OK, Joseph – now get on the dancefloor and throw some groovy shapes, man
Dig that cat! An LBGT Section? Way out, man.
The leader of the Labour Party continues with his cringe-making efforts at attracting sad middle-aged people who think they’re hip because they can sit down next to a homosexual without bringing on the gag reflex.
No. 1 Son (as the Chinese put it) emailed me from distant shores with a link to the news that the Malta Labour Party plans to set up a ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender (LBGT) section’. He prefaced it with the remark ‘How cutting-edge’, by which he meant the precise opposite.
The reason why he is so scathing is that to people of his generation, ghettoising homosexuals as a special interest group is not just antediluvian, but actually a bad thing. You don’t fight the idea that homosexuals are different to heterosexuals by separating them off into a separate section of humanity, in a political party or outside it.
That just reinforces the belief that a person can and should be defined by something as entirely spurious and irrelevant as the choice of sexual partner, a choice which makes this person separate to the rest of humanity but ghettoised with others with whom he or she might have nothing at all in common except the same sort of sexual preference.
It’s not just his generation, either. Lots of those sad middle-aged people like me think about it the same way. We don’t define people by their sexuality. We don’t even define them by their gender anymore. But now I see a strange paradox: the very same people who rage about women being defined by their gender, having finally woken up to the fact that it is just not on to do so, now think that it is actually avant-garde to define homosexuals by their homosexuality.
If you were a lesbian who supports Labour, why would you join the Labour Party’s Homosexual Section, rather than its Women’s Section? What are you, first and foremost – a woman or a lesbian? It all depends on whether you define yourself by your gender or your sexual preferences, and I am always wary of people who define themselves by what they prefer to shag.
If I were a lesbian, I wouldn’t even join the women’s section. I would go straight for the mainstream. Let’s put it this way: Peter Mandelson didn’t join the British Labour Party’s homosexual and transgender section, did he? And it wasn’t because it doesn’t have one. That pretty much sums it up.
Specialised political party sections for homosexuals are not a way of furthering the interests of homosexuals. They are a way of corralling homosexuals and keeping them where so many people think they belong (including themselves, I sometimes think): in a ghetto.
Malta’s Labour Party is not being slick and contemporary by setting up a corral for homos, but the very opposite. Joseph Muscat’s thinking is straight out of the Superfly years, and the reason he doesn’t get it is because social history begins for him with the present.
The Labour Party can call it an LBGT Section, but a corral for homos is what it is when it’s at home.
57 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
What a bunch of dipsticks (no pun intended).
On being elected president of Moviment Nisa Partit Nazzjonalista Helen D’Amato said that she would work hard to abolish this, the Nationalist Party’s women’s section. This was in the 1990s.
http://www.lgbtlabour.org.uk/home
[Daphne – It’s not part of the British Labour Party, but a pressure group affiliated to it. It is the equivalent of LGBT Malta affiliating itself to the Labour Party here. That’s quite different to having a special section for homosexuals in the Malta Labour Party, as though homosexuals are not fit to mix with the rest. What next? A special Labour Party section for people in wheelchairs?]
Definition of affiliated according to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: af·fil·i·at·ed
Pronunciation: \-lē-ˌā-təd\
Function: adjective
Date: 1795
: closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position
[Daphne – I’ll spell it out. My arm is not affiliated to my body. It is part of it. LGBT Labour UK is not part of the British Labour Party, but an entirely separate organisation which is affiliated to it. The Malta Labour Party’s LGBT Section will, on the other hand, be a ‘section’ of the actual Labour Party, and so part of it and not separate.]
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I get it. I was actually aware of what affiliated meant when I posted the link.
It’s a different structure, in a different reality, where civil society functions a little bit differently. But there are parallels.
In any case we have to agree to disagree on this one (not the affiliated vs part-of the-party bit, we agree there. Where we disagree is that I think that this is good news, that’s all).
Ajma Daphne, ruhi qalbi, ghala qed tiskanta bil-LGBT LAbour? Have a look at the link below, and see what the new ONE chairman Jason Micallef (or whatever position he holds now) is picking up on. Clearly, they are clueless, and love free rides. Nahseb ghalihom dawn il-BMWs gejjin, x’interess dan.
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/ms09dart.asp?a=5167
What Joseph Muscat is doing isn’t cutting edge, but something which has already been done in countries which are far more advanced as regards gay issues than Malta. In the UK, even the police force has an LGBT section. So if Joseph Muscat isn’t cutting edge, I wonder where that puts the PN as regards gay issues.
LGBTs WANT and NEED to be represented, in all sectors of society. Their sexuality (not sexual preference) requires special attention because it brings about issues which need addressing to in our society, which are different from those of heterosexuals, or in some cases of higher priority. Apart from civil rights which we so commonly hear of, hate crime and issues related to STIs (particularly HIV) come to mind.
Whether LGBT organizations are “part of” or “affiliated with” is just playing around with words, if you ask me. Personally, being gay, I not only find this article another attempt at Muscat-bashing, but also very insensitive towards the needs of the LGBT community in Malta. I honestly hope that in this initiative, the PN also follow suit, as even the LGBTs who have traditionally voted for it will feel the need to be represented within the party.
[Daphne – Take my advice, sugar. If you want to get ahead, and if you don’t want to be treated differently or as some kind of freak, don’t be the one to think of yourself as such. Stay away from the LGBTs and get in with the mainstream. People don’t care whether you’re gay. It’s 2009, even in Malta. You can’t complain about being marginalised when you’re doing the marginalising yourself by slotting yourself into a group of people labelled as LGBT. Why would you want to define yourself by your sexuality when this is the very thing you are supposed to be fighting against: other people defining you by your sexuality?]
Quoting you:
“What does it mean to be gay? It means that instead of being attracted to members of the other gender, you are attracted to members of the same gender. But apart from that, you are no different …”
Daphne, I think that in this case you are failing to distinguish between discrimination on the basis of sexuality and defining yourself by your own sexuality. They are two completely different things altogether. And sex (or sexual preference) is not equivalent to sexuality, it is only the tip of the iceberg. I have no problem with my sexuality partially defining who I am, despite the fact that it is not the only factor which makes me what I am. It’s discrimination on the basis of sexuality which I would find a problem. I think you are also failing to distinguish between equality, and everyone being the same. It is not longer an issue of discussion that males and females should be treated equally … but does that mean they’re the same? Of course not. They are diverse. It would be insane to say there’s such a thing as mainstream and that both genders are “the same” and expected to fit in it. Similarly lies the difference between heterosexuals and LGBTs. Actually, even LGBT is too generic a category … lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender face different challenges altogether.
Personally, I think you are underestimating the importance of sexuality (mainly arising due to gender, and sexual orientation) within a society. Sexuality does play a major role in an individual’s life. The key to equality lies in accepting diversity, it does not lie in putting everyone in one basket, or saying there exists such a thing as mainstream. And no-one is talking about special treatments here, it’s about everyone having equal rights and opportunities, within the context of diversity. It’s about everyone having the freedom to express one’s own individuality without the fear of discrimination or retribution. And with these ideas I express here, I do not have just gender or sexual orientation in mind. Any factor which brings about diversity within a society is deserving of special attention.
[Daphne – I can’t understand what you’re trying to say and I think you are over-analysing the situation. Just get on with your lives and stop navel-gazing. Nobody gives a stuff if you’re gay. Really, I mean it. People are too preoccupied with their own lives and their own problems and just don’t give a damn. The only thing that annoys people is when you stick your sexuality in their face or over-hype it, and this applies to heterosexuals, too. You’re mistaking distaste for overt sexuality with distaste for homosexuality. Heterosexual women who are pushily sexual meet with exactly the same reaction as homosexual men who overdo the sex-talk. It’s the sex-talk that bothers people, that’s all.]
“Nobody gives a stuff it you’re gay.”
Yes sure, hate crimes and homophobic bullying (anywhere in the world) are committed by people who don’t give a stuff, right? When a gay couple’s house was vandalized a couple of months ago, the only people who seemed not to give a stuff were the police force themselves.
[Daphne – Actually, the gay couple you mention are the perfect example of what I mean. They behave impeccably, get up no one’s nose, and are widely liked. One of them has been a friend for the last 20 years or so. Hate crimes are the exception, not the rule. Arsonists attacked my home twice, not once – so what does that prove.]
“Yes sure, hate crimes and homophobic bullying (anywhere in the world) are committed by people who don’t give a stuff, right?”
The right not to be bullied, discriminated against etc is a universal right and NOT a gay right!
Dave, the equation is rather simple: if you contribute to society you are respected even if you are a hairless Cyclops. Demand self-degrading “handle with care” treatment and you start becoming a burden. And it’s not only gays or lesbians who do not belong to this mainstream perception.
This LGBT Section is already a mockery magnet within the Labour Party itself – and this is just after a few days. The interpretations of the acronym I heard are disgustingly worse than any bullying you might encounter.
I wonder what Muscat will come up with to attract the nuns.
Something straight out of Sister Act probably.
Is it true that Kenneth Zammit Tabona has been approached to lead this section?
Albert Gauci Cunningham is the head of this section. Jason Micallef is going to propose Lou Bondi instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF532kr1cyY
No, David S, I am sorry to disappoint you but I have not been approached and even if I had I would have refused for very much the same reasons as Daphne.
For once her opinion about the issue and mine are practically identical. I also heard through the grapevine that you were approached to lead the PN LGBT Section. So much for high profiles.
Does that clarify matters?
I disagree with you on this one. An LGBT section is about REPRESENTATION. As a gay man, I don’t want decisions that will affect me to be taken by people who have absolutely no idea what it means to be gay.
[Daphne – Oh really, honestly, Mr Attard. What does it mean to be gay? It means that instead of being attracted to members of the other gender, you are attracted to members of the same gender. But apart from that, you are no different, and the repeated insistence of some of you that you are different is really odd when, at least overtly, what you are campaigning for is not to be treated as different. But somehow I get the impression that some homosexuals really do think of themselves as different (and by that I mean special), and want special treatment. What now – am I going to insist that all political decisions which affect my life are taken only by married heterosexual mothers who work?]
If the Labour Party is ever to have a valid policy on gay rights, it is only fair that such a policy be worked from the bottom up, i.e. from gay Labourites themselves who organise themselves in a section, draft a policy and propose it to the General Conference of the party for adoption. The fact that this section will be able to propose measures to the conference should dispel any fears that it is just a ghetto for gays. That would be the case if on the other hand the section ends up just being a talking shop.
[Daphne – I disagree with you on the point that the people best qualified to write policy are those who are directly affected by it. On the contrary, they are the worst people to write policy because they find it hard to be impartial.]
This is something that until some months ago I would have thought could never happen in the PN, and not because the PN is so progressive that it includes gays in its mainstream, but rather the opposite, because it is scared to death of giving gays any sort of recognition.
[Daphne – On this point, too, I cannot disagree with you more. I am entirely in accordance with the Nationalist Party’s way of doing things. The party machine ignores people’s sexuality and just considers the person, which is precisely my own outlook which is why I like it. It does not single people out as homosexuals or segregate homosexuals. Homosexuals are part of the mainstream like everyone else, precisely because they are like everyone else. They are not forced to wear a label which marks them out as homosexual, just so that the party can boast about how liberal it is, promoting gays through the ranks, which amounts to little more than tokenism. I think the Labour Party’s attitude is really old-fashioned and backward, making a song and dance about homosexuals as though to be homosexual makes one a freak from Mars in need of special treatment.]
With the recent change of heart of the PN MEPs on gay rights issues however, I hope this is no longer the case. That would make the PN a valid choice for me once again, which until now was out of the question. But for now, Labour remains light years ahead of the PN on gay rights issues.
“If the Labour Party is ever to have a valid policy on gay rights, it is only fair that such a policy be worked from the bottom up,…”
Right! Let’s get to the bottom of this.
[Daphne – Yes, I do agree that was a most unfortunate analogy.]
Analogy! I’m crawling on the floor.
How very predictable. These sort of posts are exactly what I would expect from most readers of this blog. If the PN ever had to set up a similar LGBT section you’d all be changing your tune overnight. With friends like these (who supposedly have no problem with gay people), who needs enemies?
And coincidentally, as I’ve pointed out before, those countries where gay rights are recognized and respected the most are also those where gay people are represented in formal structures, be it within political parties, trade unions, etc. If that is ghettoising, and if that ghettoising gets those results, please let’s have more of it!
[Daphne – The only positive thing about having been so very backward for years is that Malta can skip some of the formative stages that other European countries have gone through and go straight to the ultimate goal. Tokenism and special sections are not an end in themselves, unless ‘minorities’ wish to be ghettoised on a permanent basis. They are a means to the end of making those minorities part and parcel of the mainstream. Compare the situation of homosexuals with that of women, a rather larger ‘minority’. Europe went through its tokenism and special section stages, with more adverse consequences than otherwise, and is now at the stage where women are no different to men – not because of tokenism and special favours or preferential legislation, but because women started behaving that way themselves. Why is Malta far behind the rest of the world in equality rankings, do you think? Because of our legislation? No. Our legislation is perfect. It is EU legislation. We are far behind because of women themselves, the vast majority of whom refuse to work or do anything much with their lives. Unfortunately, by insisting on being treated differently and sectioning yourselves off into special groups, homosexuals of your way of thinking are just reinforcing the message that homosexuals are not like heterosexuals and must be defined by their sexual preferences. The way I see it is that you are most unwise to define yourself by what you do in bed. If you do that, then you can’t protest and object when others define you the same way, and crack jokes about it.]
@ C Attard
Is it OK for politically correct Britain to laugh at TV characters like Mr Humphries in Are You Being Served? or at Daffyd in Little Britain and Frank in The Vicar of Dibley?
I’ve seen priests laughing loudly at some of Dave Allen’s jokes made at the expense of the Catholic Church. Why shouldn’t you take these comments with a pinch of salt, carry on with your normal life, and stop playing the victim?
Where’s your sense of humour? Are gay people sacred cows or untouchables?
Why did this post remind me so much of Little Britain’s Daffyd?
Because these kinds of gay people actually exist. I think it’s sad and if they want to segregate themselves it’s their problem not ours. If they want their own Special Gay Unit, let them have it, I say. Anybody gay is free to join, but anybody smart enough will just join the party as a human being. I just don’t know why it’s an issue. Nobody is forcing them to join.
How much fuss on a word! See the essence of it and be objective for once. This is going to be section in a political party, new to the Maltese political arena which unfortunately the PN is banned even to think of such move, because of the affiliation( or whatever you may call it) to the church. Let them be and I am sure you know Daph, that though yes, they can be in the main stream but still suffer from utter and obvious discrimination in our catholic society. They love to be considered normal but are also proud to be what they are. They have the Gay rights movement which even in the title itself shows that there is fight to get their rights in our society. The Pl was the first one to do something but as I said, the PN simply has his hands tightly tied.
And by the way, election can be stolen. MLP gave jobs(7000) to get votes in 1987 but fortunately didn’t succeed for the benefit of the country and party itself. The PN did the same during last election, not only giving jobs but also other things, and unfortunately won. And they will regret it….
The Labour Party’s attitude may be “really old-fashioned and backward”, but given that (at least) culturally Malta is also old-fashioned and backward, I would say that the LP is in sync on this one.
I agree perfectly that nobody should be defined by their sexuality but given the sad state of civic rights in our country, any small step towards a wider recognition of rights is a big leap for our society (apologies to Armstrong).
Anyway, the PN should be glad about this development because they now have the excuse they needed to start to look at the needs of people in our society who do not live the Maltese formula.
@ Mr Attard & Co
Xi dwejjaq ta’ nies – get on with your life rather than dwelling on your sexuality as some handicap! Let’s not forget that it’s thanks to the PN that we are EUROPEAN CITIZENS with all the freedom of movement etc that we could want…while Dr Joseph Muscat was harping on a fictitious “partnership” .
Mr Attard, perhaps you should check out how many people (whether gay or otherwise) have been able to settle with their partner in an EU country of their choice, or their partner settling in Malta and being able to work here.
Oh how nice of you! “You want to be treated equally? You can leave the country and settle somewhere else!” Thank God for small mercies.
And by the way, not all partners of LGBT people hail from EU countries. What about those of us who have American or Libyan partners for example?
[Daphne – Here we go again. I believe we’ve been through all this already. The same applies to heterosexuals. And no, they can’t necessarily marry their non-EU lovers, and even if they could, they might not want to. Marriage is a high price to pay for sex and company, when that is all you want.]
Gay sections do as much for “gay rights” (whatever those are) as does “positive discrimination” for women’s equality.
By the way, can ANYBODY please enlighten me on a SINGLE law in Malta that discriminates against gays specifically?
Just one!
Dear LGBT friends,
This might easily be just some sort of gimmick or trick to try and appear progressive and attract your vote. Do you remember the VAT issue in 1996?
Sections in political parties are created because there is a distinguishing feature that differentiates those members from the rest. So you have the youth sections (young age being the distinguishing feature), pensioners’ section (old age being the distinguishing feature), women section (gender being the distinguishing feature) and so and so forth.
[Daphne – That’s it, and that’s exactly what I’m saying here. That sections in political parties are a reflection of and hangover from the days when the mainstream meant heterosexual men over the age of 25 but under the age of 60. By creating more of these sections, political parties are shoring up that old idea. Don’t they understand that if there are sections for young people, for women, for pensioners, for homosexuals, it begs the question as to why there isn’t a section for men? Allura tajba din. The women go to the women’s section, young people go to the youth section, homos go to the pufti section (I’m being ironic, my dears), old people go to the pensioners section…and straight men aged between 25 and 60? Eh hija, they’re the mainstream. They don’t need a section.]
However I cannot understand why in a political party sexual orientation can be a distinguishing feature. LGBT persons are men, women, young people and even pensioners.
What they should be doing is influencing these sections and not rejoice because they have a section of their own. Forming part of a ghetto has never been a solution to the problem, rather a labelling exercise based on discrimination.
Dear C Attard
In the early 1970s Labour had no LGBTsection and Mintoff decriminalised homosexuality. LGBT can always present a policy paper to the government and the Opposition and discuss it with them. The gay delegates in both parites (and there are quite a few) can be those who will then push for the LGBT proposals to become government or party policy whichever may be the case. Even though one does not have to be gay to push for what is just for any human being whether heterosexual or homosexual , as the Mintoff case proves.
Anything other than that will mean putting gay people in a ghetto. The same happened to women, now in both parties there is pressure to do away with the women’s section as the segregation has done more harm than good.
[Daphne – Your point is a good one, Cynthia, but homosexuality was never against the law, for the simple reason that it would be like making blue eyes illegal. Sodomy was against the law, and it was sodomy that was decriminalised by the Maltese parliament (not the government, which doesn’t legislate) in the 1970s, when prime minister Mintoff took the initiative. The fact that it was sodomy which was illegal, not just in Malta but elsewhere in Europe too, most prominently in Britain – hence the infamous Oscar Wilde case – is the reason why lesbians were never subjected to scrutiny or criminal prosecution. Sodomy is usually perceived to be the preserve of male homosexuals, but it was illegal across the board, even between heterosexual couples. A woman could have her husband prosecuted, and/or divorce him, for sodomising her or attempting to do so. It’s also worth noting that Mintoff’s initiative had nothing to do with respect for homosexuals. He is the sort of uber-macho, chauvinistic man who would almost certainly think and speak of homosexual men as pufti. It was merely part of his drive to undermine the Catholic Church.]
What has happened here is exactly what you’re advocating, i.e. gay party delegates trying to influence party policy. This ‘section’ (since it is the word that seems to cause so much resentment) is merely a permanent structure to reach that purpose more effectively. And by the way, this was an initiative taken by the gay delegates themselves. It was not forced upon them by the party leader.
[Daphne – Who’s saying it was forced upon them? What I find amazing is that anyone would think of himself/herself as a ‘gay delegate’, rather than just a delegate.]
Off to go have a heterosexual break and watch my heterosexual flab in the mirror, then go to the balcony and beat my chest screaming rarr I’m a man! Go Heteros .
I hope you see my point.
LOL our Daphne is really bent on convincing us that this step by the LP is such a backward step! Worried, aren’t we?
Keep it up!
[Daphne – I have nothing to worry about, Albert. I’m fascinated, that’s all, by the way the Labour Party consistently puts forward ideas from the days of Jimi Hendrix and packages them as something new. What next – sitting around discussing philosophers while smoking a spliff? So sad.]
@Daphne,
Naccertak li Jimi Hendrix ghadu jinstema hafna ahjar mill-idejat tal-Labour Party. Allavolja ilu mejjet aktar min erbghin sena.
[Daphne – Yes, I know. I have all his recordings, or I did until my sons pilfered them and I never saw them again.]
Mentioning Jimi Hendrix, is the lyric from purple haze ‘Scuse me while I kiss the sky’ or ‘Scuse me while I kiss this guy’?
[Daphne – Kiss the sky. At Woodstock, he fell back to do it.]
@ C. Attard
That’s exactly the point. Delegates with gay rights at heart can push for gay-friendly policies, or whatever you wish to call them. What is bad is having a gay section in a political party. I can think of three gay MPs (two PN, one LP) one of them came up through the party ranks and didn’t need any LGBT section to push him, and the other two joined in this decade and won seats just like any heterosexual candidate, so what’s the point of segregating homos from hetros? It will only harm the former.
@ Mr Attard
My point about the EU (which Dr Muscat was so against) is that the EU has opened up so many frontiers for people, which is a far greater achievement than a silly LGBT ghetto in the PL.
And if your circle of friends happens to be hairdressers only, you may not realise that so many people in important positions in business, government, education, and so on are gay but don’t flaunt it. Indeed, gay people are very well represented in what you call “formal structures” in Malta.
[Daphne – You tell them, David. These people make me despair. Indeed, homosexual MEN are so well represented at the top end of all the hierarchies you mention that there is actually a Gay Mafia that works more effectively than any kind of freemasonry that I know of.]
Ha! And what’s the price of being at the top for these people? Silence. At least within the current conservative establishment, if they had to do as much as utter a word about their homosexuality, they would be shown the door.
[Daphne – No, no, no! You have it so wrong! And you are just proving the point that it is ridiculous to corral people together on the grounds that they are all homosexual. Would you group people together – men, women and whatever – on the grounds that they are all heterosexual? Of course not. Because sexuality is NOT shared common ground. I don’t necessarily have anything in common with the man standing next to me at a cocktail party, just because we are both heterosexual. We might have completely different personalities, outlook, political preferences, interests, reading habits, family background, you get the picture. The same applies to homosexuals – but surely you know that through experience. Lots of homosexuals do not define themselves by their sexuality. It is simply not a factor. You might find this difficult to understand because it is clearly the thing that looms largest in your life, but you must try to understand that many homosexuals live just like heterosexuals. They live their lives and do their jobs and don’t discuss their private things with anyone except their closest friends. They don’t discuss their homosexuality because they don’t want to be defined by it and because it’s nobody’s business, that’s all. Also, few people wish to paint themselves into a corner where they are an unofficial campaigner for this or that. For years, reporters and writers of magazine articles, producers and presenters of television shows, would ring me to ask whether I would give them a quote for this or that article on women, whether I would appear on this or that programme about women, whether they could interview me about ‘coping with work and children’, and I would be absolutely furious, though polite in my refusal. I have never wished to be defined as a woman, if you can see what I mean. And that is precisely why I understand the outlook of successful homosexuals who don’t want to be defined as such. They are lucky because they can conceal it or keep it low-key if they want to. I, on the other hand, could never hide the fact that I’m a woman, and it was often very, very annoying in the early years.]
That is why our very own gay MEP had to come out defending Buttiglione five years ago and that is why ALL of them (at least the ones I know of) are not in a relationship, simply for that fact they cannot afford to be in one. What a miserable life to lead – having to deny your true nature or risk losing everything you’ve worked hard to achieve.
[Daphne – Do you think so? Some people might not actually wish to have a relationship. I don’t assume that all heterosexuals want a relationship. I don’t even assume that they all want to have sex. So you shouldn’t assume that some homosexuals want something but are not getting it because of what they fear. Yes, I do realise that some individuals have had a rough time coming to terms with their own sexuality, and an even rougher time admitting it to others after admitting it to themselves, but as somebody withf a liberal outlook who believes in personal freedom and the right to privacy, I think it abhorrent that there are some about who seek to apply this kind of fascist approach to ‘weeding’ homosexuals out of the closet. The odd thing is that those who are taking this fascist attitude to privacy are fellow homosexuals, who are not prepared to live and let live on the grounds these other people are traitors to the homosexual cause. So does my attitude make me a traitor to the women’s movement?]
I think the crux of the matter is that even if socially LGBTs are in the mainstream, legislatively they are still denied certain rights which heterosexuals are not (i.e. marriage, adoption, etc).
[Daphne – Homosexuals are NOT denied the right to adopt. Men are denied the right to adopt, whether they are single or in a relationship with another man. Single women can adopt, even if they are lesbians. Now please let’s not have an argument about why single men or men in relationships with other men should be allowed to adopt. I really don’t feel like getting into that. My own view is that children need a mother more than they need a father. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. I would certainly never approve of giving a girl baby in adoption to a single man or to two men in a homosexual relationship. She would be utterly miserable, and in the first case, very much at risk.]
So there’s still work to be done in that respect, and it is work which will only happen with enough pressure (from the concerned parties; the LGBTs) on the legislators.
Until equal rights are completely obtained (and not just social acceptance) LGBT groups must still be around.
@ Daphne’
I would certainly not approve the other way round as well. The right way is a father and a mother.
Somehow I think that were you lesbian you would be writing differently and seeing things differently.
[Daphne – No, and you should have a pretty good indication of that. I belong to another ‘minority’ group: women. But I don’t join women’s groups or women’s networks. I refuse to comment on women’s issues ‘as a woman’. I object most strenuously to positive discrimination. I look with utter horror upon being ghettoised with other women. I can’t stand large women-only gatherings. And on the rare occasions that I get involved with anything, I make sure that it’s with the mainstream and the fast-track and not the women’s section, whatever that might be. My motto is: if you can’t beat them, join them. So long ago, I just joined the men. And if I were a lesbian, I would still join the men – the straight ones, and not the ones in the LGBT section.]
What is the alternative? Sit happily around and trying to be “mainstream” by not fighting for one’s rights?
[Daphne – There are no rights to fight for, honey. If you are a man, you have all the rights you can possibly want, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. The law doesn’t give a damn whether you’re gay or straight. It used to give a damn only about whether you are a man or a woman, and it doesn’t even do that any more. Up to a few years ago, you gay blokes had far more rights and privileges at law than I did as a married woman.]
Most gay people in Malta are as “mainstream” as you wish but have no marriage/inheritance/partner rights. Sitting cicci beqqi like both parties have done so far will produce nothing. At least someone, somewhere is doing something to change the appalling state of things.
[Daphne – Welcome to the world. If you weren’t so bloody gay-centric you would have long since woken up to the fact that plenty of heteros don’t have those rights either. Malta has no divorce, remember?]
No, if you were lesbian you will be all hot and flustered that you cannot marry your girlfriend and that she would not be able to inherit your property at the same tax rate available to your straight neighbours. If you were a lesbian you would be upset that your non EU partner would not be able to settle in Malta.
[Daphne – My dear, if I were a lesbian I wouldn’t WANT to marry my girlfriend because in my world view, the only point of marriage is children. There is no reason on earth to get married otherwise, unless you are religious and keen to obey the rules that say you can have sex only in marriage – but then religion wouldn’t come into it if I were in a lesbian relationship, would it?
If I were a lesbian, would I have children? Not if I were in a relationship, because I know for a fact that children are deeply conservative and that anything out of the ordinary disturbs them. To be happy, sane and stable, they need as normal a life as possible. If I were a lesbian who wanted a child, I would not have one while living with another woman. I would raise the child alone, which is not ideal, but a lot better, where the child is concerned, than seeing mummy 1 sharing a bed with mummy 2.
And if I were a lesbian and wanted my ‘partner’ (hideous word) to inherit my estate, such as it is, I would simply make that nice practical old thing called a will and leave it to her.
And if I were a lesbian and upset because my non-EU partner (that word again) can’t live and work in Malta, I would just find another partner and thank God and the Nationalist Party that because we are in the EU, despite Joseph LGBT Muscat’s strenuous efforts to limit us to a choice of Maltese partners, I have the citizens of 27 countries to choose from, and not just the citizens of these potty little islands, even though this is precisely where I found mine.]
I am very far from gay centric and in no ghetto – I actually sometimes have to remind myself actually, or it is done for me when I read such articles. Yes, pressure groups and party sections are necessary until Maltese society evolves to EU standards, then it is business as usual and these groups would have worked themselves out of a job.
I am disgusted by the derogatory words, jokes about anal sex and other jokes about gay people used on this page. I can’t believe that these kind of things have been allowed to appear on this page.
Are racist jokes allowed too? What about jokes against people with disabilities, or anti-women jokes?
[Daphne – Get my point: homosexuals who define themselves by their sexual preferences should be prepared to be defined by everyone else in the same way. The way I look at it, a ghetto for homosexuals is a ghetto for people who will have sex only with members of the same gender. That is the only factor which differentiates them from everyone else, and to pretend otherwise is phony and hypocritical. Homosexual men are primarily men and homosexual women are primarily women. The homosexuals who get ahead in life and live happily and sanely are the ones for whom this incredible notion finally clicks. All others just want to be different and to set themselves apart, and blame others for doing it to them. Why are you so offended by jokes about anal sex. Do homosexual men have anal sex or do they just kiss and hold hands? What sort of homosexual sex do you expect jokes to be made about, if not anal sex? Jokes about heterosexual sex are the stuff of standard comedy. Now you’re going to tell me that homosexual sex is sacred and that no one is permitted to joke about it. We are allowed only to joke about sex between heterosexuals. Indeed.]
@ David S
I am very much aware of the advantages of EU membership and the freedom of movement that comes along with it. That is why I consistently used my voting rights (and did my utmost to convince anyone I could to do the same) to make sure that Malta did join the EU.
The fact remains that Malta fails to follow the lead of what a significant and growing number of EU member states are doing i.e. enact legislation that removes unnecessary complications for same-sex couples (god knows keeping a relationship going, be it straight, gay or whatever is complicated enough).
My long-term partner is not an EU citizen and we tried to set up home in Malta, heavens knows we tried. We loved living in Malta and did so for a couple of years. We had no problem from the social point of view. Of course people don’t care and have better things to do than waste time contemplating the boring life of the two unextraordinary men who apparently share a flat on the second floor of the building. The only problem was getting a residence and work permit for my partner. This was very difficult and caused a great deal of stress not to mention the financial nightmare. He could not work and had to leave Malta every three months as he was on a tourist visa. He could not open a bank account. If something happened to me my parents could have kicked him out of our home without giving him time to pack his bags.
In many EU member states (in many and a growing number of member states and certainly in the more civilised ones) my partner would have been able to get a residence/work permit on the basis of our long-term relationship. Different EU member states provide different legal solutions.
I know that Maltese people who wish to divorce face the same issues, but since when do two wrongs make a right? Daphne does not agree with me and I understand her reasoning and logic even if I do not agree with it. She and I have had this conversation and she is tired of my arguments and I am tired of hers. We disagree.
The reason for this post is to tell you, David, that yes I will forever be grateful to the Nationalist Party for my EU citizenship but that does not mean that all is well. EU membership is not just about the act of accession but about a constant commitment to the process.
I wonder what will happen when a motion by this LGBT section does not pass at the General Conference.
@ Holland
Loved this one from Daphne:
“And if I were a lesbian and upset because my non-EU partner (that word again) can’t live and work in Malta, I would just find another partner”
Eeeee issa I get it finally. What I should have done is dump the person I love (ok ha ma nghidlux partner), the person that I have shared a good number of years of my life with, and found myself someone else hux, preferably mill-EU. “Sorry qalbi the anal sex rocks mma you just don’t have the right passport” Istra kif ma ghadditlix minn rasi. Kemm niflah inkun gay centric u ghettosised. (Ara tghaddulix kelma ma’ Joseph forsi jlahhaqni xi haga fis-section il-gdida tal-pufti I would be purrrfect for it dahling).
Iktar jien ukoll expecting my elected representatives to follow the lead of the more advanced and civilised EU member states: cioe get off their fat asses and enact divorce legislation and legislation providing a legal framework for same-sex couples illum qabel ghada.
Ma tarax hux wisq gay-centric hi wisq.
[Daphne – People choose who they fall in love with, and when you grow up, you might understand this. You appear to retain a Mills & Boon outlook on life.]
@ Daphne
I don’t see how my outlook on life has anything to do with this. All I am saying is that it would be nice (actually it would be more than nice) if Malta moved on and followed in the footsteps of more enlightened EU member states. Why is it so hard for us to reach the conclusion that it would be nice if Malta seriously contemplated enacting legislation that: a) would make the lives of people who wish to divorce and remarry easier b) the lives of people like me who capriciously choose to have a relationship with someone who is not an EU citizen easier.
[Daphne – Of course it would be nice if Malta were to move on. But if anyone out there thinks an LGBT section in the Labour Party is a sign of impending gay marriage, they need their head examined. You’re talking about Joseph Muscat here, the man who can’t even commit his party to the introduction of divorce when it is in government. The only difference between the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party on this score is that the first talks but won’t do, while the second doesn’t even bother talking because so far it has no intention of doing. I actually prefer the second way of doing things, because it’s more honest. I can’t stand bullsh*t.]
@ Mark
I fully understand your point. However, do you for a moment think that had Labour won the 2003 election, and today we would be an isolated island, we would have same-sex marriage?
I dislike Joseph Muscat’s hypocrisy. He was so afraid of change by joining the EU (invasion by the Sicilians, AIDS etc). The very notion of an LGBT section is so repulsive. Frankly I am embarrassed even by the Maltese LGBT whose committee appear to be dykes and queens – not at all mainstream.
@ David S
Thanks for your understanding (and i am not being sarcastic I truly appreciated you saying so). Like I said I am very, very grateful that we are EU citizens. But now that I am an EU citizen I would like my country to follow EU recommendations and follow in the steps of more enlightened and more developed and more civilised fellow member states. I do not particularly want us to go for gay marriage I understand that this can offend sensitivities I would be happy with a legal framework that would give me and my partnership certain basic rights that you take for granted.
Your choice of the word ‘repulsive’ is unfortunate and so is your embarrassment at dykes and queens. Dykes and queens do not choose to be dykes and queens. You come across as rather intolerant of people who look different. David, you may not realise it but homophobia essentially describes your reaction. I am not saying you are homophobic but you certainly do not come across as being very comfortable with gay people – or only comfortable if they “look” straight and no different to you. Which is just sad.
I understand the arguments against having an LBGT section and the reasoning that it can marginalise people etc Myself, I choose to see a half-full glass rather than a half empty one. The section, with all its faults, increases visibility, sends an important message and may get things moving in our country. I am not saying that people should switch political allegiance simply because the PL has an LGBT section that is something completely different.
Can we look at this gay rights thing for once from the economical side?
Someone further up wrote about the right to be married and adoption.
What good can the country get out of a gay marriage?
1)The gay couple will surely have a bread winner and a stay home partner (sorry for using this dreaded word Daphne). If the breadwinner dies the stay home partner would get the right for a ‘widows’ pension.That’s an extra cost for the exchequer.
2) Malta’s only resoarce is the human resoarce-that’s why we hand out stipends to our students- without this resoarce , Malta’s economy would be doomed to failure. We can only get this precious resoarce when heterosexuals decide to have babies.Countries with low nativity rates encourage heterosexual ( I need to rub it in here) couples to have children by handing out generous money handouts and tax deductions. Encouraging gay marriage would not help to make things better.
3)It is not fair for the kid to be procreated by a hetersexual couple and than be adopted by a gay couple.Children need a stable family , when one of the natural parents is missing from their lives children already would start suffering and would need special attention.Child adoption by gay couples would add this cost which the welfare state can do without.
BTW Joseph is against the adoption of children by gay couples.
While there is this ‘progressive’ trend in Malta for couples to co-habitate and shun formal weddings , we have a formal section in the the LP who want the right to tie the knot.
What an incredibly callous observation. People are not currency.
1. How can you be certain there would be only one bread winner? Even the norm for heterosexual couples are moving towards two income families.
2. Whether we allow gay marriages or not, homosexuals can not reproduce by anything but heterosexual means. Encouraging gay marriage should make no difference.
3. For this argument you first need to back up the claim that homosexual couples are by fiat unstable.
You are spot on with your final observation though. While heterosexual couples are moving slowly away from traditional marriage values, homosexual couples struggle for them.
“3. For this argument you first need to back up the claim that homosexual couples are by fiat unstable.”
I don’t want to be personal, so I put the question this way:
“Whose children shall we provide to prove that homosexual couples make good adoptive parents? Don’t these children have any rights? Wouldn’t we be treating them like objects?”
I wouldn’t let mine be adopted by gays. So please count me out.
@ John Schembri
Your arguments have so many holes in them I will not even attempt to patch them up for you. I actually thought that you were trying to be funny or sarcastic at first. Kif jghidu a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Before you reach your conclusion I think you need to read up on the subject a little or at least have a good chat with someone who knows more.
There are actually strong econonmic arguments as to why governments should opt for providing legal protection for same-sex relationships. They are not gospel truth, of course, but neither are they of the Malta Svizzera fil-Mediterran genre.
I am struggling to understand how you reached the conclusion that a gay couple will SURELY have a bread winner and a stay at home whatever (to do what exactly? watch telenovelas? imur/tmur xi coffee morning? paint the living room pink?). They may well opt for that set up but I can assure for most it s a luxury we simply cannot afford.
When my partner (yes that ‘s what I refer to him in certain contexts normally it’s by his first name that I call him) and I tried to settle in Malta and he did not manage to get a work permit, he did everything he could to get out and about and keep himself generally useful and nominally sane.
The situation played havoc with our finances. Still we look back upon that time fondly, it was simply rather stressful. We wish we would have enjoyed Malta more but that’s life for you. When we realised it was not going to work out , we we did not sit down and have a good cry nor did we give in to self pity. We took stock of the situation and moved on to a place where we could both be productive.
EU membeship as it turned out had nothing to do with our move in terms of freedom of movement etc. Still, it helps to know that when we need to move again we have the option of settling in many places where we can get him a residence/work permit on the basis of our relationship. It would be nice if one day that place could also be Malta. We still consider the rock our home, keep a place there, and would both love to spend time there again.
One has to look at gay marriage from different angles. I was focusing on the money side of it, because it is another reality which we always have to face. Why did I say ‘surely’? It’s because we live in Malta. It is very convenient to be a widow and get the widow’s pension, and have the right to work without losing the pension. It’s manna from heaven.
I gave a look at the economic side because it seems here that no one cares about the financial and economic repercussions these measures bring with them.
Our economy thrives if heterosexuals decide to have babies. It would surely stall if the whole population were LGBT. Sorry if I am sounding cruel but this is the reality.
[Daphne – Homosexual people can and do have children, John. They don’t have their reproductive organs ripped out at birth. The problem of sterility seems to affect rather large numbers of heterosexual people, on the other hand, largely because they wait around until they’re in their 30s to try for a baby.]
I think Joseph Muscat was stating what many people in Malta think about gay marriage. We approve of it but without the right for adoption. No big deal!
Naturally there will be financial burdens and these should be quantified, like in all other measures our governments deem fit to introduce in our country.
@ John Schembri
“it would surely stall if the whole population were LGBT”
But it isn’t and will never be. The LGBT community is a minority, has always been and will always be. No matter what they tell you, John, being gay is not contagious and you can’t really make someone gay or influence him into becoming one. Take it from me: God knows society tried to make me straight.
I can imagine what you went through. I heard several shocking stories.