That’s right, Cyrus – homosexuality is not a disease, so don’t behave as though it is
This is in the land of the free and the home of the brave - but when did you ever see a poster like that in Malta?
This was my column in The Malta Independent, yesterday.
Cyrus Engerer’s defection to Labour has rekindled the tired old debate – which some people appear to have only just discovered – about gay rights.
Suddenly, because Mr Engerer has joined the Labour Party, which is made up of people who have supported and perpetrated oppression over two generations, then this means that Labour is liberal by default and favours gay rights.
Let’s leave aside the fact that political liberalism has little or nothing to do with gay rights or divorce, and consider for a moment what people actually mean when they say ‘gay rights’.
I have had this argument so many times with determined, bossy people who speak about something vague they call ‘gay rights’ that I am thoroughly sick of it.
But because it has started up again, here goes.
I ask them to cite chapter and verse of the laws of Malta, showing me – to set me straight in case I am missing something – where people are discriminated against on grounds of sexuality.
I ask them why no Maltese homosexual has ever taken a case to the European Court of Human Rights, and if they could perhaps suggest to me what grounds there might be for just such a case. I never get an answer, because there isn’t one.
And there isn’t one for one reason only: Maltese law does not deal in sexuality but in gender. This means that anything which applies to heterosexual men and women also applies to homosexual men and women, hence there is no discrimination on grounds of sexuality.
There used to be discrimination on grounds of gender, a great deal of it and to a shocking extent, right up to 1995 and even beyond. But no more. Those were the very recent days when gay men had far more rights than women, straight or gay, because they were men and that’s all the law cared about.
The only answers I get to my questions about missing gay rights are ‘gay marriage’ and ‘gay adoption’, and I have to keep calm as I patiently explain that the law which prevents people from marrying somebody of the same gender applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, and so no discrimination can be claimed. I, too, can’t marry another woman.
The law which prevents men from adopting children applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals and is based on gender not on sexuality. No man can adopt a child unless there’s a woman in the equation, even if he is straight. But women can adopt children without a man in the equation, even if they’re not heterosexual.
So maybe this is the last bastion of discrimination on grounds of gender, but I’m not too sure about the justification for letting it go. Most of us still think little children need a mother more than a father and that it’s a tragedy for the child if there isn’t one around. This has nothing to do with sexuality.
Sometimes I find myself explaining, and this comes as a surprise to some of my interlocutors, to whom it never seems to have occurred, that a law which allows same-sex marriages will – precisely because discrimination on grounds of sexuality is illegal – apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals.
In other words, a heterosexual man will be able to marry another heterosexual man, or a heterosexual woman another heterosexual woman. Surprised? Don’t be. The law doesn’t care whether you’re gay or straight, because the law on same-sex marriages deals only in gender, not sexuality, just like the law on man/woman marriages.
The law does not exclude homosexuals from man/woman marriages, and the law does not exclude heterosexuals from same-sex marriages either.
Imagine if some bright spark in government were to insist on inserting a clause into the Marriage Act, saying that the sexuality of applicants for a marriage licence is to be checked out and that ‘known or proven homosexuals’ are to be prevented from getting married to a person of the other gender. All hell would break loose.
Similarly, any such clause excluding ‘known or proven heterosexuals’ from same-sex marriages would be totally unacceptable. I know that some gay rights campaigners and half-brains in the Labour Party are so far up their nether regions that they can’t see how what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but they’re going to find out the hard way.
They think equality means one type of marriage law for gays and another for straights, but real equality means that laws apply to all. Just as there is nothing to stop a homosexual man marrying a woman today, so there will be nothing to prevent a heterosexual man from marrying another man of whatever sexuality under a civil union/same-sex marriage law.
To say that this won’t happen because straight women don’t want to marry other women, and straight men don’t want to marry other men, is beside the point and very naive. It will and does happen, because marriage contracts are sometimes entered into for utilitarian reasons like citizenship, work permits, residency, money or inheritance. With divorce, it will make even more sense. You get what you want or need, and then you divorce.
It seems to me that what people are talking about here is not rights but acceptance, which is something else altogether and cannot be enforced by law.
It is odd, therefore, that homosexuals who seek acceptance should find refuge in a political party which corrals them in something called ‘LGBT Labour’, lumping homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals of both genders into a mental and physical ghetto that only lacks the unspoken ‘this is where we keep our freaks’.
I would never join a political party that corrals its women while leaving the mainstream wide open to the men, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. I prefer my political parties to be completely oblivious to whether you are a man or a woman, and so it should be with sexuality.
If a political party makes a big play of homosexuality or celebrates you because you are homosexual, watch out. Celebrating homosexuals and collecting gay friends like butterflies with pins through their wings is currently fashionable among the more ta’ wara l-muntanji parts of society which yet persist in believing themselves sophisticated. The truly sophisticated don’t care one jot what your sexuality is.
As women know – though obviously not all women, judging by the foolish ones who do things like appear on John Bundy’s ‘Ladies Night’, where they are complimented on their hair and make-up (imagine doing that with men) – when you are feted as a special case you know it’s because you’re thought of as a special case.
The people who fuss over individuals because they are homosexual and make a big deal of having ‘one’ (a couple is even better) over to dinner do so like 17th-century Londoners with Pocahontas. It makes me cringe with embarrassment on their behalf.
Several key players in the Nationalist Party are homosexual, whether they are men or women. The unobservant or blinkered believe that they do not exist, because they do not Vaseline their eyebrows and wear splayed pants and interestingly tight tops like some of the boys on Super One, and the women don’t wear butch outfits and get their hair cut at the barber.
Or if they do notice they exist, they then mock them for being in the closet. It doesn’t occur to them for one moment that if people wish to live a plain life and wear sober suits and ties (the men) and attractive clothes and jewellery (the women) it doesn’t follow that they are pretending not to be homosexual.
It just means that they are who they are, and that they are discreet.
People who shove their sex life in other people’s faces are crass and ill-mannered, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. The tragedy is that gay men and women who want a quiet life feel themselves bullied by the outrageous behaviour of others with whom they share absolutely nothing except their sexuality.
We don’t expect all heterosexual men or all heterosexual women to behave the same way, but stupidly, we expect and demand the same behaviour of all homosexual men and all homosexual women.
In the Nationalist Party, homosexual men and homosexual women are promoted to key roles and prominent positions precisely because their sexuality is not an issue. That’s the way it should be.
Yet some of the very people who insist that homosexuality should not be an issue seek to make it one, and idiotically claim that the Labour Party is better for homosexuals because it treats them like a special case instead of just like everybody else.
38 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“It seems to me that what people are talking about here is not rights but acceptance, which is something else altogether and cannot be enforced by law.”
That’s just it. When it comes to being gay the only discrimination one encounters the most is from individuals who might call you names or treat you badly etc. Not easy to live with, especially when one has to grow up in an environment that encourages you to hate yourself and who you are.
The key to that is education. But I believe that the law can help make people realize that if they are going to discriminate against gay people and treat them badly, then the country isn’t going to support them: they are on their own.
[Daphne – The law does not permit people to discriminate against others because of sexuality.]
You brought up the subject of women being discriminated against – but where you ever told to hate yourself and punish yourself because you are a woman, and do your best to turn yourself into a man, and that being a woman is unnatural and a sin, or better still, a reject of evolution?
[Daphne – It is the history of women the world over, Edward, that they were raised with an ingrained sense of inferiority, subservience and worthlessness, that their role was to serve and obey and to seek acceptance from men and society by being ‘good’ and pleasing. And yes, girls were raised to punish themselves and were punished for being women, taught to expect little and get less than their brothers, content themselves with triviliaties and receive the minimum of education and poorer jobs or pay, while doing all the servile and menial work at home and in the office. Perhaps you are too young to know this through observation, but you can still read about it in works by authors from China to Chile, Spain to South Africa.]
Yes, acceptance is what I want. The country can show its acceptance by stating that it does not discriminate against homosexuals (the same way it says it doesn’t discriminate against women).
[Daphne – Edward, please, the country did just that when it wrote the ban on discrimination on grounds of sexuality into the Constitution. To illustrate the point about women, gender and sexuality were included in that Constitutional clause decades after race and religion, which were in the original Constitution in the 1960s. So for decades, Maltese law allowed people to discriminate on grounds of gender and sexuality, but no on race or religion.]
If this was not important then why on Earth have all westernized countries done it? And if it wasn’t such a big deal, then why is it so hard to do?
[Daphne – It’s in the Maltese Constitution.]
And how about stopping religion teachers and other educators from teaching their students about how” evil and sinful” homosexuality is, and encouraging the whole class to laugh and hate them?
You may not be able to physically stop them, but if a gay student is in class, at least he’d be able to stand up for himself and have the law to back him up. As it stands the student will just have to stay silent and take the beating.
[Daphne – The law is there. But what is required in the context of the school is a stiff complaint to the headmaster/mistress, not bringing in the police. However, I start from the standpoint that no child should be sent to a religious school because such schools are detrimental to healthy psychological, social and intellectual development. This is not to say that I believe all such schools should be closed down (my politics are liberal and not totalitarian) but that I would never recommend any such school. Sixth-form colleges are a different matter, because people are at least 16 by the time they go there.]
Such things are important in Malta because without them we leave ourselves wide open for things like Ex-Gay ministries. I’ve spoken about these before, but I’ll do so again.
[Daphne – Ex-gay ministries and the attitudes that bring them into being have absolutely nothing to do with deficient laws, lack of tolerance or deficient democracy. They came into being in the United States, after all, where they are still extremely popular. This is not a coincidence: democracy and tolerance mean that Mr Jones has every right to try converting willing homosexuals while Mr Smith has every right to go and protest outside as long as he doesn’t trespass on the premises, damage property or hurt somebody, while people who do my job have every right to mock anyone or everyone involved for their stance.]
Organisations that claim to be able to “liberate” people from homosexuality are called Ex-Gay Ministries. Organizations like “Exodus International” and “Love in Action” are international organizations. They charge their clients thousands of pounds for this therapy. Their websites claim that they have liberated hundreds of men and women and they promise the same to anyone who joins them.
[Daphne – You might not agree with it, Edward (and I don’t either), but it’s crucial to remember that this is what freedom means. Don’t fall into the gay totalitarian trap of defining freedom as the freedom of everyone to do, say and think only what some gay people want them to do, say and think. You have to find the security and sense of self to be able to look at these things and mock and laugh – just as I mock and laugh when I see ‘token women in public life’ paraded on Super One and asked how they manage to have a career AND put on make-up, my goodness, marelli.]
The reality is the total opposite. They use the most horrific techniques, some which involve electricity, and mock exorcisms , and end up traumatizing their clients leaving them with more psychological problems than before.
[Daphne – Again, Edward, this is what freedom means. If the people involved were forced into it, then you would have a point. But you have to distinguish between coercion and consent. The state cannot tell consenting adults that they are not allowed to put themselves through this, just as the state cannot tell consenting adults that it is forcibly preventing them from other undesirable practices into which they enter willingly, like having sex for money or posing naked on the internet. That is the essence of objections in Malta to censorship laws for adults. The state can only get involved -justifiably – where the consequences of any such action affect the workings of the state: for example, driving without seat-belts and crash helmets puts a high burden on the state medical services and social security, so seat-belts and helmets are now mandatory.]
Their success rate is 3% and that 3% work within the Ex-gay ministry itself and make decent cash out of it. And to top it all off the founders themselves have come out again and apologized for the whole thing,even though there is little they can do to stop it all now.
Malta is a sitting target for one of these money-making schemes. If one ends up setting up show here then the lives of other gay teens (and yes a parent can send their child there against that child’s will if they want to) are going to be damaged beyond belief and they will need more help to recover from the ordeal.
[Daphne – No, parents cannot send children for that kind of treatment. It is against the law as it constitutes quite serious abuse. All a child/teenager has to do in such a situation is ring 179. The number is widely promoted in all schools. Every Maltese child and teenager knows it, and is well aware of what to do.]
I think the law should be there to protect those who are vulnerable to such situations. And it would be nice to know that my country doesn’t think I m a sin.
[Daphne – It doesn’t. The Constitution refers. This is not the same as saying that some Maltese people will continue to think that homosexuality is wrong and a sin. As I said, in a free country you can’t tell people what to think and no liberal would even dream of doing so. You can argue and debate but you can’t legislate against thoughts and opinions, only against the promotion of hatred and incitement to violence (because these things harm others). Malta is actually a really good place to be in this sense, because you will never get somebody marching down the street with a placard claiming that homosexuals are the devil’s spawn, as you would in the United States. People on the whole are pretty decent about homosexuality here, however religious. Once you are open about what you are, people respect it. It’s covert behaviour that brings out people’s worst instincts – hiding and pretending.]
As for Mr Engerer: it’s his career. He can do what he likes with it.
[Daphne – I agree, but it’s hard for me not to care when I see somebody young and with prospects sabotage himself that way.]
If only this straightforward analysis could be understood by at least ten percent of the populace, it would have been worth your not inconsiderable effort, Daphne.
I think I made it within that 10 per cent.
It is actually a very good article and I really liked this:
“And there isn’t one for one reason only: Maltese law does not deal in sexuality but in gender. This means that anything which applies to heterosexual men and women also applies to homosexual men and women, hence there is no discrimination on grounds of sexuality.”
I have to admit, this clarified to me better the notion of “same-sex marriage” as opposed to “gay marriage.”
Won’t there be something in same-secks marriage law about couples loving each other and their intention to consummate the marriage?
[Daphne – Consummation? Not in the civil rite. As for love – that’s in the rite when people marry for money and because they’re settling, too.]
I find it hard to believe they won’t insist on some type of relationship to exist between same-sex couples getting civil marriages to weed out those marrying for convenience.
[Daphne – That’s what banns are for.]
Thank you for finally explaining this.
Good points on the legal aspect. However, the modus operandi of the PN is quite different from what you described as revealed by the prime minister’s ‘no’ vote for divorce legislation which is in line with his Catholic conscience.
Since the PM places his Catholic conscience above civil rights he will also have the propensity to discriminate against gay people under the aegis of Catholic doctrine.
[Daphne – Please, Mr Farrugia, let’s stick to the facts and the law, because otherwise we’re going nowhere. No prime minister, whatever his or her personal inclinations, can discriminate on grounds of sexuality because it is against the law. Furthermore, no prime minister can be in a position to discriminate against people on grounds of sexuality, when it comes to legislation (even if it were not against the law to do so) because it is parliament, not the prime minister, which legislates. That is why parliament is called ‘the legislature’ and why MPs are ‘legislators’.]
Indeed, the same Catholic doctrine that the PM adheres to advises employers when offering a job to give precedence in the employee selection process to a married man, single man and finally a gay man (in that order).
[Daphne – Cite chapter and verse, please, because I’m not into Catholic doctrine and I prefer to base my opinions on facts. Even if we establish the fact that this is what Catholic doctrine teaches (which I doubt), then it is a non sequitur to argue that because this is what Catholic doctrine teaches, that is what the prime minister does. I find it interesting that, in that typically Maltese way, you talk only about men, gay or otherwise, proving the point that I make repeatedly that in Malta gay men have higher status than women because gender is more crucial than sexuality.]
Since the PM is head of the government and has placed his personal conscience above the will of the people than it is to be expected that he will do so in other circumstances such as employment.
[Daphne – Again, a non sequitur. The law allows the prime minister to vote as he pleases in parliament (indeed, the law insists upon it). The law does not allow the prime minister or anyone else to discriminate against people on grounds of gender or sexuality when it comes to employment.]
Naturally, he will be even more inclined to follow Catholic doctrine in the management of his own party under its motto ‘religio et patria’, which through history was very often liberally transcribed to mean Gott mit Uns (God is with us), and by default literally demonising all its political opponents.
[Daphne – I can tell you as a fact – FACT, Mr Farrugia, not opinion or guessing – that the most trusted and senior members of the Nationalist Party’s administrative and political management, of both genders, are homosexual and not in the closet. But like me – not a coincidence because it’s the same attitude that makes us support the same party – they believe that people should not be defined by their sexuality and think it is ill-advised to wear a label (or pink feathers at gay pride) unless you wish to spend your whole life defined by your sexuality rather than your personality and abilities.]
Therefore, Mr Cyrus Engerer as a gay man upholding equal rights is more than justified in having left the PN and joined the PL, especially since the latter party and its leader have overwhelmingly voted in favour of divorce irrespective of what Catholic doctrine imposes (presumably because the myth that the PL is run by demons is quite true).
[Daphne – You do not ‘support gay rights’ by empty words and ghettos, but by treating homosexual people AND WOMEN as you would anyone else, without reference to their sexuality. See above. The place for homosexuals of both genders and certainly women is with the Nationalist Party, because anything that improves the economy, education and society improves the lot of everyone within that society. That’s how women reached full empowerment in Malta: not through the empty words of Labour totalitarians in the 1970s and 1980s, but through the policies of the Nationalist Party post 1987, which encouraged droves of women into further education and made it possible for even older women who had missed out – because they grew up under Labour – to take courses as mature students. It was also thanks to the Nationalist government’s economic policies and policy on Europe that the economy burgeoned and became more diverse, opening jobs and opportunities for women and giving us financial independence, where the policies of Labour were designed to create jobs for ‘breadwinners’ and reduce education for all.]
Whether the PL will discriminate against gays is to be seen in the future, but the PM has already made his views clear by submitting to Catholic doctrine that discriminatres against gay people.
[Daphne – The prime minister has done nothing of the sort, which is why there are several homosexuals on his team, who are there – this is a crucial point – because of what they can do and not because they are gay and he needs tokens.]
About discrimination: One can discriminate on the basis of sexuality as much as one wants. Naturally, he/she risks being challenged in court, although I doubt if homophobes are ever brought to justice for insulting gay people in this country.
[Daphne – Can’t think? Vote Labour. 1. Obviously, Mr Farrugia, just as one is perfectly free to commit murder even though it is against the law, but must then face the consequences if caught or reported. 2. Homophobia is not a crime, because nobody can tell you want to think or feel. PROMOTING homophobia is a crime. Disliking homosexuals is not the same thing as discriminating against them.]
Effectviely, the law does not stop you from doing anything, it is only a deterrant that many people are now choosing to ignore.
[Daphne – See reference to murder, above.]
Tolerance towards gays is not a consequence of the law but the result of social and cultural development.
[Daphne – Tolerance for gays is always wrong and a reflection of undeveloped thinking. When you say that you tolerate something or somebody it is implicit in your statement that you dislike that thing or person but nevertheless put up with it/him/her. That’s what tolerance means: putting up with things you don’t agree with or dislike. The ideal state is of total disregard to sexuality, which is my own attitude – but I have discovered that some homosexual people would prefer me to celebrate them and treat them as special cases because of who they choose to sleep with.]
In the case of the PM, he can conveniently circumvent all by claiming that his conscience told him so (as he did in the divorce vote). One day he may even tell us ‘Deus mea dixit’ and we just have to accept it!
[Daphne – I don’t know whether it’s worth carrying on this conversation. You have clearly assumed your uninformed standpoint and assembled your prejudices to suit. And then you have the nerve to be critical of religious bigots and the stupidity not to understand that your behaviour and thinking are identical.]
‘Chapter and verse’: you are the journalist so you check that out. Ask a top clergy man and you will confirm precisely what I wrote about employment of gays.
[Daphne – So you don’t know what you’re talking about. You just pulled that one out of your hat, maybe because you heard somebody mention it waqt coffee l-Ferries. Tsk tsk. I have absolutely no reason to bother checking out Catholic doctrine. It is the laws of the land which concern me, as a journalist and a citizen.]
By the way, you are wrong about the modern meaning of the word ‘gay’. It refers to both male and female attracted to people of their own sex.
[Daphne – Where did I say that it shouldn’t be used for men and women? I prefer to use the more accurate homosexual. If we are going to talk about heterosexuals then it makes sense to talk about homosexuals, rather than writing ‘heterosexual or gay’, which is ridiculous. Unfortunately, people like you – i.e. ta’ wara l-muntanji – think that the word homosexual is a sort of insult rather than a description. And worse, you also think that it refers only to men because you mistranslate ‘homo’ as the Latin ‘man’ rather than the Greek ‘same’.]
I am sure that the PN has gay people in its top ranks, but that does not make the party less bigoted. I would not be surprised if these gay people are posing as straight, and that does not mean I expect them to wear pink feathers or attend those ridicolous gay parades. The fact is that they are so unconfortable with their sexuality within the PN that some have left, i.e., Cyrus Engerer.
[Daphne – Oh do stop trying to squirrel out of it. If you are really that keen on the promotion of homosexuals to key roles in political parties – on merit as opposed to sexuality – then you should be PLEASED to be told that people who happen to be homosexual hold key roles in the Nationalist Party. Instead you are dismayed – because your real aim here is to criticise the PN and not to champion homosexuality. No, they are not ‘posing as straight’ or uncomfortable with their sexuality. They just don’t want to be defined by their sexuality, for the very same reasons that I refuse to be defined by my gender. Cyrus Engerer did not leave the Nationalist Party because he was uncomfortable with his sexuality there. He gave a keynote speech to the general council last month. You are ill-informed.]
As for ‘anything that improves the economy, education and society improves the lot of everyone within that society’ reminds me of a similar statment uttered by a former environment director who said that economic development is also good for the environment. He resigned soon after.
[Daphne – A daft comparison, and a total non sequitur.]
There is no connection between economic development (in already developed nations) and the amelioraton of the quality of life of gays or increased tolerance towards gays. Your ‘economic’ argument is quite shallow.
[Daphne – Improvement of the status of women and homosexuals is directly linked to economic growth, Mr Farrugia, because economic growth is directly linked to democracy. You should know this as part of general basic education, even if you did not have Malta’s own experience to go by. Sit down with a globe or an atlas, go through every country and think about the relationship between that country’s economy and the status of women and homosexuals there.]
Gays are in the PM’s team not because of ‘what they ca do’ but because of their connections, both overt and more sinister. In the PN psyche, it is connections that count not competence. Hence the dismal state of management of this country where the government cannot even get right a bus service. I have seen better in southern Africa!
[Daphne – Scratch a Labour liberal you’ll find somebody who privately thinks that pufti are sinister people who network in dark corridors. The bus service is not the government’s responsibility. Hadn’t you noticed? As for the dismal state of management of this country (maaaa, kemm hawn faqar u guh!), don’t make me laugh. Mur arak tghix L-Italja jew Spanja. Jew il-Grecja.]
Daphne – why do you bother with people like Farrugia? He is the proverbial horse which was taken to the water but could not be made to drink.
This should be translated into Maltese and sent to all households.
A help-line should also be opened for those who need clarification.
Homosexuals are on the PM’s team not because of ‘what they can do’, but because of their connections, both overt and more sinister.
[Daphne – That’s right: they have secret porn sessions with the prime minister and are blackmailing him. Like I always say: celebrating gays is just a pose for Labour, because Labour supporters are by definition conservative, closed-minded, totalitarian and intolerant. Scratch a Labour ‘liberal’ and you’ll find somebody who thinks ‘pufta’ and talks ‘gay’. This is a typical example: a protest about the prime minister discriminating against gays, closely followed – when the facts are presented to the contrary – by the accusation that he’s the victim of a gay network, and a sinister one at that.]
The more I read about this subject, the more I see what a pitiful state we have turned the world into.
I miss the days when men were men and women were women and all the REST either joined the priesthood or became nuns, and a few were closed in the attic or Kantina.
Now we have them running all over the place making complete idiots of themselves.
I appreciate that this might not bo to every one’s liking, but I still have the right to write what I think even so when considering that the OTHERS are doing so as well.
[Daphne – I am going to have to tolerate you, Silvio, as an example to Labour ‘liberals’ of what tolerance really means: putting up with something you really don’t like while respecting the right of the person to say and think it. This is what Labour ‘liberals’ really mean when they speak about ‘tolerating gays’: put up with them even if you don’t like them. The prejudice is inherent.]
Please Daphne don’t blow your top.
You have passed the test with flying colours. This is exactly why I like my party, because we are all tolerated to express our opinions and are respected for it, even if they go against the beliefs of the many (as long as they do not go against the basic principles on which our party was founded).
As long as we are a tolerant party, nothing can break us and it is why I am so certain that we can surpass the present difficult position that the party is in.
I hate defeatists and pessimists, I still believe that we have what it takes to win the next election.
It is defeatist to keep on writing that we are going to lose. That is exactly what the P.L. wants to hear. The best way to defeat your opponents is to demoralise them. That is what they after and doing to us.
It is high time that we start rebuilding the morale of our supporters, something that you, dear Daphne are capable of doing.
I expect that your next article will be a take-down of all of the “crass” and “ill-mannered” Maltese politicians who shove their heterosexuality in our faces by trotting out the wife (or husband in Giovanna’s case) and kids at every possible moment.
After all, this progeny is evidence of their sex lives and people who talk about their sex lives in public are rude and distasteful. Or is it just gay sexuality that you find hard to stomach?
[Daphne – Are you talking to me? If so, then you should widen your social circle in Malta beyond ‘let’s stick together and mix with no one else’ working-class homosexuals who don’t know me from Adam (I see that you are a US citizen with a Maltese boyfriend). Then you will find out that I really do mean what I say: I am completely indifferent to whether a person is gay or straight and I just can’t stand anyone – gay or straight – who is ill-mannered enough to make their sex life their topic of conversation. The example you use above is ridiculous: people who go out with their spouses and children are not talking about their sex life. This is an example of talking about your sex life (from a real actual conversation I found myself forced to listen to): “Ma, I went home with this man last night (name provided) and he wanted a*al sex and ma, I sh*t myself and I was so embarrassed.” But not too embarrassed to talk about it, apparently, and in case you’re wondering, it was a straight woman, not a gay man. Appalling – do whatever you like but for crying out loud don’t be so crass as to talk about it.]
Hahaha. Like Mrs. Bennet in Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, such preoccupation with class betrays an insecurity about one’s own social standing.
[Daphne – I am not in the least bit insecure about my social standing, Zachary, and I don’t even think in those terms. Unlike some others I could mention but won’t, I didn’t have to do any climbing or self-reinvention. I brought up the fact that you mix mainly with working-class homosexuals, and Labour ones at that (you need to widen your experience beyond that, and not just in terms of sexuality) to illustrate the point that neither you nor your friends could possibly know anything about me, which is why you think I’m homophobic. If you were to ask around beyond your narrow circles, you’ll find a different story.]
I can’t say I’ve ever factored in “class” when deciding which Maltese people to befriend–I find doing so to be uncouth–but upon examination I can assure you that my Maltese friends represent many hues in the archaic British imperial social class system of which you are so fond. Can you say the same?
[Daphne – You’re American, Zachary, that’s why. Where you come from, it’s about money and money = class. In Europe it’s very different.]
Shit-inducing anal sex (we call that “santorum” in the good old US of A) was not one of the things you mentioned in your original article about flaunting one’s sexuality. Rather, you wrote about one’s manner of dress and being “discreet” (a term commonly used by closeted gay men on Craigslist). There is certainly a difference.
[Daphne – I spoke about vulgarity. And when I mentioned discretion, I did not mean hiding one’s sexuality, but not being crass in conversation and behaviour. For example, being gay does not give you special licence to behave differently or disregard common courtesy. I’ve been at gatherings where all the men are in suits, then one or two gay men – working-class, generally, because that’s where all the misconceptions about homosexuality and special licence are – turns up dressed for a nightclub ‘because he’s gay’. That is the kind of thing that puts people off: the bad manners, not the gayness.]
The question you should be asking is not, “Why would Cyrus want to defect to the Labour Party?” but rather, “Why does David Casa feel the need to deny his sexuality when directly asked?”
[Daphne – He doesn’t. I think I am in a far better position to know this than you are. But this is precisely what I mean about appalling manners. You have to be very, very illbred indeed to walk up to somebody and say ‘Are you gay?’ The well-bred response to that is to pretend you haven’t heard the question. The less polite response is to tell your interlocutor: “How is that any concern of yours?” or better still “Do please mind your own f**king business.” This does not mean you are ‘denying’ or ‘hiding’, but that you are responding to crass rudeness in the only way you should.]
Why did Karl Gouder have to be outed before coming out as an openly-gay Nationalist politician?
[Daphne – He wasn’t ‘outed’. His already-known sexuality was publicised to a national audience by a bunch of leftwing bullies with totalitarian inclinations. I hope to goodness that you don’t approve of that sort of thing. It’s what homophobes do.]
“What is wrong with my party, my country that many of our public figures feel compelled to lie about this?” We don’t need to know if they encountered santorum last night, but they should feel comfortable in sharing the significant people in their lives, just like straight Maltese politicians do.
[Daphne – Hasn’t it occurred to you for one moment that they might not have a significant person in their lives? Obviously not. Whether you’re gay or straight, when you’re in public life you prefer to keep your private life private, especially when you’re dating. Surely this can’t be too hard to understand.]
My mother always raised me to tell the truth. I don’t see, “Are you gay?” as a particularly vulgar question, because being gay is not a vulgar thing, so I answer truthfully.
[Daphne – Personal questions are ALWAYS crass and asking them is rude. ‘Are you gay?’ is in the same category of rudeness as ‘How much do you earn?’ or ‘Why don’t you have children?’. I would never ask anyone any such question and if anyone asked me, I would do the correct thing, pretend not to hear and carry on talking about something else. I would do this even though I am not gay. I will ignore the person rather than answer No. Pretending not to hear is the only civilised response to a rude question. Validating the question with an answer is not acceptable, and telling somebody to mind their own business is rude as well. Your culture in the United States might be different, but in Europe this is how it is. There are some questions which you just don’t ask, and most of them are related to a person’s marital status, sex life, sexuality, earnings, and lack of children. If the other person brings up the subject him/herself, then it is permissible to ask careful and tactful questions, but always taking care not to cause offence. So, for example, if the man you are talking to at a party tells you that he is divorced, you should never ask him whether his wife left him or whether he left her. If he tells you unprompted that she left him, you mustn’t ask why she did that. And so on. These Europeans, eh? It’s a whole different world out here.]
Now, if someone were to asked me, “Are you into fisting?” I would probably tell them to mind their own fucking business, but perhaps this is because I am not as well-bred as you. Do you see the difference?
[Daphne – No. Both questions are extremely impertinent. It’s just that one is merely rude and the other absolutely disgusting.]
It’s in the specificity. But in case I’m wrong, I challenge you to come up with one closeted straight politician in Malta, someone who is genuinely heterosexual, but would rather not have people know about it.
[Daphne – There is no reason for heterosexuals to pretend to be homosexual, unless they are straight actors who in desperation end up starring in gay porn to make a living. Homosexuals, on the other hand, often seem to feel the need to pretend. But that’s their problem and nobody forces them to do it. They’re lucky because they can pretend if they want to. Women could rarely pretend to be men, even though many wanted to because it would have made their lives easier and more interesting – and in fact a few women did so in history, becoming pirates, soldiers and so on.]
For the record, I do support the outing of gay politicians whose personal lives are incongruous with their public stances.
[Daphne – Very progressive of you, Zachary. Outing is very Chinese Cultural Revolution and Joe Stalin, and is favoured by people with totalitarian instincts, not liberal politics.]
For instance, gay Republicans (specifically “family values” Republicans) should always ALWAYS be outed, not because they are gay, but because they are fucking hypocrites.
[Daphne – How does being gay and favouring family values make a person a hypocrite? And why do you make the assumption that gay male politicians who don’t wish to tell you they are gay (because it’s none of your business – a concept you seem to find hard to understand) are necessarily cottaging in public lavatories behind your back? I can’t help suspecting that it’s people who think this way who are the real homophobes. I mean, why do that to somebody? Why wreck lives and cause misery? How is that liberal and not something dreamt up by Mao Tse Tung? What does a gay politician have to do to keep people like you happy – wear a pink thong and feathers and prance down the street with his boyfriend? Live and let live, for god’s sake.]
Similarly, a gay politician who runs under the “Religio et Patria” banner of the PN (a party that has done fuck-all for LGBT equality in the past 20 years of government), but tries to make a secret of his sexuality should also be outed.
[Daphne – I know of no such person. You’re expending your energy on the wrong party. Try Jason, Ronnie and Anthony over at Labour instead. Oh, hasn’t your Labour-voting husband told you about them? Then I’ll practise what I preach and won’t tell you either. But do ask him. And then practise what YOU preach and go right ahead and out them, though I can’t see that happening anytime soon.]
If politicians insist on making “family values” (which really means the state regulation of the personal lives of free adult citizens) a political issue, they should be prepared to have their personal lives held up to similar scrutiny.
Anti-gay Labour and Nationalist politicians alike should be held to account. When Joseph Muscat becomes PM, don’t expect him to get a free pass from the LGBT civil rights movement. We will criticize him and his party with the same vigor we criticize Gonzi until he supports full equality. Expect nothing less.
And for the record, my husband had never voted Labour: we are Gozitans and we like Chris Said very much. We might make an exception for this coming election however. Like so many disaffected Natioalists, we’re tired of the institutionalized corruption brought on by 20 years of PN rule.
[Daphne – Zachary, Paul has just told me that you are a US citizen. So you can’t possibly vote in Maltese general elections. I really enjoyed reading his reply and appreciate the time he took to write it. I forgot to tell him that so please let him know. On the subject of voting, I think it’s really charming that you say ‘we’, but Maltese married couples don’t think like that. Most of us guard our vote fiercely and see it as a personal and individual thing.]
Daphne you stated that “I can tell you as a fact – FACT, Mr Farrugia, not opinion or guessing – that some of the most trusted and senior members of the Nationalist Party’s administrative and political management, of both genders, are homosexual and not in the closet”.
Maybe you jumped into this conclusion because you have such a strong personality, that men (heterosexual) feel intimidated and patronised by you, therefore they do not make passes at you and you automatically assume they are gay. Men in general like submissive women. I am sure Daphne that you have a good ‘gaydar’ and can spot a gay man from a mile away, but I think your ‘gaydar’ need retuning a bit.
[Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake. It’s like talking to a brick wall. I know that the people in question are homosexual because they’re not pretending to be anything else, not because I have ‘gaydar’ or because they don’t make passes at me.]
I agree with what you say about Labour patronising gays, but sensible gays who engage their brains more than their private parts, realise that the LP is probably more homophobic than the PN.
I still believe that Malta should introduce civil partnerships for same-sex couples like the rest of the larger more developed EU countries.
So in all honesty you think that the nationalist party is more likely than labour to support the idea of a marriage which is not tied down by gender (you know what I mean)?
[Daphne – Oh, obviously. After all, the Labour leader has declared categorically already, on television, that he is AGAINST same-sex marriages. The Nationalist leader, on the other hand, is actively promoting his law on cohabitation, which will allow same-sex couples who live together to have rights in terms of each other, the home, etc. I’m guessing you missed both of those things.]
Don’t you think that a party which had such a problem with divorce for catholic reasons would be less likely to accept it?
(Genuinely asking)
[Daphne – No, I don’t. Because Jesus apparently never said ‘Let no man (as distinct from God) put another two men together’.]
And okay I understand what you mean by discrimination not existing based on sexuality from a technical point of view. Technically you are 100% right.
But in reality you do realize that I as a gay man do not have the same possibilities you do right?
[Daphne – The point of my piece is that you and I are viewed by the law in EXACTLY the same way, the difference that, unlike you, I am not in a position to marry because I am married already. Now if you had asked me the same question 17 years ago, because the laws were changed to get rid of injustices towards women, I would have told you ‘No, you have far more possibilities than I do, because you are a man.”]
That my long-term commitments will not receive the same legal benefits?
[Daphne – When you grow up and find out more about the law and marriage and relationships in general, you will understand that marriage is not a guarantee of benefits but can actually strip you of benefits. You will also learn that marriage is not a requirement when regulating the financial/property/inheritance position between couples, and that contracts, notarial deeds and last wills and testaments do the job far more efficiently. You will find out, too, as thousands of others have done, that the person you marry is able to come up with a hundred creative ways to cheat you and to conceal from you the existence of money and material possessions, regardless of the law and the existence of a marriage certificate. You will also discover with the wisdom of age that if you have to rely on the law to stop your spouse or companion cheating you or leaving you homeless or without money, then that relationship is dangerous and damaging and you should use the law to get out not to get in or stay in.]
Don’t get me wrong, settling down and having a family (which I will be doing same day) is most definitely possible today, but there are legal benefits that I would not have.
[Daphne – See above.]
“The people who fuss over individuals because they are homosexual and make a big deal of having ‘one’ (a couple is even better) over to dinner …”
You should perhaps mention that if the couple happen to be a French Sorbonne professor and his make-up artist boyfriend they are even invited to drop by ‘unexpectedly’ when the leader of the Opposition and his wife are being interviewed in their lovely Burmarrad home – complete with bear collection – by a (gay) interviewer.
There is a difference between a law which actively discriminates against someone and a legislative framework which does not cater for/allow a particular situation and which, because of this, leads to a discriminatory situation in practice.
[Daphne – This is exhausting. I spelled it out and you still haven’t understood the essential point that rights pertain to individuals and not to couples. So, to spell it out again in a different way: couples do not have human rights or civil rights. The individuals within those couples do. Hence, a man cannot claim discrimination because he is not permitted to marry another man, because the law which does not permit same-sex marriages applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. When challenging the law, you have to take an approach other than discrimination because discrimination is a non-starter. Some advice: instead of arguing WHY you should be able to marry another man, you should challenge the objectors head-on and ask them why they believe you should NOT. This is how the divorce debate was won – not by the arguments as to why people should be allowed to divorce, but by breaking down the objections and exposing them as having no rational foundation or even consistency. So whenever you come across somebody who says there shouldn’t be same-sex marriages, instead of whining about rights and trying to explain that people who love each other should be allowed to marry blah blah, just use five simple words: ‘Please tell me why not.’]
I can’t think of any instance where Maltese law does the former against gay persons.
But the fact that marriage legislation does not allow two persons of the same gender to have their union formally recognised at law does lead to discriminatory situations for a gay person who might wish to get married to the person of his/her choice.
[Daphne – It doesn’t. Society is packed with people who can’t marry the person of their choice, and not only because there is no divorce.]
It’s useless and dishonest to argue that s/he can still get married to a person of the opposite gender because, being gay they obviously would not want to!
[Daphne – That’s where you’re wrong. I know – and know of – several homosexuals, men and women, who married somebody of the other gender and raised families or had no children. Please don’t be naive. And that is exactly my point: Malta’s law on marriage does not discriminate against homosexuals. Whether you are gay or straight, it applies equally. Equally, there might be reasons why a straight woman might wish to marry another straight woman – citizenship, for instance. These, too, have no access to marriage under the current law, but discrimination clearly has nothing to do with it.]
The reality is that most gay people want to marry a person of their own gender and can’t. Most straight people want to marry a person of the opposite gender and can.
[Daphne – ‘Want’ has nothing to do with rights or discrimination. You don’t appear to understand that I’m with you on this one: it’s your faulty reasoning and weak arguments that rile me, because they undermine your chances of success. ‘I want’ convinces no one.]
So straight people can avail themselves of the resultant benefits of the state’s formal recognition of their union with the person of their choice while gay people cannot.
[Daphne – You’re wrong. Many can’t and don’t.]
And that is discrimination of the second type I described above.
[Daphne – It is not. See my comments above.]
You’re wrong. The “Please tell me why not argument” is the one I use most (without whining). But I cannot use it with you because I know that that’s not what you’re challenging.
You are as exhausting as you think I am. No matter how many exceptions to the rule you can think of on a Sunday afternoon, the fact is:
Maltese law will not allow me to marry my chosen partner;
this is not direct discrimination based on gender preferences because it applies equally to straight and gay men/women but, in today’s society it brings about a situation where not all stable and loving couples can benefit from the same rights that the state affords to such couples which it allows to get married.
Have a look at Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. You will notice that the intricacies of the law when applied to practical and evolving situations cannot be simplified in the way you are trying to do above.
P.S. I know you are with me. But there are plenty of people out there who don’t and you are supplying fodder to their prejudices and ignorance. Pity.
[Daphne – Rubbish. Your main problem is that you are as prejudiced as you believe your opponents to be. Prejudice and received wisdom undermine your arguments. Arguments, to be won, must be made dispassionately. ‘I can’t marry the person of my choice’ is no argument. Many people can’t and they’re not gay. There is only one argument for same-sex marriage just as there was only one argument for divorce: that there is no argument against it. ]
Of course it is an argument. You are simply too obstinate to admit it. The fact that there are other people in similar situations doesn’t detract from this argument; it simply means there might be other arguments to be made.
[Daphne – I’m not obstinate, Ian, but clear-thinking. Basically, if your argument doesn’t hold up in a court of law, it’s not going to hold up anywhere else. So begin thinking that way and you’re sorted.]
Let us forget for a minute the moral objections to same-sex marriage (generally used as a euphemisim for gay marriage. Which straight person would want to marry another straight person of the same sex?)
Why can’t two men (or two women) “marry” each other? This is a genuine question. Can’t the Constitution be changed?
[Daphne – This is really quite interesting. Our marriage law never specified ‘men and women’. It was assumed. Nobody ever imagined, I suppose, that a man might want to marry a man or a woman another woman. Then somebody woke up to the ramifications and that was changed. But here’s the thing – it’s not only the actual marriage that counts, but the registration of that marriage, and that is up to the public registrar. Of course, he can’t refuse to register a marriage where the law is clear-cut, but he has made life hell for Joanne Cassar, who was a man but is now a woman. She has fought legal suit after legal suit, but the public registrar says she can’t marry a man (because she ‘is really a man’) and yet she can’t marry a woman either because now she’s legally a woman. This is insane. So it has nothing to do with the Constitution; it’s the Marriage Act.]
Why do you say that there is no argument for same-sex marriage?
[Daphne – I don’t say that, Reuben. I say that the only argument for same-sex marriage is that there is no (rational) argument against it.]
If I don’t accept THE definition for marriage what holds me from marrying another man – if I were homosexual? What’s to stop me from adopting a child? I’m sure certain aspects – or whatever they’re called – of the law can be changed.
And here lies the huge drawback of all morals and moral philosophy (or ethics). When one breaks the “rules” there is no immediate “retribution”. Such a situation allows us to nurture the impression that all opinions are equally valid and that what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander.
A comparable mo is rat poison. Rat poison works because the rat – an extremely intelligent mammal – cannot associate the poison with ill health or death. The poison works gradually, diminishing the ability of the animal’s blood to clot. When enough has been ingested the rat dies because of severe internal haemorrhaging.
Same goes with our perception of what is morally acceptable and what isn’t. The erosion of values by relativism is so slow that nobody sees the damage until it’s done.
When we do – it’s too late for us and too late for the rat.
[Daphne – Too right. And what, do you think, are the poisonous consequences of, say, women being held in subjugation for two thousand years of history and counting? Or was that OK because it is the natural order of things?]
The truly sophisticated don’t care one jot what your sexuality is.
Are you kidding me? The truly sophisticated hate paedophiles, to give just one example, from the bottom of their hearts. So much crass ignorance about the sexual appetites of these people. Ask any sexologist you come across if you don’t believe me!
Who are the truly sophisticated, by the way?
[Daphne – Paedophilia is a crime.]
Daphne, please. Paedophilia (lovers of children) is not a crime. Paedophiles who do not abuse children and do not break the law in any way are not criminals. And there are hundreds of them. And it’s no use hating them. They are not going to get any better by people’s rage.
[Daphne – Paedophiles do not ‘love children’. They want to have sex with them. It’s a misnomer.]
From a scientific point of view, there is nothing wrong with any sexual orientation – even paedophilia. Problems crop up when you have low IQ, irresponsible and immature guys. I may get sexually excited for Censu’s donkey but as long as I respect the law nobody can say anything.
There are hundreds of mature and responsible paedophiles, hebephiles, teleiophiles … name it and you have it. You will never know about them because they have a low-profile life and never get into any trouble. And they didn’t choose their sexual orientation and so it’s no use having guilt feelings.
[Daphne – I can’t believe this. What am I doing here? Who exactly are you defending here?]
Daphne, please. Don’t keep believing the crap dumped on Xarabank regarding this subject which make people out of their mind with hatred for the poor guys.
p.s keep the good work. I really enjoy spending time reading your articles. You’re the best.
Hi Daphne,
I am a Maltese citizen with a south American partner. Since you seem to be so knowlegable on the subject, can you please explain to me which path I should consider to come live with him in legally in Malta? Whilst understanding equal rights on marriage are so irrelevant in your books, I’m very intrigued to hear your recommended options. Most of my heterosexual friends haven’t seem to have had the same problems marrying foreigners, how’s that equal in MY books?
Many thanks.
[Daphne – South American partner or South American husband? If he’s just a partner, then you’re in exactly the same legal position as anyone, of whatever sex or gender, with a partner, anywhere in the world: No Partners Allowed. If, on the other hand, you’re married and he’s from Argentina, you can go there. If he’s from anywhere else in South America, you have a problem – because of him. You, on the other hand, are lucky enough to have an EU passport – thanks to the Nationalist Party and certainly not to Joseph Muscat – and so you can take him with you to live and work anywhere in the EU where same-sex unions are recognised. Try Britain – I hear it’s a lot more fun than Malta.]
Let’s get some facts right:
The EU Freedom of Movement Directive allows partners of EU citizens in a durable relationship to move and reside freely in any EU Member State. This should apply irrespective of sexual orientation but the Maltese Government, in its draft transposition of this Directive, is denying this right to partners of the same gender because “such relationship is in conflict with the public policy of Malta”.
According to the Commission, Malta told Brussels that same-gender partnerships breached Maltese public policy (See the Sunday Times report 10 April 2011 – as yet not denied by any Government spokesperson).
[Daphne – See my remark about the journalist’s brother, who gives the lie to that statement. He is gay, was Lawrence Gonzi’s personal assistant, and is chief of Malta Enterprise – a government-appointed position – and goes to all official functions with his (obviously male) companion. So let’s give it a rest, shall we – I have had enough of this rubbish.]
So, no I cannot live with my South American partner in Malta because the Maltese Government so far is intent on denying us this right. And whether I prefer to live in the UK or in my own home country, is frankly none of your business.
Shame on you!
[Daphne – ‘Shame on you!’ That’s Labour working-class elve-speak and really childish and tiresome. Listen up, if I had a South American partner I wouldn’t be able to bring him to live with me in Malta either. And don’t tell me that I can marry him because my answer to that – as it would be from anyone else who knows what marriage really is rather than just the pipedream you think it is, is ‘why the hell should I have to?’ You don’t enter into a lifetime’s commitment and all that legal hassle just to get somebody a work or residence permit.]
Dear Daphne,
I’m pasting below a letter I sent to the Malta Independent, commenting on the above article. Since the letter was not published yesterday I thought I could post it here, amended accordingly.
Thanks,
Neil
Chairperson,
aditus
“From a human rights law perspective your arguments are not wholly correct. Whilst it is true to affirm that Maltese law generally adopts a non-discriminatory approach to sexual orientation, it is equally important to highlight those instances where a person’s sexual orientation is in fact a ground for the denial of all or part of one’s rights. For example, Malta’s transposition of the European Union’s Freedom of Movement Directive of 2004 is currently facing infringement proceedings by the European Commission due to its blatant disregard of the Directive provisions affecting same-sex couples. Furthermore, the current failure by the Maltese state to provide any form of legal recognition of same-sex couples may be seen to violate a person’s right to privacy, to marry and to found a family. On this matter, whilst you are correct in affirming that this failure could potentially also affect heterosexual persons wishing to marry a person of their same gender, it is undeniable and indisputable that homosexual persons are in fact the group of persons most immediately and directly affected by this legal omission. It is important to highlight that most of the rights and obligations attached to marriage may not be duplicated in a private document amongst two persons, but remain the exclusive enjoyment of married persons.
Yet non-discrimination discourse that remains at the level of the word of the law fails to appreciate that discrimination and inequality occur even where the law prohibits it, and that it is ultimately the duty of all states to not only respect one’s fundamental human rights but also to protect and to fulfil them. What you call a need for ‘acceptance’ actually translates into the legal obligation of the state to ensure that homosexual persons feel free to express their sexual orientation without fear of losing their jobs, of being prevented from entering bars, restaurants and cinemas, of being bullied and harassed, etc. This legal obligation is generally accepted for other grounds of non-discrimination such as gender, disability, age and race but less so for sexual orientation.
In this respect, Malta does discriminate against homosexual persons by the mere statement repeatedly stressed by state officials that same-sex relations are against the nation’s public policy. The implications of this stand-point run through all levels of public administration resulting in regular rights infringements in areas such as adoption, immigration, social welfare, fiscal benefits. Government policies are at times harsher than its own laws, particularly if the social impact of such policy statements is kept in mind.
As with women’s rights, children’s rights, refugee rights, rights of the disabled, elderly rights, etc., gay rights do not purport to create any new category of persons or any new demands on the state. They merely depart from the understanding that the core basis of fundamental human rights is their equal recognition and enjoyment by all persons.
Thanks,
Neil Falzon
[Daphne – Neil, while I am 100% with you in your work with immigrants, I disagree completely with many of the points you make here, which appear to stem from the false premise that “Malta does discriminate against homosexual persons by the mere statement repeatedly stressed by state officials that same-sex relations are against the nation’s public policy”. I have yet to come across any such statement, let alone see it ‘repeatedly stressed’. It is sad to see even you fall victim to received wisdom and gossip in this regard. I am with you only on the matter of freedom of movement of same-sex spouses, and I have been very specific on the point that registration of same-sex marriages in Malta, regardless of the advent or not of same-sex marriage legislation, is going to be unavoidable (as with the registration of divorces) if we are to avoid anomalous situations.]
Daphne,
I haven’t fallen victim to received wisdom and gossip. If you read Malta’s response to the EU Commission’s comments on our transposition of the Free Movement Directive, you’ll clearly read the rationale behind the incorrect transposition (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110410/local/malta-discriminating-against-same-sex-couples-commission.359131)
Ultimately, it should be argued that the right to marry is an internationally recognised human right that ought to be enjoyed by all persons.
It is however problematic that institutions like the European Court of Human Rights have not yet taken the step of recognising its application also to homosexual persons.
[Daphne – Thank you for pointing that out. Some people here are more likely to believe you than me on that one.]
“I have yet to come across any such statement, let alone see it ‘repeatedly stressed’.”
The European Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to the Maltese Government on its allegedly incorrect draft transposition of the Freedom of Movement Directive.
According to the Sunday Times (10 April 2011): “The government said Maltese legislation recognises “the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship” but qualifies it with the sentence “unless such relationship is in conflict with the public policy of Malta”.
According to the Commission, Malta told Brussels that same-sex partnerships breached Maltese public policy.”.
But you know this.
Oh no? Have a look at Ivan Camilleri’s Sunday Times report of 10 April 2011. As far as I know, this has never been denied by any Government representative. (I’m not copying the link because every time I write the word “sex” and submit my comment, it disappears.)
But of course, you’ve already seen it!
I understand that you grew up in a situation where, as a woman, in particular, you had it very bad. But please get over your trauma and stop sounding so shrill and hysterical. The discrimination women suffered in our country is no reason not to right other wrongs today.
[Daphne – ‘Shrill and hysterical’; ‘get over it’: spoken like a true chauvinist and gay or not, you’re not even aware of it. You know what? The gay men dominating this space don’t sound like gay men. They sound like…men. There you are, stamping your feet all over the forum because you can’t marry another man (to no particular end or purpose in the 21st century), and then you tell women – who were second-class citizens to your first – to get over it. What would you have done in our position, I wonder. Imagine if somebody were to have told you that you have no rights over your own property because you’re gay, and somebody else has to administer and sell it instead. Get over it, my eye. Maltese men, gay or straight – il-vera fihom priza (with many exceptions, of course, but in general, god help us).]
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110410/local/malta-discriminating-against-same-sex-couples-commission.359131
[Daphne – ‘Same sex relationships breach Maltese public policy’…oh now, now, now, honestly! Then exactly how and why is the writer’s brother, a gay man in a public relationship with a companion who accompanies him to official functions, head of Malta Enterprise? Because the Nationalist Party and government discriminate against homosexuals? And this is the same man who was Lawrence Gonzi’s personal assistant, for crying out loud. Because the Nationalist Party doesn’t oblige ‘its gays’ to wear yellow stars like Jews under Hitler, people like you are able to promote lies and received wisdom.]
Why are you asking me? Ask the government official who drafted that reply to the European Commission’s letter.
[Daphne – I’m not asking you. I’m pointing out the inherent contradiction. If the government of Malta really does view same-sex relationships as being against public policy, then it would not appoint people in same-sex relationships to extremely prominent positions in which their job is TO REPRESENT MALTA WITH FOREIGN INVESTORS.]
But if you seriously need an answer to your question: the Freedom of Movement Directive regulates freedom to move and reside within an EU Member State not the freedom to take your partner to official functions!
[Daphne – You’re confusing the two separate issues: the freedom of movement directive and Malta’s alleged policy on same-sex relationships. The partner in question is, I believe, an EU citizen. I can understand why Malta, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom in particular haven’t signed this. Yes, I understand, and it’s for reasons to do with straight couples, not gay ones. The UK, for instance, has a massive problem with the importation of Indian and Pakistani brides in marriages of convenience. Malta had a similar problem, though nowhere near as extensive, with North African men marrying Maltese women in similar marriages of convenience (for the right to residence and work – I should add that many such marriages are genuine). We also have a problem with Maltese men bringing in ‘partners’ who are in fact prostitutes and the foundation of a white-slave racket. If the right to bring in a non-EU partner is given to same-sex couples, it follows that the same right will have to be extended to straight ‘couples’ to avoid discrimination (which doesn’t only work in one direction).]
No, again, you’re the one confusing issues:
1. the Maltese Government’s official position (that’s the one that goes into official replies); and
2. the duties some gay persons are given by the current administration, which is not an official position at all, particularly if that person was not known to be gay WHEN he climbed the administration’s rungs.
[Daphne – Bollocks. You’re making me swear now. Alan Camilleri ‘came out’ BEFORE he was made chief of Malta Enterprise. And yes, it is an official position because it is the state’s investment-generation organisation. When Mr Camilleri travels, he travels to represent Malta. First you criticise the government for discriminating against gays, then when it’s pointed out to you that there are gays in very senior positions, you try to find some reason why this isn’t really valid. Unbelievable. Mela mur ivvota ghal xi hadd li kull ma jaghmel ghal-‘gejs’ hu li jistiedenhom ghal-kafe l-Mile End ha jsoddhom. Mamma mia.]
“people like you are able to promote lies and received wisdom”
People like me, unlike you, have the rational and emotional capability of feeling compassion for others who might be suffering/have suffered some form of discrimination, notwithstanding the fact that I might have suffered a more serious/some other form of discrimination myself.
[Daphne – The point is, Ian, and you’ll find that most Maltese lesbians over 45 will agree with me, that when you’ve spent the first three, four, five or even six decades of your life as a second-class citizen – literally, not figuratively – you have a different perspective to gay men on what constitutes discrimination. There are lesbians still living in Malta who didn’t even have the vote when gay men did. There’s a reason why the men are doing all the shouting in this debate. Let me put it another way: if you spent 30 years of your life in a wheelchair you’re not going to become especially exercised because, now that you’re out of the wheelchair, you’ve bust a toe.]
You are pitting two forms of discrimination against each other: “Don’t complain cos I had it worse!”. That, in my books, and not any part of the fight for women’s rights, sounds shrill and hysterical.
[Daphne – I am anything but shrill and hysterical, Ian. I am extremely level-headed in debates. And if you were a careful reader you would have noticed that I never said ‘Don’t complain because we had it worse’. I am asking you to get a sense of perspective. That ‘we’ is interesting, anyway. Where do you place lesbians – with ‘you’ (gay men, apparently) or with ‘we’ (me and all women, gay or straight)?]
I’ll leave the lies (and received wisdom) to whoever insists that “I have yet to come across any such statement, let alone see it ‘repeatedly stressed’.
[Daphne – ?]
Raad my words: “particularly if that person was not known to be gay WHEN he climbed the administration’s rungs” – I never said he ‘came out’ after he was made chief of Malta Enterprise. He occupied a very important position before that.
[Daphne – And then when it was known already that he is gay, he was given one of the most important and significant state roles there is. And the government, which is one reason why I vote for it, didn’t feel the need to wheel him out on a pink trolley and say ‘Look everyone! Ghandna gej bhala kap tal-Malta Enterprise.’ Stop twisting it. You actually sound DISPLEASED to learn that the government does not penalise people for being gay. Tsk tsk.]
‘Gejs’, Mile End, coffee…not my cup of tea, thanks!
P.S. Perhaps YOU should have a coffee with Barroso and tell him to forget about the infringement proceedings because the chief of Malta Enterprise is gay. Really!