It’s not just men who are homosexual, Joseph. It was SODOMY NOT HOMOSEXUALITY that was against the law.
Thanks to Mintoff, Joseph is free to have anal sex. But thanks to Eddie Fenech Adami, Michelle doesn’t have to take orders from Joseph, watch him blow all the communal property, or wake up one morning to find that he’s taken out a passport for the children and whisked them away.
‘I was born a year after homosexuality was decriminalised,’ Joseph Muscat told a small crowd today.
As though when he was born in relation to the repeal of a law has anything at all to do with the price of eggs.
But I forget. It’s all about him. He’s probably furious that he can’t claim he was once gay himself.
And once more, the press repeat his statement unquestioningly.
Is there nobody who bothers to find out? It’s bad enough that they don’t actually know already, without having to find out, that homosexuality was NEVER illegal in Malta.
How can homosexuality be illegal? What – do Joseph Muscat and his idiotic believers honestly think that women in Malta were put on trial for looking a bit masculine, on suspicion that they were homosexual?
Or that slightly effeminate men suffered the same fate, purely for being slightly effeminate?
What nonsense.
Only homosexual SEX can be illegal, and in Malta, it wasn’t, not as a general rule. Only one specific act was, sodomy, and the gender of the participants was incidental. It was just as illegal between men and women as it was between men and men.
I’ve said it on this website time and time again, until blue in the face, arguing with legions of the Labour Homosexual Male Union (because in Malta, typically, even the Great Gay Debate is male-centric and dominated by men – very progressive) who took badly to being deprived of this dearly-held but entirely erroneous myth.
Yes, it was the practice of sodomy that was illegal, and this applied equally to men/men and men/women. The law was, in fact, used by women against their husbands because it justified separation at a time when women were not allowed to leave their husbands unless they had grave grounds to do so. Sodomy constituted just such a reason.
One of the main reasons for the enactment of the sodomy law was not the persecution of gay men but the protection of married women (who were their husband’s property in marriage) from this form of assault, which was widely practised to avoid conception.
Women were not permitted to refuse their husbands. Sex on demand was obligatory because women were their husband’s property. Because a wife’s consent to sex was not required, it followed that there could be no such thing as rape in marriage. Men were free to rape their wives (at a time when wives could not leave, remember) and couldn’t be prosecuted for it because it wasn’t a crime.
With the sodomy law to back them up, women could at least refuse their husband’s attempts at sodomising them. Does Joseph Muscat know this? Do his progressive, liberal followers?
Do gay men know it, those who think that it’s all about them and who refuse to see that gay men, by virtue of being men, had more rights and freedoms under Maltese law than women did, especially married women? Obviously not.
Gay men are currently fashionable. Married women never were.
Given that it was sodomy that was illegal, not homosexuality, it follows that lesbians could have all the sex they wanted to, before and after Mintoff, if they could get society and their family off their back, and probably did so.
Of course, this is difficult for the Nationalist Party to say politically (probably impossible) but it really needs to be cleared up.
MINTOFF DID NOT DECRIMINALISE HOMOSEXUALITY. HE DECRIMINALISED ANAL SEX. There – doesn’t sound quite so glamorous now, does it?
Also, and here is something that can and should be said politically, if only because there are more married women than there are homosexual men (the Labour campaign for the gay vote is transparently male-centric): it was the Nationalist Party in government, in 1993, which put women on an equal footing with men in marriage, following centuries of virtual chattel status.
Until 1993, husbands could sell off all the communal property without even telling the wife, still less getting her consent, come home and tell the wife to pack up and leave because he’d sold the house that morning, get a passport for the children and take them away, also without her knowledge and consent, and have the final say over her earnings, because they fell within ‘communal property’ over which the husband had sole jurisdiction.
Husbands did not need their wife’s permission for anything. Wives needed their husband’s permission for everything. And it was the husband, not the wife, who was permitted at law to take decisions – alone – about the children.
The law – called Equal Partners in Marriage at the time – was enacted in 1993.
How many people know that? Not many, it transpires.
Most of my friends ‘know’ – because Labour told them – that ‘Mintoff decriminalised homosexuality’ (he didn’t). But none of them understood that the status of women in marriage changed in 1993, or even realised that men had complete control in marriage before that.
In 16 years of government, between 1971 and 1987, Labour decriminalised anal sex but left women subject to the total control of men in marriage.
How liberal and progressive is that?
And as my friend the historian and sometime marriage law practitioner says, the decriminalisation of sodomy did not help women in 1970s village Malta at all, not under a legal regime which permitted men to rape their wives, but rather the opposite.
We forget that, too.
Oh, and another thing. Mintoff did not decriminalise anal sex because he respected individual rights and freedoms. He did it as part of his war on the Catholic Church. It was all about contempt for the church, not love for gay men (though we had better not go there).
If Mintoff had respected individual rights and freedoms, he would not have deprived us of freedom of expression while allowing us to have anal sex.
Grow up, Joseph Muscat. But more importantly still – grow up, those who believe his hogwash without bothering to learn the facts.
61 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
So Joseph Muscat was born one year after sodomy was decriminalised. Would that perhaps explain why the guy is such a turd?
I see. Joseph Muscat was born a year after sodomy was decriminalised.
Ah, so that explains it, then.
He’s probably trying to emphasise that he was born despite the choice.
Wouldn’t it be funny if he was actually born 9 months after sodomy was decriminalised.
Eddy, how and when were you born?
Oh, no, not him – unless he’s faking his age.
Yes you must learn the facts which are that homosexuality means the sexual attaction between persons of the same and homosexual acts and does not simply mean homosexual persons. http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/index.php?/Comment/the-global-decriminalization-of-homosexuality.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/lgbt-rights/decriminalizing-homosexuality
[Daphne – You cannot be serious. David, I don’t know how to explain this to you, but…you can’t be homosexual if you don’t feel sexual attraction to people of your gender. Whether you act upon it is another matter. It is, of course, assumed that people will have sex. But the world is full of people who don’t.]
We had a bisexual Labour prime minister, Dom Mintoff, and a lesbian Labour President of Malta, Agatha Barbara, who also had a very butch sister with a girlfriend who had a rosy birthmark on her face.
These two were a same-sex couple and could be seen strolling and holding hands in Marsascala in the late 1950s and 1960s.
No one ever bothered them about their lifestyle choice even back then, so I do not know what the big deal is.
And lots of people wouldn’t bother now either, were it not for the fact that some of their number persist in drawing attention to themselves, all too often in a very bad way, at each and every opportunity.
Joseph Muscat and PL set up the LGBT section with the sole purpose of exploiting them in the hope of garnering a few more votes to help tip the general election in their favour, much as Muscat has done with just about everything else.
Mintoff, bisexual? This is news to me. Never heard.
Yup, old Dom was wired up for AC/DC
News to me too.
I always thought that at the ‘Gharix’ Mintoff only had lampi tal-pitlorju, never mind AC/DC.
The big deal is Joseph is lying, yet again.
wow well weve had enough of PN Gonzi lying so might as well try Joseph!!As the saying goes a new room sweeps clean after all no?
[Daphne – Obviously a first-time voter, and not from a very helpful home background, either. I smell a strong waft of emotional and intellectual underdevelopment, otherwise known as immaturity.]
Very funny.
Why are you offended by the article? Jaqawn?
Mintoff was constrained to decriminalise anal sex because:
1. he could not control it enough to impose a tax on it;
2. he could not nationalise it;
2. there was no way he or his ministers and their henchmen could control instances of breach of the law for which they could grant ‘permission’ for Lm50.
Not to derail the discussion, but blimey, does he look flabby in that photo. Wifey’s arm almost sinks into the adipose cushion.
I think he’s had to give up the subscription to the gym. Ghax dan il-gvern ma hallielniex flus fil-but.
Michelle always has that “If I knew you were coming I’d have baked a cake” look on her face in most photos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAF0QOvIFjo
It’s middle-age spread.
Carina, Carina, what sins are committed in your name.
Even divorce is the basic civil right and Gonzi voted against it in parliament? What are Gonzi’s liberal policies?
Luigi….twat thou art…where does it transpire that divorce is the (sic!) basic civil right?
PN’s liberal policy (and “Gonzi’s”) is to have made us EU citizens, and citizens of Europe, the ultimate guarantor of liberal values. Now run off and play with your Meccano.
@Luigi;
where is it said that divorce is a human right?
Daphne, you’re correct in your analysis. However it is not only Joseph Muscat who says this half-truth.
The Maltese gay male lobby consistently repeats something similar which you only lightly referred to.
They argue that the decriminalisation of sodomy was a big triumph for gays (like Maltese men tend to do, they forget about the women) – a milestone, they say. The reason is obvious. Gay = gay men = anal sex.
Muscat must have picked up this equation gay = gay men = anal sex from the (male) gay lobby, and got the two issues confused.
Something else that came up in the Times report. Muscat promised a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary for Civil Rights and Equality. Which begs the question of how many fiefdoms Joseph planning on creating.
Silvio has been visibly salivating for quite some time at the prospect of becoming Ministru tas-South. Which Ministry implies a counterwight in the form of a Ministru tan-North.
There are at least three big cheeses (Herrera, Mallia, and Abela, whilst Michael Falzon might get the nod for the Home Affairs) who are vying for Justice, and Joseph will have to somehow satisfy them. He daren’t upset any of them.
The Finance position is even more complicated.
It is a given that Joseph is promising the moon to the electorate, but one wonders if his closest followers are chasing the dragon if they are all expecting to be appointed Ministers or parliamentary secretaries.
He definitely doesn’t want a Franco Debono on his hands, so expect a HUGE government with accompanying new hordes of civil servants, jobs for the boys and all that.
josephmuscat.com has already declared that he will appoint a minister in charge of European Affairs, so please add another minister to your list.
I wonder who will be made, as your typical Laburist would refer to him, Ministru tal-Pufti?
Simples, Cyrus.
And what about Jason Micallef? To be settled by a duel. Handbags at dawn? Ronnie Pellegrini to act as second for both sides.
There’s another level to this debate that gets completely overlooked, and which, in my opinion, is far more important than the legalistic one. Consider the following an open letter to that ignoramus Joseph Carmel Chetcuti and to the far more decent Gaby Calleja.
Let’s believe for one second that sodomy laws were indeed intended to (and in practice did) decriminalise homosexuality. Yet, despite this, in 1987, homosexuality was still thought of as an aberration by most Maltese, they were thought of as ‘animals’ who prey on children and were virtually shunned by society as a whole. I remember that even the word ‘gay’ was still a taboo.
[Daphne – My, my, in which part of the backwoods did YOU grow up? Animals? Who prey on children? And once more you are starting off from the premiss that gay = gay man.]
In the 1990s, on the other hand, culturally, things started to gradually change. This change came about because of reforms in educational curricula inspired by liberal values and critical thinking, the liberalisation of the media and the economy, the EU membership project which sort of, gave minority groups the assurance that in the future their rights would be more recognised and respected and, most importantly, the heavy investment on tertiary education which is the main cause for that ever-growing cohort of ‘liberal’ voters.
[Daphne – No, actually it was external influences in the form of films, television, popular culture and exposure to societies beyond our own, coupled with the general weaking of repressive social strictures. Opposition to single motherhood, pregnancy outside marriage, extra-marital sex, separation and second (cohabiting) relationships evaporated at roughly the same time.]
In fact, statistically, there is a significant chasm in political values between the age-groups of 30 something [those who were 15 or younger in 1987] and 40 something voters [I stand to be corrected]. It is in fact the under 40 voters who were the reason why the divorce referendum was won by the Yes camp.
Ironically, Muscat can now promise the introduction of same-sex civil unions safe in the knowledge that he can only gain votes and not lose them only because in the last 25 years, despite their Madonna apparitions, PN has changed Malta culturally for the better.
Insomma, at the end of the day it all boils down to a recurring theme – Joseph Muscat taking advantage of other people’s successes.
Yes, unfortunately I was born in the backwoods.
I might have exaggerated a bit with the ‘animals’ bit but not with ‘preying on children’ because gays were and to a certain extent still are associated with paedophiles.
[Daphne – A lesbian is a paedophile?]
External influences came about because PN governments encouraged them in multiple forms – through the liberalisation of the media, particularly through the tv and the internet. Those influences could have come earlier but did not because of the isolationist and anti-western sentiments of the Mintoff Governments in the previous two decades.
I said ‘gays are associated with paedophiles’ not ‘I associate gays with paedophiles’.
No they’re not. Is this what you gays think?
I am not gay, Baxxter.
Yes they are, ask Silvio.
Dear Daphne,
How I wish that there was a special Ministry for Clarity, since it seems that confusion, misconceptions and miscommunications abound, and how I wish that at the very least you’d be running this.
Since you are mentioning rights, equal rights and single motherhood, please allow me to kindly touch upon a specific oversight – as I believe it must be. A single mother who would like to remain single, not claim benefits from the state, nor maintenance from the father, and who has taken the decision, based on her own set of values, and responsibility, to continue bearing the child at the onset of pregnancy despite any strong request from the father of the child to abort, is nonetheless constrained to register that child under the “father unknown” tag due to lack of fair choice.
In Malta, legally, that there is no right to abort and that is ideal. However let us not conveniently wear blinkers, there ARE other choices available and some people do avail themselves of those choices.
I believe that such a mother who has taken the decision to act against the request for an abortion by the father of the child should be accorded the recognition of being able to raise that child under her own name, with full rights and unhindered, if necessary, but still be able to declare the name of specifically “the genetic father” on the birth certificate.
From my experience, and that given by lawyers etc., it is the perspective of enforcement of maintenance by the father – and therefore less benefits by the State – that takes precedence.
However, if the mother does not wish to claim benefits from the State, nor maintenance from the father; if the father has not been responsible in his choices, why should the single mother be forced into “father unknown” territory upon registration simply because her rights are not even spotted as such, let alone recognised or having provisions at law?
In the UK there is no such obstruction, nor, if I am correct, in any other EU state.
Why, therefore, this obligation in Malta?
Should a single mother not be able to register the child under her own name AND include the father’s name on the certificate? Why is this concept, under such circumstances, so confusing to men mostly and then to both male and female lawyers?
I applaud all advances for equality that have been made, but from experience I can state that there is still a very long way to go.
Additionally, in as far as “opposition evaporating,” I have, on separate occasions, had (female) midwives guessing and assuming as to the paternity of my child at not 2 metres away, in my presence, at a maximum of 30 seconds after each child was born. Bit raw.
Now, even should the father experience a change of heart a couple of years after the birth of the child, is it correct that he should automatically gain full paternal rights, and that upon admission of his identity as father, the child is automatically forced to change the name he/she has hitherto been known by to his name?
Am I the only person who sees an imbalance here?
I only know of less than a handful of cases like mine. Is the payment of that inadequate minimum sum (“weekly in advance” – what an insult!) years down the line more important than the original decisions taken as to the existence of the child? Also, should the child, from any specific age forth, not have a choice in the matter?
It is not a question of whether or not the father, from the point of change of heart onwards, takes a valid interest in the child, more so a question of principle: without the mother’s persistence and responsible decision, had she complied with the father’s wish, there would have been no child to discuss later.
There should be no leniency for dithering on responsibilities for however long, shunning these at the crucial decision making time and then returning at some indiscernible point in the future to claim the “finished product”.
Without action here, during the whole of the time from the shunning of responsibility during the pregnancy up until the child is age 18 or 23 (child-raising age end-parametres, as viewed legally), this type of female remains at the mercy of any decision the male may decide to wish to impose at any point along that line.
From this perspective, the oversight/ risk that is factored into a Maltese single mother’s decision to keep a such a pregnancy hovers over worse than a prison sentence with a suspended sentence.
For those who feel that Maltese women never did have recourse to “options” in the stated vein throughout the ages, they may wish to reccie the essential set of house plants generally at their disposition.
I don’t wish to detract from the focus on elections in any way, but I do wish for somebody, somewhere, to take notice of this oversight, and more importantly, to act upon it.
I would like to thank you for any space you could allocate to my comment.
Are there any known cases that were found guilty of sodomy in Malta?
[Daphne – No. Not in the last century. That’s the irony. And I am given to understand that before that, the cases involved women, not men.]
I do remember reading years ago of a certain case in law.
This was a case in 17th century Valletta of a socially prominent Maltese Jew being caught in flagrante delicto being sodomized by his slave with his consent.
I agree with you Daphne when you say that women had no rights in the Montoff-KMB era.
I went to study in the UK for the reason that the education system here was far from ideal for people who attended a private school.
In 1985 I was desperately homesick and wanted to come and live in Malta close to my family but having married an Englishman I was not allowed to come for more than 3 months in a year.
Things were different had it been an English man married to a Maltese woman. They would have been allowed to emigrate to Malta.
I believe the law was changed in 1987 and we came back in 1989 soon after the Nationalists were showing the nation what good progress is all about.
I have not regretted the decision since then and sincerely hope people would realize what regress Malta went through in just 22 months of labour government under Alfred Sant, let alone what will happen under Joseph Muscat whose incompetence in every decision taken so far has proven to be.
It’s times like these that make me feel proud of being Maltese.
It’s one of the reasons that our fair land has progressed and moved forward, no matter the circumstances in other countries. We can never go wrong.
I guess you would like to know the reason for all this?
Simple: The Almighty has blessed us by giving us persons who seem to know everything. I am now seeing that we do not lack experts in anal sex, homosexuals and whatever.
I also get the impression that some are talking from first-hand experience.
None though seem to come out with solutions for this malaise.
I will venture to give my solution that makes me feel sure will have a good response.
Send all homosexuals, lesbians for a holiday on Comino. Now isn’t that good?
But once they are all there, suspend the ferry service.
Well, at least we have one who is an expert in stupidity.
An interesting read by C. Savona-Ventura:
DEVOTEES OF VENUS – A HISTORY OF SEXUALITY
IN MALTA
Specifically (from the section which deals with the Hospitaller Period):
“Abnormal sexual practices
While commercial sex by the members of the Order was frowned upon, abnormal sexuality was harshly condemned. The statutes of the Order state that “‘T is a shame to see our habit worn by persons infected with crimes: it shall therefore be taken away from such as shall be guilty of the following ones, viz. Heresy, sodomy, murder robbery, or desertion to the Infidels” .
A number of knights were accused and subsequently defrocked for the practise of sodomy. Soon after the Order’s arrival to Malta, Fra Marianus Serranus was in 1541
tried and convicted of sodomy. In 1562, another knight Fra Nicola Carratello was similarly accused and convicted. The practice of sodomy also received the attention of the Inquisition.
In 1616, a Spanish soldier and his young Maltese boyfriend were burnt to ashes by the Inquisition for the “public profession of Sodomy”. Michele Farrugia in the late 17th century was denounced to the Inquisition by his mother-in-law as having in the past enjoyed being sodomised by infidel slaves. This practice resulting in his being infected by anal venereal disease that was treated by a barberotto in the Order’s galleys.
The physician Grech Gio Battista Dingli was denounced by his colleague Angelico for having had anal intercourse with his wife. Dingli responded that since he was master over his wife’s body, he could have sex any way it pleased him.”
Sometime in the inter-war years a young lady was about to get married.
Her mother took her aside and explained to her that, you know, some men are odd, and like to put it up the wrong way. Under no circumstances, she was told.
Well, they got married, and things chugged along reasonably enough.
After a year and a half or so the husband announced that maybe it’s time for a bit of a change, and perhaps they might have a go at it from the front this time. Away with you she said, I’ve been warned about men like you.
I’m assured this is a true story.
Daphne,
This link (http://patrickattard.blogspot.com/2009/03/lehen-is-sewwa-1972-ittra-pastorali.html) would suggest otherwise.
However, the interpretation that Mintoff repealed homosexuality truly appears to be a misconception. This is fuelled by a wide number of references found that Mintoff decriminalised homosexuality.
In other sources I found that Mintoff back-pedalled on “buggery” and “adultery” being illegal rather than directly contemplating homosexuality.
On the Times, one lawyer picks on what you mention. There are too many myths about Mintoff’s greatness.
Perhaps, you could publish the clear reference even if it is a contrast of the old law and the amendment.
Oh, you had published this article about the subject too:
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2011/11/did-anybody-else-hear-it/
It looks clear that Joseph Muscat doesn’t have any knowledge of legal affairs. Anglu Farrugia’s words come to my mind “Joseph Muscat didn’t understand what I said”.
Of course Joseph’s concerned with sodomy laws. Come 9th March he’s gonna mass sodomise the entire nation and doesn’t want to be charged for it.
Oops. Is this a Freudian slip ta’ Joseph? or a genuine mistake by Malta Today’s journalist?
15:52 “We pledge to increase utility bills. We will be helping the middle class families who cannot keep up with today’s expenses, no matter how much hard they work. This is the middle class we are talking about. This is how we will be building: a middle class that means work and prosperity.”
See :http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/elections2013/live-blog-Labour-mass-meeting-Rabat-20130113
“MINTOFF DID NOT DECRIMINALISE HOMOSEXUALITY. HE DECRIMINALISED ANAL SEX. There – doesn’t sound quite so glamorous now, does it?”
Probably because it was convenient for him to do so.
Sure, so that he could carry on sodomizing the whole country and do it legally as well up to 87.
The other day I was having coffee with a Labour collegue and asked him how come they have not yet set up Malta taghna Lkoll billboards with African-origin people.
He retorted earnestly and in all seriousness, “Tghid mhux hekk? Pacenzja spiccajna nilghaqu lil dawk il qa**a Mawmettani bhal Abdul Rahman u il-pufti, toqbin u xi mara-ragel ukoll, ghax bejniejthom hemm tilja voti, imma dawk is-suwed? Mhemmx ghalfejn ghalissa anyway ghax ma tantx jiswew voti so far, u lanqas haqq nitilfu il voti ta’ dawk tal-Lowell.”
Norman Lowell has a good , kind, forgiving ,Christian soul.
If he has directed his followers to vote Labour, then he must have forgiven PL’s Gejzinn Mikallef for having called him a ”SKERZ TAN NATURA” some years ago on Xarabank.
Norman Lowell is delusional. He has been for a number of years.
His political career is one giant contradiction.
If 2012 is Anno Zero and the esoteric advent of the Imperium, why bother standing for election in the real world? And if he’s standing for election and trying to win votes (is he?) then why does he play the eccentric card, which scares away voters?
It’s a shame, because he’s better read, more cultured, better spoken and more articulate than all our politicians, with a few exceptions. And he’s one of the very few who can see the clash of civilisations that is this country we call Malta.
He and I despise Mintoff and the Anticolonial Left for the same reason, but then he ruins it all with his praise for Mintoff’s strongman persona.
And this fine academic point about the distinction between homosexuality and buggery is bound to reverse the swing in favour of the PL, I guess, right? All you luminaries are safe…and so is the nation…
“in Malta, typically, even the Great Gay Debate is male-centric and dominated by men – very progressive”
What? Thats completely untrue. Its practically run by gay women not men. The most prominent gay activist in malta is a woman, Gabi Calleja, who everyone recognises.
Even the university gay group had more female then male participants.
[Daphne – It’s what’s communicated externally that counts. The debate between themselves doesn’t. And out here, including the way politicians speak, gay = gay man. You had a prime example this weekend: “Labour decriminalised homosexuality.” – Joseph Muscat. Really? So lesbian sex was illegal then, was it? Point taken, I trust.]
The only issue I have with that you’re implying, as you have in other articles, that that’s the situation today, that gay women aren’t a part of public gay movements and debates.
I agree it is stupid of Muscat to keep bringing up the Labour Mintoff era like it was remotely helpful to gay people, but today gay women are a part of public discourse as much as gay men are.
Generally, the common law prohibition on sodomy criminalises all sexual intercourse per anum between men: regardless of the relationship of the couple who engage therein, of the age of such couple, of the place where it occurs, or indeed of any other circumstances whatsoever. In so doing, it punishes a form of sexual conduct which is identified by our broader society with homosexuals.