Go on, Joseph: tell your believers about women’s rights under Labour 1971-1987
Yes, Mintoff decriminalised anal sex. But he took away many of our basic freedoms, and the track record of Labour in government 1971-1987 is a litany of human rights abuses.
Instead of praising Mintoff for decriminalising anal sex (to upset the church, not please them) today’s generation of homosexual men (because this being Malta, gay = men) should go to the National Library in Valletta and look up Page 13 in every edition of the The Sunday Times during the 1980s.
That was where the human rights abuses of the week were recorded.
There were so many that they were not even mainstream news. They were normal life. Yes, gay fans of Mintoff’s decriminalisation of anal sex, human rights abuses were our daily bread. And believe me, gay or not, you didn’t get beaten up at a random night-time road block by members of the Armed Forces then go home and say ‘Well never mind, I can have anal sex tonight and know that it’s legal.’
As for women’s rights under Labour, forget it. Married women were the worst off. Married women had practically no rights at all. Under Mintoff, married women could be sodomised by their husbands against their will because there was no such thing as rape in marriage (hooray!) and they had absolutely no say in how communal property or the children were managed. The decisions were 100% in the hands of the husband at law. A man could sell the marital home and not even tell his wife. A man could take out a loan on it without her permission. A man could sell off all the jointly owned goods and chattels and leave her penniless. A man could rape his wife and it wasn’t considered rape because they were married (go figure).
Yes, that was life for women under liberal, progressive Mintoff who decriminalised anal sex.
But there’s more. If a woman in the public service got married, she was forced to give up her job. There were no married women in the public service. That’s why all the married women teachers ended up in private schools, and why all the headmistresses in state schools were ‘Miss’ and not ‘Mrs.’
That’s why there was a total dearth of women in the civil service unless they were spinsters or too young to be married. That is why women took so long to catch up in senior positions in public administration: because under lovely Labour, they faced a choice between marriage and family, and their job.
And when unemployment skyrocketed to unbelievable proportions as the economy stagnated, Labour minister Agatha Barbara (a very progressive woman and a lesbian) openly declared that first preference in the selection of recruits for the rare jobs going should go to men ‘because they are breadwinners’.
Yes, Joseph and the Believers, Mintoff decriminalised anal sex but just look how his government treated women.
And there’s worse, much, much worse. I’m going to have to put this in bold. Maltese women who married foreign men were not allowed to establish their home in Malta because their husbands were treated as tourists and not permitted to stay in Malta for more than three months at a time. So a Maltese woman who married a non-Maltese would have to leave Malta permanently whether she wanted to or not, unless she wished to conduct married life with each of them living in a different country. Maltese men who married foreigners, however, could keep their wives here. Really, really progressive. I suppose they consoled themselves with the knowledge that they could have anal sex.
Unbelievable.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
That was then Daphne. All you want to talk about is past past past. I would not have voted for that Labour. This Labour is LGBT friendly. I don’t think you can deny this unassailable fact.
[Daphne – Dear Daniel, I wouldn’t have brought up the subject because it is not a current issue. But it is necessary to put readers straight on Muscat’s lies and out-of-context claims. That’s what journalists are for. We are not here to repeat those lies and out-of-context claims unquestioningly. That is a disservice to our readers. ‘This Labour’ is not LGBT friendly. It is looking for votes. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating – and in the Labour Party, gays are in a ghetto and used as tokens to attract attention. In the Nationalist Party, gay men and women are considered to be like anyone else, work in the mainstream, and nobody makes a show or spectacle of them, nor do they make one of themselves. If you consider being ‘LGBT friendly’ as somebody treating you like a circus act, invalid or special case, then that’s your choice, not mine. As a woman, I refuse to be ghettoised into women’s organisations or to participate in ‘events specjali ghan-nisa’. To do so is to validate the notion that being a straight man is the norm and anything else is a special case. If you want to allow yourself to be classed as an ‘LGBT’ case rather than as a human being, go right ahead. It’s your choice, but believe me when I say that it’s the wrong one. I speak from experience, bearing in mind that I grew to adulthood in a Malta where women had fewer rights than gay men.]
The end justifies the means here. Denmark introduced civil partnerships in 1989. In 2013 PL is proposing civil unions in the Maltese Law. Better late than never. A step closer to sexual orientation equality. A step closer to really being considered like anyone else. What we have seen under this government is a total disregard towards LGBTs.
[Daphne – Total disregard? How so? Exactly what don’t you have that others do? I can’t marry another woman either. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. And you can’t have been listening too carefully, because Muscat said explicity that he opposes gay marriage.]
I agree, the possibility of gay marriage is utopistic in Malta. I can already see a different thought process though. This is exemplified in the transition from a cohabitation bill to a civil union.
Daniel;, who are you trying to kid?
At the end of the day a civil marriage marriage is nothing more then a contract, and there is little that cannot be achieved through a notary and a lawyer.
What you mean is you want two men\women who live together to be considered married by society at large.
You know, or should know that is not going to happen in Malta for a long long time, civil union, gay marriage or whatever comes along, just like today, most Maltese people (and far more ‘laburisti’ then Nationalist supporters) consider people like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and his wife, for example, as ‘pogguti’.
I don’t agree with it but it’s the truth.
If you are gay (I think you’re an elf not a gay man struggling for gay marriage) you will never be considered ‘married’ to another man by society here, not for a long long time, even if you are.
Think about it, despite Labour being Queen (bitch) Central, the only openly gay MP and politician is former Nationalist, who they are constrained to parade around, while the others are in the closet though still obvious. But seeing that to the PN a person’s sexual orientation is neither here nor there, no issue is made of it.
Daphne, you cannot marry another woman either. But as far as I know you don’t wish to, and never did. Crucial difference.
Let’s be sensitive to other people’s wishes (not to use the word ‘rights’). No matter what your opinion is on this issue, insensitivity here will only fuel even more estrangment.
[Daphne – I am not at all insensitive, but I have been cursed with a logical mind, which isn’t always an asset. The law pivots on logic, not emotion. As for my opinion on this issue, regular readers of this blog know that it’s no nose off my nose whether two people of the same gender wish to marry. It’s none of my business, and I’m not about to make it my business.]
It’s funny they are using the “all in” term.
The term is used in gaming (mainly in poker). A sector which the government brought to Malta and hence I will keep voting for the Nationalists to govern this country.
Dear Daphne, the issue regarding marital rape is hardly a Mintoff creation.
[Daphne – I did not say it was a Mintoff creation. It was a historic situation. What I did say is that Mintoff did nothing to remove it. Just as he did nothing to give women equal status to men in marriage. The Nationalists did that, and still it waited until their second term in office.]
The problem stemmed from the fact that in a number of jurisdictions, spouses were deemed to be giving a perpetual implied consent to sexual intercourse with each other when they got married. So it was neither Mintoff’s creation, nor a problem exclusive to Malta.In fact, many European countries, including the UK, Germany, Finland, Switzerland and France only removed the marital exception to rape in the 90s.
As for civil and employment rights, the right of married women to contract in their own name and appear in judicial proceedings without the consent or assistance of their husband was recognised in 1973. The law requiring women to resign from employment upon marriage was abolished in 1980, and maternity leave was introduced in 1981.
So perhaps the picture is not as bleak as you paint it.
I do see your point. However, translated into a basis for voting, or not voting for a particular political party I think it is slightly out of context.
During Mintoff’s time, women’s rights were by and large an area of human rights law that was still in its development phase. If you look at the ratifications of CEDAW for instance, at least half of the signatories only ratified the Convention after 1990, that is at least 11 years after it was opened for signature. Therefore, I find it to be a more constructive exercise to compare the way Nationalist and Labour governments dealt with “emerging” rights (for lack of a better term).
In the case of the Nationalist government, some cases in point would be:
1. the more recent interpretation of the right to a fair trial, as also including the pre-trial right to access to legal assistance. Not only did the Nationalist government drag its feet in this respect, it did so even after Parliament had passed legislation recognising such right, and for eight whole years.
2. LGBT rights – Which creates discrimination with regards to issues such as tax regimes for homosexual couples.
3. Reproductive rights – for instance, Malta is the only EU country which outlaws abortion, without any exception.
So whilst I do agree with you to a certain extent, I believe that while in government, both Nationalist and Labour governments have shown a not so marginal degree of reluctance in the progressive interpretation and implementation of human rights protection.
” A man could sell the marital home and not even tell his wife. A man could take out a loan on it without her permission”
You left out an important bit, men could sell their wife’s property (i.e. property they owned before marriage) without their permission too.
And what about QIA?
Yes David, men could do what they like with their wife’s property because upon marriage they became the sole administrators of their families. That was the situation before the Nationalist government changed the law.
What about rights of women from 1962 to 1971 when there was no Labour government?
[Daphne – Women had few rights anywhere in the world between 1962 and 1971, David. That’s part of what ‘the Sixties’ was all about. That’s when things began to change: late 1960s, early 1970s.]
Well funnily enough it was Dom who gave rights to people like you Daphne to vote did you know that?? Or are you so naive!!
[Daphne – Don’t be such an arse, robert. Rights are rights. They’re not in anyone’s gift, still less ‘Dom’s’. What are you suggesting here: that if the law hadn’t been changed to allow Maltese women to vote, in 1947, we would still be without the vote today? Get a grip, for God’s sake. In any case, it was Boffa, not that ass.]
There is one aspect in this exchange of views that is overlooked. There is a very big difference between not changing a law which is unjust and creating one which is unjust.
To me, the fact that Agatha Barbara, a woman cabinet minister responsible for employment, issued a regulation demanding that a job vacancy created by a man could not be filled by a woman is the true litmus test of the MLP’s attitude towards women’s rights.
This was condemned by the International Labour Organization.