Something else Joseph Muscat didn’t tell about the progressive years of legal anal sex
So Mintoff decriminalised anal sex – that’s right. He did it because of his contempt for the Catholic Church, not his respect for gay MEN.
Big deal. He decriminalised anal sex but took away our freedom of expression. Gay men were allowed to have sex but they couldn’t wrote, speak or demonstrate freely in public. They could have anal sex but they couldn’t say what they think.
There’s more Joseph Muscat didn’t tell you. Sodomy law or no sodomy law, this wasn’t Iran. Homosexual men were not rounded up on suspicion of having relationships with each other. Malta was the whorehouse of the Mediterranean, with prostitutes of all kinds and all ages, men, women, boys and girls.
Malta, as the most important naval base in the region, probably had more rent-boys than any other port in the Mediterranean. How stupid do you have to be to believe the picture put about by Joseph and his believers that homosexual men were rounded up?
So that’s why so many were allowed to ply their trade openly in Strait Street and right round Grand Harbour – because Malta was like Iran.
As for what was done privately, in relationships, nobody gave a damn, and nobody was arrested. The sodomy laws – in Malta as elsewhere in Europe – were totally unenforcable unless there was a private complaint from one of the parties involved. Hence the two most famous cases in British history, one of which – see my post yesterday on the subject – involved A WOMAN: the cases of Oscar Wilde (reported by his boyfriend’s father) and Lord Byron (reported by his wife for doing it to her, which is why he had to leave England).
The credulousness of people who accept this rubbish without searching out the facts or using their common sense is just beyond belief.
Imagine standing on a platform in a sidestreet to talk to a bunch of children and their mothers. What sort of stupid and self-important prat do you have to be to do something like that. Shades of Alfred Sant: “Tmissniex, jekk joghgbok.”
7 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
WOW how clever you are Daphne !! We are surprised My Lord!!!!
Malta taghna lkoll, imma dan is-soapbox tieghi biss.
Did he get a police permit to obstruct the pavement with that platform?
Dik is-soapbox mhix tieghu lanqas, ghaliex, jekk niftakar tajjeb, isselifha l-bierah minn ghand tal-Happy Bar.
If it’s not a wig, it’s a soapbox. Why do Labour leaders have such an inferiority complex about what they perceive to be their physical shortcomings?
They can’t understand that we don’t give a damn about Alfred Sant’s lack of hair or Joseph Muscat’s lack of inches. What does worry us is their lack of morals and responsibility, among other things.
According to a Chemimart report just released, since the appointment of the last two Labour leaders, sales of hair spray have plummeted and sales of crazy glue have soared.
“As for what was done privately, in relationships, nobody gave a damn, and nobody was arrested. ”
erm not quite, in fact quite the opposite. There were other cases , some quite recent such as that of Alan Turing, who was responsible for cracking the enigma cod and who, to quote Wikipedia:
‘Turing’s homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to prison. Turing died in 1954, just over two weeks before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined that his death was suicide; his mother and some others believed his death was accidental. On 10 September 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for “the appalling way he was treated”. As of May 2012, a private member’s bill was before the House of Lords which would grant Turing a statutory pardon if enacted.’
[Daphne – I was speaking about Malta, Chris. And incidentally, it wasn’t Alan Turing’s ‘homosexuality’ that led to his prosecution, but his homosexual acts. You simply cannot prosecute somebody for the way they are intrinsically. You can only prosecute them for their actions. Alan Turing was prosecuted for his actions. Or more specifically, he was selected for prosecution for reasons that had little to do with his homosexuality.]
There were obviously other prosecutions such as that of John Gielgud, Joe Orton and others, but those don’t really count as they involved making out in ‘public’ places ( ie men’s toilets. the cruising ground for gay men in the 1950s). I am not sure if two men kissing in public would have been allowed. I think that may have even been prosecuted in Malta if the couple wasn’t stoned first that is.
[Daphne – Cottaging is still against the law, because it takes place in public. You might have forgotten that George Michael was picked up for it not so long ago, and that a couple of British politicians had to resign after been caught cruising on Hampstead Heath.]
Also I don’t know the way the Maltese law was phrased, but the British law (which saw Oscar Wilde’s demise) was specifically aimed at men, and homosexuality referred to male same sex couplings because Queen Victoria could never believe there was such a thing as lesbianism. And for this reason no lesbians were ever prosecuted.
[Daphne – The Maltese law referred to sodomy and women reported their husbands on that basis. As for Britain, Queen Victoria or not Queen Victoria, it was the reason Lord Byron had to leave the country, after a complaint from his wife that he abused her in that manner.]
Now then, police will not arrest anyone for cruising.
It’s borderline loitering but there is no money involved, no sexual acts up to the cruising stage, hence nothing illegal.
The two British MPs were arrested for having been caught in the act I suppose. Otherwise just put a police car at the various gates leading to Hampstead Heath and arrest them as they’re going in. Do the same in similar places in Malta.