Gosh, how progressive and liberal: all this talk of hell-fire and damnation
What on earth was this, exactly?
A progressive liberal telling his supporters that they should vote for civil unions for homosexuals even if it means being condemned to hell for eternity.
A progressive liberal telling his supporters that fear of hell will not deter him from introducing civil unions for homosexuals.
Will you excuse me for borrowing from the Facebook shorthand of those a generation my junior?
WTF!
Progressive liberals don’t speak about hell. They don’t even think in terms of hell. They don’t do things because it will gain them heaven or refrain from doing things because they will go to hell. They don’t go in for acts of bravado in defiance of hell.
They separate church and state. They do what needs to be done in the interests of human rights and civil liberties.
They leave hell and heaven to churchmen.
And what does this say about the Labour leader and his supporters, anyway? The message embedded right here in Joseph Muscat’s words is that homosexuality = damnation.
Just fabulous.
If he was trying to emulate his hero Dom Mintoff, he failed to remember that everyone and everything has to be taken in context. When Mintoff spoke in terms of hell and damnation, the Church and defiance of the Church, he did so in a socio-cultural context far different from today’s.
Yes, there are large numbers of Labour supporters who, because of their particular socio-educational background, think in terms of hell and damnation. That’s exactly why a significant proportion of the anti-divorce vote came from Labour supporters.
What Muscat has done here is encapsulate the choice before them: vote for civil unions and go to hell, or don’t vote for civil unions and go to heaven.
32 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I despair.
A word of advice for Joseph Muscat: do try and match the subject and emotion. When promising civil unions for gay marriage you don’t put on the “No paséran” face and follow it up with a breaking of the voice in furious anger.
Wiwill stendapp tu bi kawn tit.
He was breaking wind, not voice, Baxxter, witness the grimace, must have hurt, since he’s such a tight-ass.
The voice was just a follow–through. You know these ferocious little guys just can’t hold back.
Poodles have the same tendancy. ‘I’ll bite you, but don’t bite me’.
His haemorrhoids were acting up again and he had run out of Proctosedyl.
He reminded me of Norman Lowell and his infamous speeches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OZK3lcD7M8
[Daphne – Whenever I am nonplussed by the appalling political stupidity of my countrymen, I look at the neighbours and wonder no more. My God. I suppose it’s a mercy that we’re not any worse, given what’s over the water in both directions.]
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
Good point, Daphne. However, after viewing the video, I was astounded at the resemblance of Mussolini to our little Joey, Tubby, bald, over-inflated, strutting, self confident, silly grin etc.
The only difference is that Mussolini was hung upside down, while our little Joey, wet behind the ears, will be hung out to dry,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOv-Ncs7vQk
No Er Batman yet in Malta. Joe Grima is the closest Malta gets.
Fiorito’s sweet, he admitted on La7 that spending 19,000 euros for a week in Sardegna could have been pushing it. Even though he did say it was his money.
e’ma che ce vuo’ fa’ so’ fatto cosi’..’
Verdone prima maniera.
Truly liberal and progressive.
It reminds me of when that great Conservative, Norman Tebbit was asked his opinion on the existence of God.
“I don’t know. He ought to. Things would be better”.
This was the best speech to date by any Maltese politician. In a time where gay rights are being questioned, he had the balls to say that “all families, no matter how they are composed” are equal and that gay couples should be given the same rights as straight couples. Why are you trying to spin this off in your sick twisted manner? I haven’t seen any post by you regarding what happened at the PN’s meeting when the crowed booed upon hearing “gay couples”! Muscat was right in mentioning hell, since all the PN does is try to impose its demo-christian values on the rest of country “A marriage should remain between a man and a woman”, says Gonzi. That’s how the church wants it and that’s how the PN want it. But here Muscat is making the clear distinction between state and church by saying “Even though you have threatened people with hell, it won’t matter, because the CIVIL rights of minorities will be safe guarded” – that is what he meant by that. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, period.
[Daphne – Oh come on, John. Unlike you, I actually live here and also in the real world. It is bloody obvious that not all families are equal in situation nor can they ever be. What is equal anyway? And what ‘rights’ do families have? It is individuals who have rights, not families. How can you ever equate, for example, my family in which my sons are adult and live elsewhere, which means that the household is composed of just the parents, with a family in which there are small children still at school? The situations are obviously not equal. And I repeat: families do not have rights, individuals do, so talk of ‘equality for families’ is talk by manipulators intended for fools.]
JohnUSA, you clearly vote Labour. In fact, you tend to extrapolate fictitious arguments from a few key or buzz words, but in doing so you fall in the trap of drawing the wrong conclusions.
Watch the clip again, and again, and again, and again.
Joseph Muscat NEVER said that he will legislate for same sex MARRIAGE.
Joseph Muscat said that the breakthrough in civil liberties of a “new government” – he did not even specify it would be a Labour one – would be that of setting up the institution of “UNJONI CIVILI” for same-sex couples.
In fact, the word MARRIAGE was never mentioned in that clip.
Now, where does that leave gay couples? Does it give them EQUALITY as you say?
So maybe Joseph Muscat also believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman after all. Some decent journalist should ask him a direct question in that sense. Where are all the journalists when you need them?
Or is Muscat avoiding them? He is surely more comfortable speaking to teleprompters than taking questions from journalists.
true, a civil union is not the same as marriage, but its a start, and definitely much better than the hideous co-habitation bill proposed by the PN recently.
Furthermore, it was an empowering speech, when did any politican talk so freely and passionately about gay people in front of thousands of people? Before an general election, knowing quite well that what he was going to say might not go down well with the people there?
@Daphne. Yes individual have rights, but so do married couples. No, your family right now is not the same as a household with little kids, but it was like that once, wasn’t it? If you don’t agree with Gay Marriage, don’t get Gay Married. Very simple. Why all this beating around the bush? Why can’t you just say whether you agree or not with gay marriage?
[Daphne – If you are a reader of this blog, you will know that I am not against same-sex marriage. My attitude is that it’s none of my business who gets married. It’s no skin off my nose. No, married couples do not have rights AS A COUPLE. Married people have rights as married people, but they are always the rights of the individual within the marriage, and they come laden with obligations, too.]
@Ciccio – Yes, when I lived in Malta I voted labour and if I ever return to Malta I will vote labour. And there is nothing wrong with that, so do not patronise me with your opening line of “you clearly vote labour”. Yes, I clearly vote labour and I trust that I’m not the typical chav you and your likes tend to stereotype so quickly.
Gay individuals may not marry other gay individuals of the same sex.
Same sex individuals are not allowed to adopt children together .
I don t understand why you re playing with words.
I don t know what PL will do when and if elected .
What I do know is what PN came up with after 20 years in goverment, Co habitation bill which is a complete farce.
Joseph Muscat is going from one extreme to another. And it can only get worse.
You’ve got to love how one of the persons who took part in the google hangout sessions (and studied lobbying at Brunel University) is blatantly sitting in the background. Talk about staged.
Did they not teach Joseph Muscat at Jesuit school that when asked, Jesus replied;
”Give to Caeser what is Caeser’s and to God what is God’s”?
It is the Islamists that Joseph consorts with that insist that everything is God’s , and that includes what is Caeser’s as well.
Personally I think he’s done more than that.
By bringing religion into the discussion he has created barriers for the discussion to take place, since hell is now a factor.
Also, it sounds like he is doing his bit to bring back the anger towards the Church that took a very strong stance against the MLP back in the day, when the MLP was starting to sound more like a Communist Party and Communism in those days (before the Vatican Council II) was seen as a huge threat not just to society but to the Church. A context drastically different from today.
But why bring it back? What good will it do today?
A far more suitable approach to the subject of same-sex marriage is centred around respecting that the Catholic Church has its doctrine but urging it to remain separate. Calling the Catholic Church names, insulting the faith of many and rebelling against it is only going to aggravate the situation.
Well done, Dr Muscat, you’ve just made things harder for yourself and others.
Oh but he didn’t. He made the separation of church and state very clear during this speech.
I’m sorry if you fail to see it.
[Daphne – People who separate church and state don’t even bother mentioning the church, John. Politicians speak of politics, and churchmen speak of religion. Best leave it at that. Politicians mentioning God don’t bother me. They do it in your country quite a lot. But saying that you will legislate despite what the church thinks is a deliberate provocation. And pointless.]
The Catholic Church, till this very day, still condems gay people being intimate with each other, let alone getting married and equal rights (God forbid, my lord!) … therefore according to the church, if you are “living in sin” you are going to hell. If you advocate for “devilish rights”, you are going to hell.
[Daphne – So what? It’s their church and they make the rules. Nobody’s forcing anyone to be a Catholic, for crying out loud. Do you worry what Islam says about gay men? No. So don’t worry about what Catholicism says about gay men, either. But then if you want to be a practising Catholic and also a sexually active homosexual, you’re asking too much. You don’t join a club to bend its rules. You join another club whose rules you prefer, or no club at all.]
And what he said was, We were never afraid to go to hell to say what we truly believe in. That translates into, let me spoon feed it to you …. Dear Church, please step the fuck aside and let the state do what its supposed to do.
[Daphne – Exactly why does the church need to step aside? Does it have seats in parliament which it can use to vote against legislation? No. So don’t be ridiculous, please. The trouble lies with the sort of backward people, and they are in all social classes, who want to be Catholic while breaking the rules. They are the ones who think in terms of hellfire, because why else would they bother.]
No the Church doesn’t have seats in parliament. But the governing party very close to it does. That’s the whole point. PN always aims to please the church, specjalment lately, b Gonzi jivvota le ghad-divorzju. Ha, ha, ha.
So who are we voting for here? Political parties or religious denominations? Because JohnUSA has me confused.
Does the church have a seat in parliament, wasn t it a pn parliamentarian that said il madonna qeghda tibki.
Didn t Gonzi vote against divorce because of his religious beliefs.
Visjoni PN 2014 held in Sliema had 3 priest on the panel.
The church does not need seats in parliament it occupys seats on both sides already.
Oh bloody hell, JohnUSA (X’int kburi – although rather misplaced in the context).
Surely even you can spot when you’re well and truly whipped by simple, sound argument and good sense.
What – you think up this drivel, post it, and that’s it – argument won? Keyboard mightier than the sword? What nonsense
Do you, perchance, rub shoulders with a certain Mr. E. Privitera when back here, disgracing us with your garish presence? Your English may be a bit better but…..
Funny how the movement shouldn’t have seats for Catholics.
As for JohnUSA’s argument, I’m afraid you’re being disingenuous here.
According to the Church, it’s sexuality for pleasure’s sake that induces sin. Heterosexuals are told to control their lust and regard what you call intimacy in the name of reproduction. Yes boring.
The counterargument, proposed by the jesuits, is the love behind the act, which doesn’t differentiate between hetero and homo.
Could we please not reduce everything to the freedom of getting laid?
Anna Caruana, you’re right on the facts, but that wasn’t my point. Yes, Maltese politicians do have a highly unenlightened tendency to build their policies and ideologies on Catholic doctrine, and they’re idiots for doing it. Their arguments – both PN and MLP – against legalising abortion are a case in point.
We both want a secular democracy. So how is MLP supposed to bring about that?
Because last time I checked, its deputies were attending some highly questionable Catholic ceremonies (mass for the opening of this and that, “forensic” years and parliament and all the rest of it), they were meeting senior Catholic officials and kissing archbishops’s rings, they were hosting parties for Eid el-Fitr (very secular indeed) and they are regular guests of honour at Catholic band clubs and such.
Let be frank here. Secularism in Malta is all about gay sex, isn’t it?
That’s exactly his game; stoke the fire, create a garbled mess and then show up all smiles on TV as the voice of calm and reason.
It’s the same with IVF. Listening to their talk, having a child has become an irrevocable fundamental human right.
Edward, all you say is very true. But remember, Labour is not about vision, principles and the fundamental rights of others.
Labour politics is about power achieved through divisiveness, violence, mud slinging and deceitful promises like “Gvern gdid Laburista fis-26 ta’ Ottubru li gej inehhi l-VAT” (Alfred Sant, 1996) or “Gvern Gdid immexxi minni irahhas it-tariffi tad-dawl u tal-ilma b’mod sostenibbli” (Joseph Muscat, 2012).
Hence, Joseph Muscat is only repeating what he learned when, as a child, his nanna used to take him to the Mintoff mass meetings. That’s in the Golden Years, the hey day of Leo Brincat, Karmenu Vella, Joe Debono Grech, and the others.
Back then, Mintoff used the tactics of divide and rule. Create and demonise an enemy, and then get the mob to help you in your crusade to tackle that enemy.
And the end justifies the means.
What violence was there when Dr Sant was in goverment.
Dik ix-xoffa t’isfel! SOOO trying to do a ‘Dear Dom’, so much so that it’s sickening. The subject matter, within the Mintoff comparison makes his ranting and raving pretty ridiculous, or worrying even, considering his past, clearly expressed ‘policies’ on the matter.
What a prat.
I loved the WTF! section. Sooo progressive. He is digging his own grave bless him. I guess if Joseph keeps talking the more votes he keeps losing.