reinventing themselves as big fans of the only gays in the village. And on the other hand, they have to deal with mass electoral support that thinks of homosexual men as qabda pufti, and who think that the worst possible insult for a heterosexual man is to be called a pufta. Apparently, Sharon Ellul Bonici has been emailing people in an attempt at rounding up the pink vote, with the – wait for it – opening line ‘Some of my best friends are gay….’. She doesn’t even know that it’s a cliche used for people who think they’re being democratic by consorting with pufti, Jews and niggers – oh, I almost forgot the one-legged lesbians.]
Well, as a gay man, better someone who at least tries to address my issues and represent me than someone who consistently blocks any progress both at European and national level. When as a woman it becomes acceptable for you to vote for Josie and his misogynist friends, then I’ll vote PN.
[Daphne – I had a discussion about this over lunch. The only politicians who repeatedly differentiate between gay and straight are those who have issues. People who don’t differentiate between gay and straight, whether politicians or otherwise, just don’t talk about it, full-stop. I really don’t care whether people are gay or straight, and so I never discuss it. That’s a much better attitude than patronising gay people with ‘mentions’. If you want to be defined by your sexuality, go right ahead. But then don’t blame others for doing it to you.]
No doubt there are plenty of homophobes among PL supporters, but it’s who gets to cast votes in parliament that really counts.
As long as I am treated differently because of my sexuality, whether I like it or not I will be defined by it. Women and blacks did not achieve full equality by shutting up. They achieved it by organising themselves and fighting for it.
[Daphne – Please explain to me exactly what kind of discrimination you face, because I have asked many militant gays and they just can’t come up with an answer. What you have discovered – ding dong – is that no number of laws and regulations can sort of personal prejudice and the ugly things that go with it. Any woman can tell you that. The laws have changed but attitudes have not.]
What really harms gay people is their invisibility and all efforts to sweep their issues under the carpet.
[Daphne – What do you mean, invisibility? What the hell is wrong with being like everyone else? On the one hand you say you don’t want to be treated differently, then you complain that you are invisible. Most people are invisible except to their nearest and dearest and their colleagues and friends. That’s life. Sometimes I suspect that gay people link all their problems and difficulties to the fact that they are gay. I think you might not realise that straight people have similar problems.]
The most progressive countries did not get to that stage by failing to discuss the issues. Even you can’t dispute that. So no, talking about it does not (always) mean you have issues with it as a politician. It may mean you want to address and eliminate the inequalities.
[Daphne – For heaven’s sake, really – which are those inequalities? Are there laws which say that gay people can’t have what straight people have? I need an answer, because I am genuinely mystified. In the case of women, the discrimination was REAL. There were laws which stipulated that if you were a married woman, you couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that. Might I point out to you that prior to the early 1990s, gay men in Malta had rights which married women did not. And yet you complain?]
If the PN have absolutely no issues with my sexuality, how come they did everything they could to avoid implementing EU equality laws?
[Daphne – Not because of the homosexuality element, but because our legal structure cannot integrate them. You can’thave gay marriage, for example, before you even have divorce. It’s called putting the horse before the cart. If the government starts to legislate for gay marriage, I will be the first to go out yelling that it hasn’t got its priorities straight. First divorce, then gay marriage.]
How come we still don’t have registered partnerhips?
[Daphne – We do. They’re called marriage. With divorce and gay marriage, anyone can marry and there is no need for ‘registered partnerships’.]
How come Casa and Busuttil always voted against gay rights at the EP?
[Daphne – You’re being simplistic. There’s much more to it than that.]
How come, after the PN promised last year to support a new anti-discrimination directive at EU level, Dalli went to Brussels and called the directive ‘premature’?
[Daphne – You’ll have to tell me more. I don’t have enough information on this.]
It seems the PN only mentions us on the eve of an election. Well, thanks to a more vocal and organised gay community, no one is buying that anymore.
[Daphne – Us? Us? What are you, a special interest group or normal human beings like everyone else. I’m telling you, if I were gay I would NEVER ghettoise myself by doing all I can to ensure that I am defined by my sexuality, just as I have resolutely refused all my life to join women’s networks and women’s this and women’s that. It was the best advice I was ever given by a very senior woman, around two decades ago. If you don’t want people to think of you as a gay man, rather than as a man, start by not thinking of yourself that way. Define yourself as gay and that’s what everyone else will do, following your example.]
You really don’t have a clue, do you? You’re a bit of a lost cause, so at this point I think I’ll write for the benefit of the readers of this blog as opposed to yours.
[Daphne – I am far from a lost cause. I am what gay campaigners say they hope for but then get aggravated about when they find it: somebody who doesn’t give a damn that they’re gay and is totally indifferent, instead of saying ‘Some of my best friends are gay, and….’. ]
I’ll do it in the light of what Charlie said as well:
1. On laws and discrimination: Laws don’t change personal prejudice, but they do play a part in shaping society’s perception of minorities over time. Discrimination can arise out of discriminatory laws or be carried out by private individuals. Marriage laws are discriminatory in nature. You dismissing that fact sounds dangerously similar to arguments against interracial marriage in the US in the sixties – opponents used to say that such laws were not discriminatory at all becuase it wasn’t just a black person who couldn’t marry a white person, but also the other way round, so all races were being treated equally. There is such a thing called indirect discrimination, were the criteria used to determine if someone qualifies for a benefit are themselves discriminatory, as in this case. Bottom line is that you as a straight woman can do something (marry the person of your choice) whereas I as a gay man cannot. If you tell me that I already have the right to marry (i.e. marry a woman) then I presume you wouldn’t complain if your son got married and two years down the line his wife tells him she’s a lesbian. She’s exercising a right after all, isn’t she?
[Daphne – I’m sick of repeating this, but I’ll repeat it again. Homosexuals are not discriminated against in Malta. The only ‘right’ they don’t have and which SOME heterosexuals do is the right to marry. Everything else is derived from that. You can’t expect legislation on gay marriage in a country that doesn’t even have divorce. The horse before the cart, and not the other way round: if you want gay marriage, I strongly suggest you campaign for divorce first. Not only will it make your road less tough, but it will also ensure that when you do get married, you have the option of divorce – otherwise you’ll just have one more thing to gripe about.]
2. On invisibility: What Charlie said already explains what I meant. It’s not about telling the whole world you’re gay. It’s about being able to talk about your partner and your life with him just like other people do, for example. Why is it that you can ‘flaunt’ your heterosexuality by wearing your wedding band [Daphne – I have never worn one. I find it offensive that women should be branded as married by being made to wear a ring while most men don’t.] whereas if I tell my colleagues that I went out with my partner to a good restaurant, I’m suddenly shoving my homosexuality down people’s throats?
[Daphne – No. People don’t care. Honestly, they don’t. They’re just not interested. Unfortunately, too many of think that our lives are of unending interest to others. If you were to tell me that you went to supper with your partner, I’d have asked where and what did you eat? And not – what sex is your partner.]
When ordinary gay people react to such attitudes by concealing their sexuality it leaves the perception of gay people to be determined by more visible stereotypical gay men. Not that there’s anything wrong with them, but the gay community is more diverse and gay people are more ordinary than that. We need to feel secure to talk about our lives to show people we are their neighbours, doctors, relatives, etc. and not freaks. This will in turn improve society’s acceptance of us.
[Daphne – They’re invisible because they’re ordinary. Isn’t that what you want? I can’t understand whether you want to be invisible like everyone else or visible because you’re gay. Yes, you’re right – on this one, I just don’t understand. I don’t recommend being visible. It’s a dreadful inconvenience.]
3. On the PN’s track record: When Gonzi was Minister for Social Policy and piloted the reform of our labour laws, he resisted attempts to have the EU’s Employment anti-discrimination Directive implemented, specifically by blocking any reference to sexual orientation as a ground of discrimination. This was mandated by the Directive. When he failed to do that because of pressure exerted by MGRM and the European Commission, all of a sudden he started saying “What are they complaining about? I was the one who introduced anti-discrimination laws after all”. What a hypocrite.
[Daphne – I don’t believe you, sorry. I have too much experience of rumour and gossip in politics. How would you know what the prime minister resisted and didn’t resist?]
4. On registered partnerships: If we don’t need them because we have marriage, why don’t they open that up to same-sex couples too then? Until they do, I think we can reserve the right to be pissed off and feel discriminated against. If you can’t expect that to happen at this point in time, then registered partnerships are a good intermediary step. I thought you supported them in previous articles of yours. What has changed now? Perhaps because the PN’s inaction is increasingly a cause for embarrassment?
[Daphne – You read my article wrongly. I don’t support the idea of civil partnerships, except for same-sex couples. All others have marriage. No need to complicate matters any more than they are already.]
5. On Casa and Busuttil: No, I’m not being simplistic. On the contrary, they’re the ones who always come up with silly excuses. Sometimes they don’t want to single out individual countries, and sometimes they don’t want to give the impression they’re critisizing the Pope. Frankly, I don’t care. It’s how they vote and the impact that has on my life that matters to me.
6. On the new anti-discrimination Directive: There is right now a proposal at EU level to extend the Directive referred to above to other fields apart from employment, so that, for example, it can cover access to goods and services. Right now in Malta, if I want to get a mortgage, I’ll need to get life insurance as collateral. When I apply for that they will ask me if I am a member of a ‘high-risk’ group for HIV/AIDS. If you’re gay you’re automatically deemed to be so, and your premium is doubled. I had a friend who’d been celibate for years and still had to pay that higher premium. If you don’t believe me I’ll send you the application forms. Under the proposed Directive this would become illegal. Before the last election, the PN promised MGRM they’d support this Directive. Busuttil was at the meeting. A few months later, he voted at the EP against the proposal. Months later Dalli called it ‘premature’ at a Council meeting.
[Daphne – ‘Under the proposed directive this would become illegal’ – wrong. Life insurance companies are generally international and apply the same rules everywhere. If an insurance company considers you to be a member of a high risk group, then there is nothing you can do about it. Of course, you’re missing the point here: you’ve automatically assumed that when you’re asked whether you’re a member of a high-risk group for HIV you’re being asked whether you’re gay and not whether you sleep around. But what they’re asking you is whether you sleep around. So if you say yes, you’ve shot yourself in the foot. A man who has been celibate for years is obviously not a member of a high-risk group, so God knows why he answered in the affirmative.]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080225/news/gay-rights-movement-meets-pn
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081023/local/dalli-attacked-over-cautious-approach-to-eu-anti-discrimination-law
http://www.maltagayrights.net/node/64
7. On the interest group claim: We are a minority and we have interests, like every other social group, so your label does not bother me in the least.
God that was tiring. I’m off to bed now. In the meantime, please inform yourself a bit more adequately about these issues before you rush to defend the indefensible.
[Daphne – I assure you that I am extremely well informed. What I am not is politically correct. Therefore you will not hear any assurances from me that homosexuals are discriminated against, when the sole problem is the absence of civil partnership. Sadly, I am put in mind of those women who meet every problem with the words ‘It’s because I’m a woman.’ It rarely is.]
On a personal level, yes, you are what we hope for, because that’s what we want – people not to care whether we’re gay or not. Politically however, you have no qualms to throw us under the bus when our interests conflict with those of the Nationalists.
1. The right to get married is a very important right indeed, since it opens the door to a multitude of other rights and benefits. Heterosexuals all have the right to marry, they just don’t have the right to remarry. At least they get a shot. Your argument that gay marriage is still not achievable politically in Malta does not disprove my argument that discrimination does not exist – it simply is a comment about the real politique. I agree with you on divorce – that’s why I always pay attention to what candidates have to say about it.
2. You might not care about my life, and I’m quite happy with that. For people who use my sexuality as a criterion in determining my rights as a citizen however, it evidently is. If everyone was so uninterested in my life, we’d have gay marriage, wouldn’t we? But you yourself admit that that is politically impossible at this point in time. Civil unions or registered partnerships for gay couples however is a different matter. I believe it’s possible.
When I say we should be ‘visible’ I mean we should be so as a group, enough to leave our mark politically and improve our situtaion. On the individual level, this simply means being able to talk openly about the mundane things in life, such as how you spent your weekend with your partner. This has also benefits for the straight majority – I’m sick of hearing about married men having escapades with other men in public gardens, and young newlyweds discovering to their horror that their spouse is gay/lesbian. More acceptance will mean that people will be able to be honest with themselves and those around them.
3. On Gonzi – it’s not rumour, it’s fact, and I can confirm that since I was personally responsible on behalf of MGRM for monitoring the implementation of the Directive in Malta in 2002 – 2004. When I met him as social policy minister, he told me that the advice he was being given was that there was no need for a specific mention of sexual orientation as a ground of discrimination. Our view, and we were backed by the European Commission in this, was that the European Court of Justice’s case law on legal certainty required such a specific mention (Basically the Court says that when it comes to citizens’ rights, laws have to be clear and unequivocal as to what rights EU law grants to citizens). How the Directive was impleneted locally shows the mess Gonzi made: No mention of sexual orientation in the Employment and Industrial Relations Act of 2002, a Legal Notice in 2003 saying that the Act has to be interpreted in the light of the Directive (Still deemed unsatisfactory) and finally a Legal Notice in 2004 which replicated the provisions of the Directive. This only happened after Gonzi left the Social Policy Ministry to Louis Galea. This patchwork of legislation was, according to a senior civil servant I met after the affair was over, an embarrassment. At that same meeting I had with Gonzi, we discussed the Urgent Family Leave regulations, which give people the right to take urgent leave in case a relative is involved in an accident. At the suggestion this was extended to same-sex couples, his answer was “That is out of the question”. On the issue of harassment at the workplace, which is a real problem accordin to reserach we had carried out, all he had to say was that employers would be up in arms against a legal prohibition.
4. Glad you have nothing else to say about Casa and Busuttil.
5. On the Directive, the issue is Dalli’s opposition to it, but as far as your comments go, here’s my answer: The application forms for life insurance policies in Malta ask you if you are in a high risk group, and in the margins you have examples. Gay men are one such category, along with haemophiliacs, prostitues and intravenous drug users, with no consideration of whether they are promiscuous or in monogomous relationships. I have copies of application forms to prove that and a couple of stories. The people involved, believe me, are not that stupid as to say “Yes, we’re high risk because we’re gay”. Admittedly, when faced with opposition and threats of negative publicity, sometimes the companies involved back down, and sometimes the individual employee chooses not to ask specifically if you’re gay, but many of them do and in any case as a matter of principle this shouldn’t even be an issue.
Whereas insurance companies do follow international guidelines, they also have to follow the law, and in any case no such guidelines exist on this issue since gay people are not discriminated against in this manner in other EU countries.
Finally, glad you admit that there is discrimination when it comes to the absence of civil partnerships. Unfortunately you still cannot get yourself to admit that it is a very, very important issue for the gay community. It’s not solely a question of rights, but also one of principle: As long as the state fails to recognise our relationships, the message we’re given is that our relationships are of lesser value.
[Daphne – If you’re going to insist on misinterpreting my words so that you can carry on feeling martyred and discriminated against, go right ahead. As a married woman who couldn’t even get a bank overdraft without my husband’s permission even though I worked and earned my own money – before the law changed – I can tell you that you don’t even know you’ve been born. Prior to the early 1990s gay men had far more rights than married women: indeed, they have, and still have, all the rights that heterosexual men have, except the right to get married. And not even all heterosexual men have that. I never said I don’t care about your life. I said that I don’t care about your gayness. I really don’t give a stuff. Ask around. And not to put a fine point on it, when Maltese married women were discriminated against so severely right up until the early 1990s, I don’t remember gay men ever championing our cause, nor did we married women accuse you gay men of not caring about our lives. We understood that it was our problem, and we dealt with it. You’re damn lucky that gay men seem to have far more political influence than married women did then – but then I hate to say it, men always do, whether they’re gay, straight or neither of the two. I hope this helps you put the situation in perspective. To us women, marriage meant the END of our rights, and not the beginning.]
I have agreed with you in the past about this, i.e. that gay men have it better than women. But that simply means that there are two injustices that need to be remedied, doesn’t it? And in any case, what does that imply for the lesbians?
[Daphne – Unless they’re the sort to get married, they’re fine. Single women have the same status as single men, and did so even before the ‘Shab Indaqs Fiz-Zwieg’ changes to our law. In fact, staying single was a life choice for many women for this very reason.]
Thanks for the update. BTW, I did have the displeasure of dealing with il-Qahbu in my early working years. He was due at the office to sign some papers that would net him a tidy income but he couldn’t make it in on the day “ghax kont qieghed il-Curia nghin lil tad-Dockyard”. Probably earned him a hug and a kiss from KMB.
Ahhh . . . the good old ‘aristokrazija’ raising it’s head once again . . . doesn’t that give you a warm feeling inside? This must be what little Joseph meant with his earthquake . . . and like all earthquakes it has unearthed a load of undesirable offal and debris that would have been best left buried.
Il-Qahbu/Il-Qattus
The first result because of those who thought they weren’t playing with fire by refusing to vote for the P.N.
What’s the betting that all the Lil’Elve will start saying it’s the PN’s fault?
Marie Benoit is not a Lil’Elve. She uses her real name.
[Daphne – No, she’s Pia Micallef, half a century on.]
Haven’t you seen the earlier post? Maybe they were provoked, poor boys!
Yes someone must have looked at them.
I think this is pure fabrication. Il-Qattus died several years ago.
[Daphne – It’s another member of the same family we’re talking about, also known as Il-Qattus. And no, it is not a complete fabrication. I spoke to the lawyer of the victims when they were still at the police station.]
Edwin Bartolo is an obese slob who cannot run 10 yards to save his life.
[Daphne – That would be why he attacked two elderly men, then, and not men in their prime.]
You must be really desperate.
[Daphne – Actually, I’m drinking a nice cup of tea and finishing off my newspaper column for tomorrow, after a very pleasant lunch with an old friend and an enjoyable morning spent going through the shelves at an excellent new shop of gourmet products, called The White Sheep, in Rue D’Argens, Gzira.]
Do you have the guts to post this?
[Daphne – Silly question.]
Go to timesofmalta.com and see it posted there.
[Daphne – http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090606/local/voting-in-the-european-parliament-local-elections-gets-underway
You read it here first. It’s on Net News too. I’m glad people are defying the ridiculous ban.]
One News had a “banner” going round the bottom of the screen saying something along the lines of “l-incident ma’ kellux konsegwenzi serji”.
Well, someone did say ‘send a message to government’. Perhaps he should have explained himself a little better.
Everyone who thought that this election is not important please remember our friends in Zejtun who once again have to face bullying by Labour thugs. To all of you who might have believed that Joseph Muscat is something different, that he is better, just remember that he brought back into the Labour fold people that even Alfred Sant had removed. Joseph Muscat turned back the clock today. Let us not forget this.
A candidate’s work is turning out the vote physically, Edward, at this time. Do so.
[Daphne – He is, Mario. Forsi ghandu Blekberi.]
Yeah right, as if he personally told them to do that, if this is what actually happened. One has to wait for an official statement from the police to understand who provoked whom and what really happened.
[Daphne – Grow up.]
Just like a bunch of people who believed that the “Rabtija” from the youtube clip named “Gonzi u Rabtija” was actually a labourite. It was clearly a PN setup all the way. True … hamalli are everywhere, in both parties .. no one’s denying that.
I don’t need you telling me to grow up. But then of course, I won’t be surprised that you always lash out with whoever tends to disagree with your style … clearly this is what you feed off to sustain your inadequate existence.
[Daphne – My ‘existence’ is far from inadequate, sweetheart.]
Does J borg mean to say that the thuggery that took place in the past had the blessing of Joseph’s predecessors?
Just heard about it on Net TV.
There will be a full a report at 7.45pm today
There’s a “full report” on Maltastar:
http://maltastar.com/pages/ms09dart.asp?a=2400
And this is how maltastar.com is reporting this incident ;
“Police reported that on Saturday afternoon a man was slightly injured when a number of persons got involved in an argument outside a school in Zejtun, where voting for the European Parliament election is taking place.
The incident took place at around 1530hrs.
Police investigations are underway.”
They were very quick to report it this time. I guess they want to kill it before it does them more harm.
They’re not the best of tacticians, though, are they? They didn’t exactly rush to distance themselves publicly from whatever happened.
For all it will be worth! I doubt those who want to spite PN will be persuaded by this incident, especially if they did not collect their voting pass.
People may decide not to vote for reasons other than to spite a party. But please stop putting these elections on a par with general elections. It’s actually the PL’s game. I find them as exciting as the Eurovision Song Contest.
[Daphne – Agreed. Read my column tomorrow.]
ChavsRus,
If this is a total fabrication, how would you explain the fact that il-Qahbu and Il-Qattus’s son, Silvio Spiteri, are currently being held at the Police HQ? Suffice to say that they are the only ones being held…
The one good thing Sant did was kick these people out – although he was still a member of the party when people like Qahbu were in their prime.
A friend made an interesting observation re Joseph Muscat’s friends – until recently Piju Camilleri was on his Facebook friend’s list.
[Daphne – He was the very one who beat my friend – a woman, if you please – with a length of chain inside a rubber hose. She was in bed for weeks. And he emerged from Alex Sceberras Trigona’s office building, when Sceberras Trigona was minister of foreign affairs.]
Leo Brincat, Edward Scicluna and Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi.
http://i44.tinypic.com/kceom.jpg
Today’s going to be listed in history again? 2009 or should I say 1980 or so? It’s unbelievable how these people never change!
Are you surprised?
I’m afraid that criminals will always remain criminals irrespective of their political affiliation. Some will beat a person due to political insanity, others over jealousy or an extra marital affair, others over a business matter (legal or not) and so on.
The onus is on the police who are not only duty bound to investigate but also to arraign abd prosecute those who break the law. Let’s hope that they do.
Pierre, the onus is also on Joseph Muscat to condemn his supporters who have carried out this act. He is morally and politically responsible for this violence.
Page 490 Liberta’ Mhedda. Daphne, would suggest this photo is uploaded.
[Daphne – If you send it to me in digital format, I will. [email protected] ]
Strange, my Liberta’ Mhedda has 410 pages. Can you please give the right number please.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn. Same old Nationalist tactical move. Trying to scare people off voting for the PL. Grow up will you? Why are you bothering? You have alraedy stated one million times that the PL will win 3-2, so what’s the use of this pantomime? Last minute PN string pulling or what?
[Daphne – No, reporting the facts, unlike Maltastar which was too scared or embarrassed to do so.]
Typical Labour reaction: you hear of violence committed by Labour thugs and instead of condemning it soundly you say that it’s some obscure PN conspiracy.
Let me tell you Frank Schembri, you are just as guilty of the violence as those who carry it out. You are the smoke screen behind which the thugs hide and their ego thrives on your undeclared (to us) admiration.
Back to the future! Now who will tell us that we are living in the past?
First of all, all type of violence should be condemmened without any reservations, I hate violence immensely so when i hear this I ask myself why do these things continue happening here in malta. Second can someone tell me how you associate this incident with the labour party pls ? So if someone’s grandfather was a labour supporter and a crazy thug, does this mean he’s the same ? Can’t he support Norman Lowell or Emy Bezzina or Josie Muscat or Alternattiva or even has become a nationalist ? Why do you associate an unfortunate incident in Zejtun as if the PL has got something to do abt it ? Do you really think that the PL leadership is happy with this incident or you really think that J.Muscat want these crazy thugs to roam abt the glass house in Hamrun ?
Do you really believe that il-Qaħbu and the son of il-Qattus might support Emy Bezzina, Josie or Lowell? They have become Nationalist? Are you really that stupid, eric, or just pretending to be?
This is no surprise to me. In time Malta will eventually see what it has missed by treating Alfred Sant the way it has. This guy single-handedly cleaned up the MLP of these unpleasant personalities and began a process of making politics in a new way.
How did the PN, the “national reconciliation party” react? By undermining Sant as much as possible also by building bridges to elements within the MLP who did not like Sant, precisely because of the way he cleaned the party. The day will come that the PN will regret this vote-winning, but short-sighted policy.
[Daphne – Why does a leader who cleans out the violence rather than welcoming it in have to be the exception rather than the rule with Labour? Those of us who support the Nationalist Party didn’t think that what Sant did was exceptional or deserving of particular praise because – get this – where we come from it’s normal for a political party not to be encumbered with thugs and with leaders who can’t control them.]
Likewise, the day will come when the PN will regret its continued insistence on instilling division in the Maltese people as regards the EU, by considering the EU as its own private territory. One day this country will grow up. I just hope that it will not do so by repeating past mistakes.
[Daphne – What? Did I read you right? The Nationalist Party instilled division about the EU? For heaven’s sake.]
Alfred Sant did not clean up the MLP – he only hid the muck from public eyes.
Labour have never disapproved of their thugs. They only shut them up because they thought this would win them votes. It is the same tactic they use for the EU question: no longer insisting that partnership won because it would lose them votes.
I come from a die-hard Labour family and have personally known many of the old MLP officials. Well, I have never ever heard anyone voice the slightest condemnation or remorse for the violence; they are only sorry that it lost them votes.
Joseph Muscat evidently feels that enough time has now passed and it’s no longer necessary to hide away the Zwieten. They are crawling out of the woodwork again and the old fossils will be joined by fresh recruits.
What’s this? A Sant a day keeps the thugs away?
One day I will understand such perverse priorities and convoluted logic.
If Sant had received the honour you think he so richly deserved there would have been no EP election polling booths in which il-Qahbu and tal-Qattus – lovely names, aren’t they? – could pick fights.
Well, here’s one thing we *didn’t* miss, no thanks to Sant and those who eulogise his “new way of making politics” – and I don’t mean the fireworks and laser show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKbHuNyuauk
Il-Qattus is Michael Spiteri.
He is a disgrace to felines.
Though he’s obviously not a pussy.
Daphne these are just some rights that gay people do not have, in other words, ways that gay people are treated differently to straight people:
The right to marry the person you love
[Daphne – It’s not because you’re gay. It’s because our legislation does not envisage marriage of one man or one woman to another. It has nothing to do with gayness. Should I want to marry a woman, I can’t do that either. And I’m not gay. Also, love is not a prerequisite for marriage and there is no mention of it in marriage law. We are free to marry people we hate. Another point: there are lots of straight people who can’t marry the person they love, because they are married to somebody else – or the person they love is. This is not a ‘gay’ problem. It is so much not a gay problem, that the cohabitation rights being talked about will also cover situations in which two siblings live together, for example.]
The right to adopt a child as a couple (while single people can).
[Daphne – Nobody can adopt a child as a couple if they’re not married, and whether they’re gay or straight has nothing to do with it. Straight people who aren’t married to each other can’t adopt as a couple, either.]
The right to be recognised as “family” when it comes to funeral organisation, hospital visitation etc (in other words if your partner’s family does not accept you, you have no legal rights to be with your partner at the toughest of times).
[Daphne – Again, that’s not because you’re gay. It’s because you’re not married. If I were living with a man, and not married to him, I wouldn’t be considered family, either. Funeral organisation? Why wouldn’t you be allowed to organise your lover’s funeral? I think you’ve got that one wrong. As for not being allowed into hospital, that would only be if your lover is unconscious or in a coma. If he is conscious, he can ask the staff to allow you in. One isn’t reduced to the status of a minor just because one is in a hospital bed.]
The right to take urgent family leave or bereavement leave from work when your partner is sick or has just died.
[Daphne – Again, nothing to do with being gay. Everything to do with not being married. Straight people have to deal with the same situation. So the essential problem is not discrimination, but the inability to marry.]
The right to any social benefits that married couples are entitled to, such as social housing, tax breaks, rent laws etc.
[Daphne – See above.]
In the case of transgender people, other rights have to be considered such as the recognition of one’s changed gender (as we saw with the Joanne case, if that was her name).
[Daphne – Are we talking about transgender people here, or homosexuals? Don’t confuse the issue.]
Oh and, obviously there are other social problems such as many people who are rejected by their families, sidelined by their friends, abused and bullied in schools and in Paceville, and discrimination at the workplace. I have not experienced many of these, but I do know people who do on a daily basis. By saying these things do not happen any more you are being over simplistic and naive.
[Daphne – And a law will solve that, will it. ‘Thou shalt not throw your son out if he is gay.’ I suppose the Nationalist Party is to blame for ignorant parents, and that the election of Joseph Muscat will make them less ignorant.]
These are all rights that the Nationalist party has consistently swept under the rug and refused to discuss properly. Yes you are right, divorce is the first step. But Gonzi is still insisting a “discussion” has to happen, while failing to indicate who has to start this discussion.
As for the self-victimisation of the gay “community”, I understand your concerns. But as you know, in order for the above rights to be achieved, [Daphne – Those ‘rights’ are all derived from marriage, and not from one’s sexuality.] gay people (together with straight people who believe that such rights should also be granted to gay people), need to become “visible” – they need to show policy-makers that these rights are needed.
[Daphne – I think straight people have enough problems of their own. But because they know that those problems are not linked to their sexuality, they don’t make a big production out of them.]
Obviously the biggest power a person has over his policy-makers is his vote. So yes, there is nothing wrong with gay people voting, among other things, on whether a candidate believes in the above rights or not.
[Daphne – Again, what rights? You still haven’t given me an answer. You are speaking about the rights of MARRIED PEOPLE not of heterosexual or homosexual people. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the fact that marriage originated as a way of legitimising offspring and setting up a productive economic ‘community’. That’s how it has been for thousands of years, and thousands of years of thinking is slow to change. Gay marriage has only just been introduced in several much more advanced European states, and yet you expect to snap your fingers and get it in Malta, where we don’t even have divorce. Be real.]
The only way to get politicians moving most of the time is to tell them that there are votes to be won. So yes, just as people who want divorce should vote for politicians who also believe in the need for divorce, gay people (and allies) should do the same.
[Daphne – I absolutely disagree with you. Divorce is a tiny part of life. If I can find a political party that supports divorce and can also be trusted to run the country well, then fine. But I’m not going to choose my politicians exclusively on the basis of whether they are pro-divorce or not. Given the choice of an inept pro-divorce prime minister and very capable anti-divorce prime minister, I would choose the latter any day. There are more important things in life, and one of them is called the bigger picture.]
The “invisibility” factor of the gay community is that gay people, unlike blacks, women, Asians, the disabled, etc, are not identified as gay people visibly.
[Daphne – So go ahead and pin a yellow star to your chest then, what can I say. Imagine if you were to be identified by a badge, what the general reaction would be. That’s just the point I’m trying to make, and which you just can’t see. You’re not a gay man, you’re just a man, and that’s how the world sees you, so move on. Do you mean you actually WANT to be seen as a gay man? Isn’t that exactly what you’re fighting against?]
This is why gay people feel the need to identify themselves as so.
[Daphne – You’re wrong there. Not all gay people do. The ones I know and love and work with all get on with life and don’t define themselves by their gayness.]
As regards “defining yourself by your sexuality” – the ideal situation would be one where no one would have to come out, no one would have to fight for gay rights, and there would not be need for gay rights movements.
[Daphne – You don’t have to ‘come out’. There are no sex police roaming round with forms you have to tick. I think you’ll find that most people really, really don’t care whether you are gay or straight. I mean that. They don’t. The sex lives of ordinary people are infinitely, infinitely boring. Nobody cares, really. To get people interested, you’d have to do something really outre, like getting arrested for banging a donkey.]
The truth is, we do not live in an ideal society. We live in a society which does discriminate, both at a social level and at a legislative level. And the only way for both those things to change, is through strategic activisim, an increase in visibility, political lobbying, campaigns, voting for the right politicians, and yes, organising ourselves as a movement (just like the feminist and black movements, which although had their negative aspects, brought a great deal of change to the world that paved the way for people like you to vote and work, for instance).
[Daphne – Oh come on, honestly. You’re a man, not a ‘gay man’. You have the exact same rights other men have, including the right to marry a woman. It’s just that you don’t want to marry a woman, so tough. Think clearly. All the rights you’re talking about come through marriage and not through gayness or straightness. So there’s just one thing you have to campaign for: same-sex marriage. But you’ll have to stand in line. Divorce comes first.]
In other words, gay activisim should not be oversimplified as being guilty of creating an “us” and “them” mentality.
The PL is saying that the persons involved in the alleged incident are private persons and not representative of the PL. I take it that it means they don’t have to distance themselves from anything.
il-Qaħbu and il-Qattus are the raw face of the PL, Edward Scicluna and Marlene Mizzi are the make-up.
Antoine, where would you fit Żeppi l-Ħafi in such a scenario?
[Daphne – You mean the man who, by his own admission, tried to kill the personal assistant to the Nationalist Party leader and prime minister? That’s where he fits in.]
So why was he given a triple pardon by that same Prime Minister?
[Daphne – So that he would, to use British terminology, turn Queen’s evidence, which he did. But your Labour Party perverted the course of justice by endlessly talking about the case and undermining the credibility of what the witness had to say. The witness is a criminal, but in this case he was telling the truth. He told the police what happened BEFORE he got the presidential pardon. And it wasn’t a ‘triple pardon’. It was a pardon.]
No less than 3 independent juries discarded the evidence given by Il-Ħafi – effectively saying he was lying. Nicholas Jensen Testferrata – surely no Labourite and a close friend of the victm – said that, contrary to his evidence, il-Ħafi was the one who struck the blow.
Yet the pardons were allowed to stand. Clearly because they were given for reasons far differenet than the ones stated.
[Daphne – People can only be tried once for the same crime. There was one jury trial, not three. You don’t know Nicholas Jensen from Adam. I, on the other hand, do. He is not a close friend of the victim – far from it. Nor does he support the Nationalist Party. That was the propaganda put about by the political party you support. The point you miss is that ‘the victim’ knew Joseph Fenech and Jensen did not. If he were the one who did it, he would have recognised him instantly. It’s also the reason why Fenech got a couple of others to do the job instead of doing it himself – he didn’t want to be recognised and he couldn’t very well hang around the street wearing a balaclava. That much would be obvious to anyone who thinks clearly. ‘The pardons were allowed to stand’ – pardons cannot be rescinded. If you didn’t have the sort of mind that makes you support Labour, the reasons why would be self-evident. ‘Clearly they were given for reasons far different’ – and these reasons would be something to which you have insider knowledge as a member of Manwel Cuschieri’s radio audience, perhaps?
Oh, and by the way, if you think you’ve foxed me by changing your name from Ettore Bono to ChavsRUs, you haven’t. Clearly, you are uninformed as to the existence of IP numbers: 78.133.75.22 Ettore Bono 78.133.75.22 E Bono 78.133.75.22 ChavsRUs – and so on. But then you do support Labour, hence the odds are pretty high that you’re a bit, well, shall we say not too smart? If you want to be part of this blog, learn how to play by the rules. Those rules include accepting the fact that when I delete a comment, it’s deleted. If you harass me by sending in the same comment to provoke me – you think – I will have your comments sent to spam to avoid having to delete them. You are here as my guest. Accept that, and stop spitting on my floor and crapping on my sofa. You don’t have to prove that you vote Labour. You’ve told us already.]
ChavsRus/Ettore, Zeppi l-Ħafi is a common criminal who was never a PN official and never attacked Labour supporters for political reasons. The MLP was desperate to smear Fenech Adami and persuaded the less intelligent of their followers that the PM was some kind of evil mastermind, plotting and hanging out with criminals. The strategy failed spectacularly as Fenech Adami won election after election.
On the other hand, il-Qaħbu and il-Qattus are part of an army of Labour hooligans, having a long career of bullying and mugging their political opponents with the implicit consent of the party bosses. It was Alfred Mifsud who wrote that Mintoff used violence as a political tool – he was referring to the likes of Qaħbu and Qattus.
“pardons cannot be rescinded”
I don’t believe that’s correct. My memory is that the pardon was conditional: subject to a) the witness taking the stand, and b) the witness telling the truth and not perjuring himself. If these conditions were not met the pardon would have been rescinded. Check it out.
[Daphne – Exactly. He took the witness stand and he told the truth, in graphic detail. However, the Labour Party saw this as a good opportunity to gain political advantage, and mounted a full-on a campaign to sow doubt and confusion. In this, the party and its media were aided and abetted by the original perpetrator’s family, in whose interest it was that there should be as much confusion as possible, for the obvious reason that on the basis of Fenech’s testimony, this perpetrator would have been in jail for even longer than he was already. And while they had relatively few qualms about having a cocaine trafficker in their nest, having an attempted murderer in the family was apparently a different thing altogether. They couldn’t even admit it to themselves.]
We were told that il-Qahbu was arrested…now watching Net and it says the police are looking for him….is this some kind of joke or what?
[Daphne – Il-Qattus was arrested. Il-Qahbu is on the run. There is something of a comic feel to this.]
So all this happened ‘in front of police officers’ (NET tv) and this ‘obese’ guy managed to run away. I think someone somewhere is blowing this to larger than life proportions……comic, indeed!
I rarely agree with your arguments, Ms Caruana Galizia… but today you have me all behind you.
Comic!?!?! You bet.
All? How many of you are there?
That is why I said we do not have the right to marry the person we love – not because love is part of the right to marriage, but because for a gay man it is no use having the right to marry a woman.
The point is that nothing can change until this mentality changes: the love and commitment two gay men (or gay women) share is of no less value as that between a heterosexual couple.
[Daphne – Please, try and listen. Nobody cares whether you love each other or not. Other people are just not interested, and it’s not because you’re gay. It’s because you’re not interesting. I don’t mean that personally. Other people just aren’t interesting, unless they’re ‘celebrities’. Everyone is too wrapped up in his or her own life and problems to give a hoot about everyone else. Your love, however passionate, is no more fascinating to me and to Joe down the road than the love of Tony and Sue next door. Who gives a damn? No one.]
Our current laws say otherwise. Therefore they are discriminatory. In the same way that past American laws did not allow marriage between people of different races – that was discrimination.
[Daphne – No, no, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong. Marriage has NOTHING to do with love, at least legally. You can marry someone you hate, or to whom you are indifferent, and the marriage is still legal. It is only in very recent times that marriage came to be linked to love, and I mean VERY recent. Gay marriage was never necessary because there were no offspring to legitimise. Now that we have got over that particular hump, talk of gay marriage has increased and some states have legislated for it. Be practical, for God’s sake. You can’t expect to change thousands of years of established practice in the blink of an eye. Look at what women had to go through.]
I’m not saying gay marriage should come before divorce. I’m saying they should come together. And cohabitation rights or civil partnerships are not an alternative to either.
[Daphne – On that point at least we agree. I should point out to you, though, that gay marriage in most states which have legislated for it is actually not marriage at all but carries another name: civil partnership.]
Also – about the question of coming out – all the gay people you know have come out – that is how you know they are gay. The alternative to coming out is hiding your sexual orientation from the people you love – with all that comes with it.
[Daphne – You might be surprised to know that straight people almost always know when a person is gay, whether they’ve come out or not. Sometimes we even know before the person can confront that awareness in himself – or herself. But like I said before, we don’t really care. We’re too busy tying ourselves up in knots over our own lives.]
Daphne you seem to be going out of your way to not understand me. I’m not saying anyone should be interested in my relationship or that people need to make an issue of being gay.
I am simply saying this:
Gay couples need to be allowed to get married because marriage is much more than just an act of legitimising children. As I said in my first post, and as you kindly pointed out, the rights granted to married couples go into many more issues than just children.
[Daphne – We are not disagreeing on that. Where we part company is on matters of logic. You speak about ‘gay rights’, while I say that there is only one right you seek – the right to get married – and that all the other rights you speak about come through that.]
And let’s be practical. Coming out does not mean informing everyone politely that you are attracted to someone of the same sex. It means being open about your relationships in the way that straight people are open about theirs. In other words, when people ask you if you are dating someone, and you are dating someone of the same sex, and you answer honestly – you are coming out.
[Daphne – I can’t see why anyone would have a problem doing that, unless they are essentially cowards. It would have been a problem even just 20 years ago. But now? Even my grandmother probably wouldn’t have bothered. Put it this way, if your family is going to reject you because you are gay, they’re probably the sort to reject you whatever you do that they think is wrong. So instead of allowing them to reject you, go ahead and reject them. Not ideal, but if you’re an adult you’ll deal with it.]
And despite what you say about no one caring, you know as well as I do, that relationship-talk is very common. And for gay people to participate in such conversations they must “come out” in that they must be open about who they are dating.
[Daphne – I never tell anyone anything about my private life, never have and never will. And I’m not gay. Some people are exhibitionists and others are not. Gay or straight has nothing to do with it.]
I’m not saying that I expect thousands of years of thinking about the concept of marriage to change overnight. I am saying that I want to empower politicians (of whichever party) who are willing to start talking about it.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I really don’t want to live in a country where politicians spend their time discussing the sexual relationships of their constituents. They can just legislate for civil partnerships for people of the same sex and have done with it, when the time – eventually – comes. It’s bad enough that I have to listen to all this bollocks about cohabitation, as though when two people decide to create problems for themselves it suddenly becomes everyone else’s problem as well. Speaking for myself, I would just assess the situation properly before going to live with someone, and if it didn’t look like a good idea, I wouldn’t do it. Most people live in messes that are almost entirely of their own making. Fine, we need solutions. But something tells me that when the solution arrives in the form of divorce, people will still find fresh ways to complicate their lives. ]
What’s the difference (legally) between civil marriage and civil partnership?
[Daphne – Some difference in rights and obligations.]
Were you not against civil partnerships when Joseph Muscat proposed them because they would essentially be second-class marriages?
[Daphne – I am against civil partnerships for people who can marry under the current legislation, because in that case it really would be second-class marriage and also pointless and unnecessary. Why create another form of union when we have a perfectly serviceable one already? I am not against civil partnerships for people of the same sex. There is no existing legislation which caters for their needs, as there is with heterosexuals.]
Gay rights do not only include marriage. It includes anti-discrimination regulations in employment (which we got thanks to the EU), [Daphne – No, we didn’t ‘get them’ thanks to the EU.], adoption rights (some countries allow civil partnerships but not adoptions). [Daphne – I have a gay friend who has adopted a child. It’s not about whether you’re gay or not. Single women – and she’s a woman – can adopt. Single men can’t, whether they’re gay or straight. So the discrimination, if you wish to call it that, is not against homosexual men but against single men in general.] And there is Trans rights which, yes, falls under the gay rights movement. [Daphne – Stupid of them. Transgender people have no more in common with homosexuals than they do with heterosexuals. The surest way to shoot yourself in the foot is to mix gay issues with transgender issues.]
You’ve told us a lot about your private life. That is how we all know you are a heterosexual woman with a heterosexual husband and have three boys in their early twenties.
[Daphne – That’s not my private life. That’s my public life. Marriages and births are matters of public record, which is why they are recorded at the public registry.]
If I were to explain I will be disclosing that I am a man in a relationship with another man. This will constitute coming out. I could also opt to lie and say I am a single man. This is not coming out.
[Daphne – But you can bet your last cent that lots of people know that (1) you are gay and that (2) you are in a relationship, whether you’ve told them or not. People are not blind, even if they are not curious and don’t care. The other day this young gay man I know told me about the man he is seeing, and how he sees him in secret. Why, I said, is he married? Apparently not: he’s my age, lives with his mother, has never had a girlfriend, but “won’t come out because he thinks it will affect his career in an insurance company”. And I thought: honey, 44 years old and lives with his mother? The whole office knows he’s gay. He might as well face it.]
Introducing legislation which allows gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples is not a question of discussing other people’s sexual relationships.
[Daphne – For the zillionth time: you can’t ‘introduce legislation which allows gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples’. Rights are not based on whether the two are heterosexual or homosexual, but on whether they are married or not. My god, is this so hard to understand?]
Again you are simplifying when you say such things. My point is just that what a politician thinks about gay marriage matters a lot to me as a gay man who wants (in his lifetime) to be able to get married.
[Daphne – You might find, when you finally reach your holy grail, that it really wasn’t worth the bother. And then you’ll be glad that I said divorce should come before gay marriage.]
Oh and my parents have no problem with my sexuality. But I know many others who do. And legislation that puts gay couples on the same level as gay couples would help change such mentalities. Obviously, not overnight.
Hehe ok I’m tired of arguing… Bottom line is that just as I won’t vote for a politician if I know they are racists, I will not vote for politicians who believe that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married straight couples. Obviously that is not the only factor. But it is a factor.
And yes, Malta did not have any regulations to safeguard against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation pre-EU membership. But the EU (which generally believes, unlike you, that gay people should be protected against discrimination because it is not just in people’s heads), makes it compulsory to have such safeguards. And that’s what ensured such legislation to be put in place.
[Daphne – Unlike me? I happen to be one of those who thinks that sexual orientation is completely irrelevant, and I just couldn’t be bothered about it. What is this ‘legislation’ you mention? Please cite chapter and verse.]
Oh and, regarding adoption, yes I know you can adopt a child if you are single. But I believe that gay couples in a legally-recognised relationship should be able to adopt a child together – where they both have parental rights. We all know what the dangers of having a child with only one registered parent are.
[Daphne – There are no dangers. The dangers come from bad parents, not from single parents.]
I wonder if adoption falls into your concept of a civil partnership.
[Daphne – I can’t take a cut and dried stance on this one, I’m afraid. I’ve always wondered about there being parameters for adoption when there are no parameters for having a child naturally. I suppose it’s down to damage limitation – you can’t stop children being born into unsuitable situations, but you can stop them being adopted into them. Children are obviously going to have problems with two mummies or two daddies in a same-sex marriage, and no amount of political-correctness is going to change that. So I can understand why there would be a barrier to adoption by same-sex couples, even if they are married. On the other hand, no one’s stopping a gay man or woman having a child of their own. Homosexuality doesn’t make a person sterile, except in their heads.]
http://www.maltagayrights.net/files/LN297of2003.pdf
I believe this is the regulation I am referring to. It was introduced before Malta joined the EU but because of an EU directive.
[Daphne – Do you notice that there are other things in there besides sexual orientation – and that gender is missing?]
The dangers of having a kid with only one of its parents registered as a parent is that they will not be legally recognised as family, so if the one parent that is registered dies, the child will be essentially parent-less, and there are many legal complications to this.
[Daphne – How can somebody be registered as a parent if they are not a parent? And what does this have to do with being gay?]
This must have seemed like manna from heaven to the PN supporters – just what they had been hoping for.
Reminds me of the late and unlamented Ganni l-Pupa who used to do the same thing – and afterwarss “suddenly” became an great fan of Eddie Fenech Adami.
What a laugh.
It was a nice try – but much too late..
[Daphne – Please read Mike C’s post and then crawl back to your hole. Except that it probably isn’t a hole, given that this is 2009 and not 1986.]
I’m an elf, not a Hobbit.
You’re a troll.
There is probably a specific one on gender discrimination that had already been introduced.
[Daphne – It would have to be there along with race and religion, but as with our Constitution, it isn’t. Yes, there is specific legislation against discrimination on grounds on gender, but what that should tell you is that discrimination on grounds of gender is a much bigger and deep-rooted problem than discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. And that’s why I tried to explain to you that you, as a gay man, had and have far fewer problems than I do as a heterosexual woman. Your maleness eclipses your sexual orientation. Not so long ago, you had full rights as a man, but I had limited rights as a married woman. So put things into perspective.]
It doesn’t matter if there are other things included. The important thing is that thanks to the EU’s insistence, we have legislation that protects people from being discrimination as regards employment. And I mentioned it in the first place because it is one of those rights that has nothing to do with being a couple.
[Daphne – Read the Constitution before you jump to conclusions about how we got this through the EU. It mentions all those things, but not sexual orientation as I recall. And not gender, either.]
Re: parenting, what I meant is this:
Imagine a gay couple wants to raise a child and chooses to do so through adoption. As things stand what these two would have to do is have one of them adopt the child on their name, becoming their legal parents or guardians or whatever. The child may then be raised by the couple, BUT if the legally recognised guardian dies, the child and the other “guardian” will have no legal ties – and I could get into what that could mean but it’s late and I’m tired, and you are well aware of it yourself.
[Daphne – How is this different to an unmarried heterosexual couple in the same situation? It’s not.]
Again, it has to do with gay rights because it is an example of how outdated legislation can create problems. Yes the same can obviously be said about divorce, and I am the first to demand it, but I think if we’re going to finally update our laws we should do so holistically. And yes, that includes catering for transgender issues. And the reason transgender issues are generally muddled up with gay ones is that transgender people had started the rights movement in the first place because they were experiencing abuse and discrimination in America.
[Daphne – Sorry, but I can’t see the connection. Do you by any chance cater also for the rights of disabled people, women, blacks and Jews? Just wondering.]
It would be stupid to go separate ways when both causes have been so intertwined historically and when both can assist each other. Not to mention the fact that homophobia and transphobia are generally quite linked.
[Daphne – They’re linked because you’re working overtime to link them, sir.]
I won’t even bother correcting the grammar this time, I should go to sleep!
I kept my name private just to tell you that unfortunately things at Zejtun were out of control since this morning. Near the secondary girls school, someone was giving out Glen Bedingfield’s business cards to people who were entering the polling station (at the main gate), while chatting to two police officers. As I reported the incident to the necessary authorities early in the afternoon (and nothing was immediately done), I am not surprised at all with this event. It was only a matter of time.
Dear Antoine Vella
Yes of course I really admire the “Labour Thugs” that attacked the poor fellow at Zejtun! What the hell are you on about? Are you on some kind of drugs? And who said that this is a PN conspiracy? Of course I condemn the stupidity of these people, but I also condemn the people like you who use these incidents to attack the PL as if this was something organised by the party. Come on get a life. Violence is to be condemned everytime and everywhere, not used as an incentive to get disgruntled Nationalist out to vote. You should get people out to vote by strong arguments not “Maa, x’wahda din gejjin il-“Labour thugs”!
[Daphne – I am quite sure Antoine will reply, but I just want to clear up one point: why would Labour thugs get out the PN vote? This is not a general election. It’s the election of five MEPs. Even if Labour were to take all five seats, there will still be a Nationalist government – and hence no fear of Labour thugs. We have to wait four years for that.]
Frank Scembri, your condemnation of violence “everytime and everywhere” is the usual attempt to generalise and dilute the denouncement, putting both parties on the same footing. This was not a case of violence everywhere but an incident where two notorious Labour ruffians assaulted PN agents. The violence came from a specific camp: that of your party and you should ask yourself why, after Sant allegedly “cleaned” it (though I’ve never heard a Labourite admit that the MLP needed cleaning).
Why do you condemn their stupidity? We’re not talking of an IQ test here. It is because you fear that their aggression might cost the PL some votes and that is your only concern. Contrary to what you say, violent acts should be given publicity to persuade voters to cherish their freedom and defend their hard-won democracy.
In my life I have known many Labour supporters and they normally regard the “imqarbin” with fondness, becoming worried only when the violence becomes a political liability. So don’t give me any of your self-righteous indignation; your reaction is more transparent than you think.
Tbezzghu in-nies tridu. Insejtuh il-zeppi l-hafi jigriwara eddie fenech adami. le nibqghu taht dittatorjat nazzjonalista.. dak ta wedi hafnau jzomm xejn??? jew inkellnibqghu taht gvern nazzjonalista u nkomplu nzidu d dejn. gbajna naqghu ghan nejk ma l-Unjoni Ewropeja. jien la l qahbu u lanqas il-qattus m’huma ha jwaqqfuni milli nghid li jien kburija li jien laburista. u li labour ivvutajt. il-movement progressist iwa jilqa l-kullhadd fi hdanu, imma mhux jinstiga la vjolenza u lanqas mibegheda. so toqodux tinstigaw nies intom jekk ma tridux vjolenza !!!!!!!!
[Daphne – Se jkun moviment il-vera progressiv b’nies bhalek fih, li lanqas biss jafu jiktbu u jahsbu. Nahseb il-moviment progressiv li ghandkom f’mohhkom huwa speci ta’ lynch mob – fittex bil-Google – issoltu taghkom.]
Anabel:
Zeppi l-Hafi is an embarrassment, I agree, and the fact that he got away with so much has fuelled quite a few conspiracy theories. Yet, you cannot compare him to the Zejtun thugs who blatantly beat up innocent people who simply did not share their political views.
The excuse that these people were provoked is wearing thin – the tal-Barrani mass meeting was blamed on the Nationalists because they shouldn’t have organised a mass meeting in the south. The Zejtun wedding violence was Fenech Adami’s fault because he should not have gone to Zejtun.
What about when the Fenech Adami family home was broken into and Mrs Fenech Adami was beaten up? Or when the Curia was attacked by a mob led by Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici. Was there provocation here, too? Then there was the ransacking of the law courts, led by Lorry Sant and, I believe, Joe Debono Grech, the beating up of locked-out (and please note that ‘locked-out’ is not ‘on strike’) doctors by Danny Cremona and his men, the burning of The Times building when police just stood by and watched, the shooting of Nationalist supporters in Rabat by police, when my uncle discovered a bullet in his camera battery belt.
Come on, grow up.
And in case you say that this is all history just remember that people like Sceberras Trigona and Debono Grech have been embraced back into the fold.
Re your comment “gbajna naqghu ghan nejk ma l-Unjoni Ewropeja” I advise you to go back a few years to the so-called Partnership plans which really made us the laughing stock of the EU. The “frozen” application, which in the eyes of all, except your pathetic bunch, meant an application withdrawal.
More recently we have heard your beloved leader telling us that he would be willing to ignore international laws when dealing with immigrants. He also advised the government to use its veto powers (now that would have made us look good) to draw attention to our plight. And the latest… Labour MEPs not knowing which button to press. I suppose they too were provoked into doing this.
Yes Daphne gay people in Malta face discrimination. My partner and I have been together for five years. We are denied many rights that straight couples take for granted. As he is a non-EU citizen when we lived in Malta he had to leave the island every three months and could getting a work permit was next to impossible.
[Daphne – I’m getting tired of repeating the same thing, but it seems that people in your situation are determined to feel martyred and persecuted. How is this different from a straight couple in the same situation? It isn’t. The fact remains that whether you are gay or straight, the state doesn’t recognise your relationship unless you are married. There are many straight couples in exactly the same situation.]
It was a financial nightmare, very stressful and almost destroyed our relationship. In many EU countries he would have been able to get a residence and work permit on the basis of our relationship.
[Daphne – That would be in very few countries, and in very many, he wouldn’t. Malta is not a special case, and the fact that you can’t have your boyfriend live with you does not mean you are being discriminated against. It just means that many states have very tight immigration/work laws which have nothing to do with whether you are gay or straight. If I find myself a boyfriend from Moldova, I can’t have him live here with me either.]
And I can give many other examples of discrimination. I know you do not agree but you are wrong. It is depressing because you do have an influence over public opinion. Imma x taghmel tghid giet hekk!
[Daphne – It is precisely because I have an influence over public opinion that I use it responsibly. I would never try to curry favour with the pink lobby by saying that homosexuals are discriminated against when I know that’s not true, and that all their problems, like the problems of people who cannot divorce, derive from the fact that they cannot marry. The fact that there is no gay marriage is not discrimination against gays. It’s that society is still reshaping its views about marriage, which has for thousands of years been little more than a vehicle for the legitimisation of offspring. You overdo the importance of marriage in your situation in any case. Marriage is significant only if you are a believer or you wish your children to be raised by parents who are married to each other. There’s very little point in being married otherwise, and in your situation I just wouldn’t bother unless one of you plans to be financially dependent. Everything else can be sorted out through contracts. And if one of you is worried that the other is going to do him in without a contract, then that’s a reason not to get married and not a reason to marry.]
Daphne
” I’m getting tired of repeating the same thing” Iss aremm hej iddejqet Daphne….well tough if you are tired of repeating yourself. I on the other hand was tired of having to count days in order to make sure that the person I share my life with did not overstay his tourist visa.
Discrimination is when same situations are treated differently. You should compare oranges to oranges and not to apples. You should compare my situation to that of a straight maltese person who has never been married. She or he has a way of getting their non-EU partner of living with him or her in Malta and I do not. Hence discrimination.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but you’re assuming that every heterosexual relationship ends in marriage. It doesn’t. Those who have the option of marriage usually duck and dive away from it because the consequences are usually permanent and wide-ranging – with or without divorce. It is one of those strange ironies that the more possible marriage is, the less enticing it becomes. Of course there have been some heterosexual men who have married their non-EU girlfriends to put an end to this tourist visa nonsense, but there have been many more who haven’t, because the prospect of the tie that binds is more frightening than the bother of a tourist visa. So obviously, you feel differently about it.]
“That would be in very few countries” – depends how you look at it. The following EU states give immigration rights to same sex partners: UK, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, France, Czech Republic. 10 out of 27 is not exactly few … and the list is growing yearly Luxembourg and Ireland are working on it for instance. (Incidentally the following non-EU countries also do: Andorra, Iceland, Norway, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Uruguay).
[Daphne – I’m not going to check the immigration legislation of all those countries to see whether this is the case, but where the UK is concerned I would do a double-check on that information: even non-EU spouses from certain countries have problems, still less partners. And I really don’t think you can just waltz into the UK with somebody you describe as your partner and have that person granted freedom of movement. If that were the case, there would be a racket going on.]
Yes and in very many countries my boyfriend and I would be hanged and you would not be able to drive your car. Since when does “many” make something acceptable?
[Daphne – I have a problem with irrational arguments. I know it might come across as annoying, but that’s just me. I’m not seeking election so I don’t have to tell you what you want to hear.]
If you were responsible you would be showing a little bit more understanding and raising public awareness of the difficulties that we face. And I say difficulties – not martyrdom nor persecution. My partner and I never faced any social discrimination whatsoever – the only issues were legal.
[Daphne – Have you any idea of the truly serious problems faced by thousands of people in this country? Again, this issue boils down to the same thing: same-sex marriage. If you think I am going to start campaigning for same-sex marriage, you’re wrong. It’s not because I don’t agree with it, it’s because commonsense should dictate timing. Does Malta – a country without divorce – strike you as a suitable place to start a campaign for same-sex marriage. It’s not on the cards of either political party, nor will it be. Muscat can’t even bring himself to consider the whip for a divorce bill, and he’s supposed to be the progressive future. I’ll give you a tip: campaign for the registration in Malta of same-sex marriages made overseas. That’s the system we use here with divorce. You can’t divorce in Malta, but the state recognises divorces granted elsewhere.]
You went on a whole diatribe about marriage. I never once mentioned the word. I personally don’t particularly care too much for it. All I want is the some basic rights (such as immigration rights, being able to visit my partner in hospital in those cases when only family can etc ) that straight couple obtain through marriage or in many EU and non-EU countries, through civil or registered partnership.
[Daphne – There is no such thing as ‘only family’ in hospital. It’s next of kin or any other person the invalid asks for. Do you honestly imagine if somebody is lying in intensive care and asks for you, his boyfriend, you won’t be allowed in? Come on. Those rules are there to limit disturbance to those who are seriously ill, not to discriminate against unmarried people. The only problem you will have is if he is unconscious or in a coma and unable to speak for himself, and his blood family keeps you out. The solution? A good relationship with his family.]
Yes, Daphne, civil and registered partnerships are an option that a good number of civilised countries offer both straight and gay couples alongside with marriage.
[Daphne – Yes, and some uncivilised countries actually allow you to divorce. And to marry up to four women. Civilisation has nothing to do with it.]
As for your Moldovan boyfriend: you are married and I am not so the comparison is invalid. Furthermore you could always buy yourself an annulment or get “domiciled” abroad and obtain a divorce abroad which is recognised in Malta. I could do nothing …. hence my partner and I are now living in another EU country.
[Daphne – I don’t have a Moldovan boyfriend. I was pointing out to you that it’s not only gay men who have Moldovan boyfriends. And they have the same problem. It’s great that you’re living in another EU country. Five years ago that wouldn’t have been possible. I imagine there are other considerable advantages besides the ability to live with your partner without a tourist visa (oh, the benefits of no border controls), so enjoy it. I mean it.]
If you stop repeating yourself you might actually allow yourself to hear something and then possibly listen and then ma tafx kif titghallem xi haga. You are so, so, so wrong on this one missek tisthi.
[Daphne – I guess you just don’t want to hear the truth then, but only want sympathy. Fact is, all your problems stem from the inability to marry, and you’re not alone in that. So talking of discrimination against homosexuals is neither here nor there. You not discriminated against as a homosexual because you can’t live in Malta with a non-EU partner. Heterosexuals can’t do that either. And please don’t be patronising. Less than 20 years ago, married women had fewer rights than gay men – and married women are in no way a minority. I say this only to put things into the proper perspective. You cannot seriously expect Malta to introduce same-sex marriage before divorce, or even concurrently. This is not a value judgment on gay marriage.]
Oh Come On…reading the above, you’d think we’re living in hell.
What the Qahbu or whatever he’s called is wrong and obviously condemnable but he is not representative of the PL so I can’t understand all this hassle above. Joseph did not tell him ‘well done’, I’m sure.
And if I’m not mistaken, there was a man who went to the Labour National Centre in Hamrun with a knife running after a man who was entering the Centre. So this works both ways and something like this is ALWAYS condemnable.
The PN should not have taken political advantage from it because Il-Qahbu won’t be in the European Parliament.
@ Charlie – you kept insisting that all those laws were implemented thanks to the EU – so just one question:
Which party wanted us to remain out of the EU and which one wanted us in?
Keeping to your logic, than which party is pro-gay rights?
This is not a competition about who is more discriminated against. I have no doubt that women have been discriminated against far more. And women are not even a minority group! But I do believe a lot of action has been taken in that area, although much more needs to be done. But yes we totally agree – discrimination against women is widespread and deep-rooted even in things like language, religion etc.
The same goes for unmarried heterosexual couples. Without the chance to get remarried (through divorce), such couples may face many legal difficulties, especially, but not only, when it comes to children.
My argument is this so: just as heterosexual couples (who have been married before) need the chance to marry, so do gay couples, so that they can enjoy all the rights I mentioned in the beginning, as well as for adoption rights.
[Daphne – Adoption laws are separate to marriage laws. The fact that you can marry/are married does not give you the right to adopt. Even if you fulfill all the criteria on paper, the adoption must still be approved by the courts, who demand a report from an independent assessor as to the suitability of the proposed parents and the home environment.]
And the word should be marriage because anything less would be discriminatory against heterosexual couples (as it is in the UK for instance).
[Daphne – Why would it be discriminatory? Marriage between a man and a woman in their 20s is obviously different to marriage between two men in their 20s, and I am not going to be brow-beaten by political correctness into lying that the two are the same.]
Tipo if a civil partnership has different rights and obligations but can only be had by same-sex couples, what if straight people want to be civil partnered instead of married?
[Daphne – My answer? Tough. I come from the stand-point where the state should interfere less and less in the regulation of sexual relationships, and not more and more. Strangely, the ones who are pressing for more regulation call themselves liberals.]
And should the lifelong commitment between a same-sex couple be equated with that of room-mates, mothers and daughters, etc through civil partnership?
[Daphne – Why not? Like I said, you don’t need to prove to the world that you have sex with your civil partner. I thought what you needed and wanted was legal rights.]
If gay and straight people have different categories of marriage, what the state is essentially saying is that their relationships are of a different value.
[Daphne – They are not of a different value, but they are of a different NATURE.]
And the argument about procreation does not hold here, because like you said, gay people are not sterile. And some straight people are.
[Daphne – One usually only discovers that one is sterile after one has tried having a child. Marriage is so much rooted in procreation that the marriage can be declared null and void if one of the partners knows that he/she is sterile before the marriage takes place and fails to disclose it to the other.]
As for your point about transgender issues. The thing is this, most gay movements try to be inclusive rather than exclusive. In other words, the gay movement includes people who are bisexual, asexual, questioning, intersex, transsexual, transgender, transvestites etc.
[Daphne – I say this purely from a public relations view and no other: that is a self-defeating measure and is only serving to make your cause more difficult.]
The philosophy behind this is that gender expression/identity and sexuality tend to overlap a lot, and whichever category of the ones I mentioned about you fall under, you are likely to be “discriminated against” in a similar way.
For instance, when gay children are bullied they are bullied not because they say they are gay. They are bullied because they show some sort of feminine traits or in girls’ cases masculine traits. Now that is not a question of sexual orientation, it’s a question of gender expression. So how can a gay movement preach against that sort of homophobia but not include transphobia which is basically the same thing on a larger scale?
[Daphne – You can’t. Children that age don’t know about sex and can’t understand the nature of sexual attraction. They are reacting because the other child is different, and not because they are homophobic. Fat children, spotty children, frizzy-haired children, ginger children, dirty children, all get the same reaction. Schools which create an atmosphere that doesn’t generate bullying are the best places for children like this, of which there were many and probably still are at the school I went to and where my sons went. The problem lies with the parents, who sometimes that the solution to their son’s obvious effeminate behaviour is to send him to a really tough boys’ school, where he will be miserable and bullied for the next six years. The place for effeminate boys is in a mixed gender school, where they will be extremely popular with the girls and regarded with bemusement and interest by the boys. But many gay boys are not effeminate and get along well in a gang of other boys.]
The point is that the movement is stronger as a group than as many smaller groups [Daphne – No, it is weaker.] – and at the end of the day they are all fighting for the same things – equality and acceptance regardless of sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity.
One last thing based on everything we’ve said so far: I would be really careful when claiming that gay people are not really discriminated against or that it is in their heads or that they put it on themselves through self-victimisation. Those are the same arguments that many men used when women were discriminated against. Next you’ll be talking of gay people having “too many rights”.
[Daphne – Hardly. I happen to work in a particular field where many people are gay. My homosexual colleagues – and I have trouble defining them as such because that’s not how I think of them, but you insist – have exactly the same rights and opportunities (and obligations) that I do.]
The fact is that around the world almost a third of teenage suicides are done by people who are gay – because bullying at schools is rampant, and many times gay children cannot turn to their parents for support for fear of rejection (especially those under 18 who cannot be independent).
[Daphne – Yes, the problem is invariably with the parents, but it’s much easier to blame society than to say ‘Those parents are ignorant fools.’]
Unlike black children who have black parents for support, or girls who have mothers for support, gay children have straight parents, and have to come out to their parents before receiving any support they need whether it is bullying or relationship problems etc. And the experience of coming out as a child/teenager is very difficult and cannot be explained away by: no one cares if you’re gay or straight. In practical terms, to speak about certain things with the people you love, you need to come out to them first.
And the truth is, many parents do care a great deal about their children’s sex-lives because many go as far as to “beat” the homosexuality out of them, or to ask them to leave the house, or see a priest or psychologist to cure them. There are some very real horrific cases going on at the moment, and if you do not believe this I urge you to contact the MGRM about them.
[Daphne – I know parents who have ruined their children’s lives by making them study like automatons and punishing them if they don’t get marks over 90 in routine school exams. Laws are not a solution to this kind of ignorance and failed parenting. It’s just the luck of the draw. What might help is education, but even so, when you’re dealing with this level of ignorance and prejudice, the only solution for the gay teenager is to leave home.]
I think it is offensive to downplay these things by saying they are brought on by the gay community which projects itself as “the other”. It is on the same lines as justifying rape because the victims were attractively dressed.
[Daphne – That’s not what I’m saying at all. I am trying to point out that you don’t help the cause of gay people by mixing in other issues like transgender rights. It should be obvious to you that there are thousands of people who take homosexuality for granted and have no problem with it, but who have trouble wrapping their heads around transgender people. Also, it doesn’t help your case to bang on about ‘discrimination’. You have to be specific. Discrimination where and how? Parents beating up their 15-year-old son because he is gay does not constitute discrimination and it is not something that can be legislated against specifically. There is already legislation against one person beating up another. This is domestic violence you’re talking about. A man who beats up his son because he is gay probably also beats up his wife because supper wasn’t up to scratch.]
Ma jitghallmu qatt u qatt…..dawn it-thugs mexxew lil Malta ghal 16-il sena shah….mhux ta’ b’ xejn li il-poplu ha jkun hallihom 25 sena fl-oppozizzjoni lill dawn in-nies.
Good girl! I am sure nobody wants stupid thugs in their party. PN have their own thugs too but are not mentioned in your media papers, especially at times like these of course. Anyway we have four years to wait but please tell your party to get sorted out. JPO is determined to threaten and is presently making a laughing stock out of the Prime minster. Also I hear there are about three other deputies who are making your party tremble. At present you are in a very laughable situation. You are mocked, teased and ridiculed by the same people who have a sit in Parliament. You are not credible anymore. This only shows only that we have a very weak government who is standing on a tight rope just enough for a gentle push to tumble like Humpty Dumpty.
You should be an authority on weak governments, Mary – 1998 isn’t that far in the past. Still stings doesn’t it?
That’s why i suggest you sort things out because it might happen to you this time. Old saying “What goes around, comes around”
You’ll have to explain how your use of the saying “What goes around, comes around” is of any relevance to this government (not me!) toppling over.
Mary,
“to tumble like Humpty Dumpty”
I’ve never heard of Alfred Sant referred to in this way but, well, he did tumble down didn’t he? You must be right.
Il-lupu ibiddel sufu, mhux ghemilu.
Gay people have the right to be as miserable as everybody else – let them marry.
A sweeping generalization on marriage: “Those who are out want in and those who are in want out”.
Daphne, you tell Mark “I’m not going to check the immigration legislation of all those countries to see whether this is the case”
So you’re a journalist that doesn’t do research. This is something I have suspected for a long time, considering the amount of times you have printed erroneous information.
[Daphne – That’s what’s called a non sequitur. I’m not going to check the immigration legislation of those countries because I don’t plan to write about the immigration legislation of those countries. If I do plan to write about immigration legislation, then I would check it. “The amount of times I have printed erroneous information” – please enlighten me.]
You also tell him “you can’t live in Malta with a non-EU partner. Heterosexuals can’t do that either.” Yes Daphne, THEY CAN. Any foreigner married to a Maltese can obtain Maltese citizenship after five years, even if he or she has never even set foot in Malta! While they’re waiting, they can come to Malta and obtain a work and residence permit allowing them to remain in the country.
[Daphne – Again, an illogical argument. The non-EU boyfriend of a Maltese man is not barred from living in Malta because he is in a gay relationship, but because he is non-EU. The immigration laws do not distinguish between gay and straight. The same law would affect the non-EU girlfriend of a Maltese man, and there are many such cases. Your assumption that the heterosexuals can marry is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that (1) the relationship is of a permanent nature, and (2) that the couple want to marry (and marriage is not just an expedient for a work and residence permit or citizenship), and (3) that they are free to marry. I think you’ll find that many of the Maltese men with non-EU girlfriends have, despite not being gay, the same problem you have. They can’t marry, in this case because they’re married already. Again, please do not interpret this as lack of sympathy for your plight. The truth could not be more different. I am just giving you a bit of advice: when putting forward your suit, you have to do so logically, or you will be tripped up by those who argue logically but who might have an agenda different to yours. So, conclude that all these problems you and others on this blog have mentioned are due to the absence of gay marriage – which they are – and then place your focus exclusively on achieving that. Arguing that you can’t have your non-EU boyfriend live with you will get you nowhere, because it will be immediately trounced with the reply that the law applies to all, gay or straight.]
This whole debate is not about gay marriage at all in any case, though you keep mentioning it. Australia, for example, has offered same-sex partners immigration rights for over a decade without any sort of gay marriage. Spain did as well, long before it thought of introducing gay marriage. But I guess you won’t want to go look that up.
[Daphne – You have clearly looked it up already, unless you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. So in that case, please save me the bother and post a link to the specific legislation in Australia and Spain. It is in your interests to do so, not mine, because you are the one who wishes to bolster his argument. Again, a bit of advice: instead of claiming that Australia does this and Spain does that, quote the legislation. Spain is in the EU. It is has the same freedom of movement rules about non-EU citizens that we do. If it allows freedom of movement to non-EU same-sex partners, then that will be because the partnership is registered. I’m pretty sure you can’t just waltz in with a boyfriend from, say, Malawi or Uzbekistan and say at the immigration desk ‘Oh this is my boyfriend. He can stay and work’ and have them whisk you through. If that were the case, it would be open season, with people going through pretending to be other people’s homosexual partner, or for that matter, heterosexual partner, unless Spain and Australia discriminate against heterosexuals.]
As for the hospital scenario, YES gay partners ARE kept out, and it DOES HAPPEN. But as with all your arguments, anything that doesn’t happen in your own little world doesn’t exist, does it?
[Daphne – Hospital visiting hours are open to all. You just turn up to see somebody and if the patient doesn’t want to see you, he or she will call security to have you removed. There is no security desk checking visitors to see whether they are gay partners, so as to bar them entry. Basically, if your boyfriend wants to see you, you can see him. The trouble only arises if your boyfriend cannot speak for himself, and his mother, father, children or for that matter, wife, don’t want you around. But that is not a gay issue. It’s a family dispute issue. If you’re married to him, they can’t keep you out, but here’s the nice bit: you can keep them out. So again, the problem is marriage.]
And for this thing about “Have you any idea of the truly serious problems faced by thousands of people in this country?” Well if you’re going to use THAT as an argument, then I can reply that as a person coming from a country with MAJOR problems, then using that line of reasoning the Maltese should not be allowed to complain about anything at all!! You have no war, no famine, the majority of the population does not live in shacks without running water, education is free, healthcare is free, university students get a stipend… there is nothing that would constitute a truly serious problem in most parts of the world.
[Daphne – That’s a good assessment of the current situation, and exactly how I feel about it. But as you saw from this electoral result, it’s not how others feel. You have mentioned the situation in the country as being relatively cushy, but you’ll find that people’s problems are usually personal, and like yours, they involve their private life. The inability to divorce is a very big thing.]
You say you don’t like irrational arguments and yet you can’t seem to use a rational one.
[Daphne – On the contrary, I sometimes undermine myself by being far too rational, because most times what people want most is to be told they’re right. Tell them that, and they’ll love you. But it’s not going to happen, because I’m not a politician.]
@ Daphne
u ajma gejja bil-waltz. No you do not waltz in. You prove that you have a stable relationship. There are strict requirements. IF and only IF you fulfil them, by virtue of the civil unions act you can, as an EU national, apply for a UK residence and work permit for your non-EU same-sex partner.
[Daphne – Thank you for proving my point after being disingenuous about ‘being allowed to live with your non-EU boyfriend in other countries but not in Malta.’ There has to be a civil partnership, you said so yourself at last. In other words, boyfriends and girlfriends are NOT allowed, elsewhere as in Malta. Malta’s problem is the lack of civil partnerships, not the refusal to allow freedom of movement to non-EU nationals who are in an unregistered sexual relationship with an EU national, or claim to be.]
There is no gay marriage in the UK.
[Daphne – No, but there are civil unions which are applicable only to same-sex couplings. They didn’t call it marriage not to upset everyone else.]
There is gay marriage in some countries (eg Netherlands, Belgium and Spain) and other forms of registering your partnership in other countries (see my previous post). Those countries that have gay marriage also have registered partnerships.
This discussion has become one of semantics and definitions but the issue is this: my partner and I, who have been together for five years, have no option, be it marriage or registered partnership or civil union, to obtain some of the basic rights that heterosexual couples can get through marriage (up to this point I agree with you). But gay marriage is not necessarily the only answer. There are other less controversial solutions. And these solutions are available in nine “old” EU member states and the Czech republic. Ireland and Luxembourg are working on it. Of the “old” member states Austria, Greece, Italy and Portugal do not and have no plans to as far as I am aware (one wonders why).
You cannot compare my situation to someone who has just met someone from Moldova and is not prepared to get married. I have been with my boyfriend for five years and if marriage was the only option I would go for it. Please compare me to someone who has been with a Moldovan girl for five years.
[Daphne – That wouldn’t be a good idea. Every woman knows that if a man hasn’t popped the question in five years, he’s never going to.]
But quite frankly I don’t give a fig for marriage. I would be very happy with the option of a registered partnership or civil union or the French PACS. The fact remains I have NO option.
This is NOT about gay marriage. I agree that asking for gay marriage is, to say the least, premature. But I do not understand why it is ok to campaign for divorce and not ok to campaign for a legal framework to regulate gay relationships. The recognition of foreign same-sex marriages is a matter for the courts to decide we will have to wait for the first test case.
A non-sequitur:
The prospect of not being able to live with the man that I had shared the last three years of my life with was a source of great stress and emotional hardship. We are lucky in that our parents are very supportive and have invested heavily in our education. Because of these two factors we have found a way to be together (albeit not in Malta). We have now been together for five years.
Another non-sequitur
I agree that we do not have real problems in Malta that we are blessed to have a great quality of life found only in a handful of countries. But these are not trivial issues. This is my family that we are talking about and I have the right to ask my elected representatives to provide a legislative framework to protect my family.
Final non-sequitur
u jrid ikollok wicc biex tghidli patronising – you should re-read some of your own writing.
[Daphne – Calm down, for crying out loud. I agree with you that homosexual couples should be able to register their partnership if they want to.]
[Daphne – Malta’s problem is the lack of civil partnerships, not the refusal to allow freedom of movement to non-EU nationals who are in an unregistered sexual relationship with an EU national, or claim to be.]
Agreed. This is what I have been trying to say all along.
[Daphne – No, but there are civil unions which are applicable only to same-sex couplings. They didn’t call it marriage not to upset everyone else.]
I am very much aware of what the UK legislation provides for. You are factually incorrect. Civil unions are also available for heterosexual partners. The problem is not that you have an opinion but that you speak with such authority when it is obvious that you have a somewhat superficial understanding of the issue.
[Daphne – That wouldn’t be a good idea. Every woman knows that if a man hasn’t popped the question in five years, he’s never going to.] Affarihom … but I’ll hand it to you tajba that’s funny.
[Daphne – Calm down, for crying out loud. I agree with you that homosexual couples should be able to register their partnership if they want to.] Mela hekk ghax qtajtli nifsi.
[Daphne – I’m sorry to have to contradict you again, but civil partnerships in the UK are for same-sex couples only. The ‘civil unions’ for heterosexuals to which you refer are civil marriages as opposed to marriages conducted by the religious rite. The only form of union between heterosexuals couples in the UK is marriage, whether religious or civil. There is nothing else.]
Seems like you are right. Ghandek ragun fuq din. I apologise.
But it is not the only thing I was wrong about: Austria (Ist Jan 10), Hungary (1st July 09), Portugal, Slovenia and Luxembourg also cater for same-sex relationships as does Croatia. So of the “old” EU member states only Italy and Greece do not cater for same-sex relationships (Ireland is working on it). Of the new member states 3 already do and 9 do not.
bdan l andament daphne tijak mintiex tamel gih lil pesuntek.il pajjiz kollu jaf kem int qanti labour igiefieri kull storja li qeda tohrog hatt ma jati kasa inti qeda tikteb al dawk il ftit nazzjonalisti li mohhom bis fil partit tahom u zgur li mintix ha tigbed floting voters lejn il partit nazzjonilsta.il floating voters tigbidom biss meta tofrilom soluzzjonijiet li qandu bzonn il pajjiz kif fil prezent qed jamel joseph muscat.ibqa sejjra qekk ha nkomplu nigbru lejn il partit laburista lil votanti li dejqu min dil politku li qed tipprogettaw intom in nazzjonalisti il politka ta mibeta.
Daphne jekk in-nazzjonalisti ghaddew fis-snin 80 il-laburisti ghaddew fis-snin 60. qisek insejt il-fatt li n-nazzjonalisti hadu vantagg shih mil-interted, meta nidifnu in-nies ta familji Laburisti fil-Mizbla u meta izzewgu nies Laburisti fl-oratorju jew inkella meta mietet tifla innocenti ghax xi hadd baghat ittra bomba lil missierha li kien deputat tal Labour…. Bir-rispett kollu lejk u lejn min hu bhalek, qed thallu lil Malta tigi fi stat ta Dittatur….. come on stop living in the past u ammeti li Malta ghandha bzonn bidla!!!!!!!