Why has nobody pointed out the obvious – that she doesn’t have a fiance (though she does have a boyfriend)?
The Labour Party spent the last five years in Opposition boasting how Mintoff’s government decriminalised anal sex in 1974.
And going by the nature of its most recent propaganda, it looks as though it plans on spending the next five years boasting that Muscat’s government made it possible for transgender people to marry somebody of a gender they shared at birth (or of a gender they did not share, if both bride and groom had a sex change).
I would never in a million years have bothered with Joanne Cassar’s romantic life. It’s her business. Except that it no longer is. She has turned her romantic life into a national crusade for her right to marry.
But nobody has even bothered to ask whether she even has a boyfriend, let alone a fiance.
She has a boyfriend, yes, but is he the same one who was her fiance when she first began this justified exercise?
You can’t pick up the narrative of a transgender woman’s desire to marry without including the other party.
That is the obvious, glaring omission in all this propaganda, and not one reporter or journalist has bothered to point it out. Why not? There is so much confusion surrounding this case which has been used for political propaganda purposes.
I distinctly recall Ms Cassar saying, in her pursuit to have the rules changed, that because she couldn’t marry, her relationship had foundered. She used this to bolster her case – though it never made sense to me because the inability to marry does not make you stop loving somebody.
If that were a reason, then where would all those couples be, who couldn’t get married because one or both couldn’t get divorced?
Quite frankly, if what she said was correct, then she should be thanking her lucky stars she was prevented from marrying because at that time she wouldn’t even have been able to get Malta’s first transgender divorce.
So where are the missing bits of information – is her current boyfriend the original one or not? And if he is the original one, then why did she claim her relationship had ended?
Why does he not feature in Labour’s propaganda? Why has the Labour Party (and now the government) not corralled him into doing the obvious: speaking about HIS right to marry HER?
We have been bullied and harried into forgetting that people do not marry themselves. This is not only about Joanne Cassar’s right to marry her man; it is equally about his right to marry her.
This change in the law is not only about the right of transgender people to marry those with whom they shared a gender at birth. It is also about the right of those of us who did not change our gender to marry those who did (as long as we shared a gender at birth).
You’d think information like this was an essential part of the narrative, but no – not with political propaganda. That’s where the newspapers should step in.
Come on, didn’t you ask yourselves why the news reports and Super One/Labour/government propaganda of recent days featured Miss Cassar celebrating with Joseph Muscat or with her hairdryer?
Did you think it’s because her man is shy? Or because her man doesn’t fit in with the Labour Party’s/government’s idea of what is marketable and good for Labour’s image (in fact, he doesn’t, but he’s a human being and Labour could make it less obvious that it is interested only in using individuals for its own ends). He should have been right in there, the other half of the happy couple.
It’s the craziest narrative, isn’t it: woman takes on nasty state of Malta in quest for marriage, but man does not feature, because Labour considers him not to be as marketable as his glamorous consort.
The happy ending in the Labour government’s propaganda should not have been Joanne Cassar with her hair-dryer, but a big, white wedding with the Super One cameras, the prime minister as witness, and Kurt Farrugia as page-boy.
Yet I have no doubt at all that government propagandists will be talking Miss Cassar into this, and that the groom will be carefully…groomed, and that this is exactly what we will get in terms of footage for Labour’s always-in-preparation 2018 campaign video.
I wish Miss Cassar the very best and commend her persistence, but by featuring in rather too much political propaganda, and quite obviously enjoying the attention, she is rather beginning to get on our nerves.
She’s been getting on my nerves for some time, actually, because a great part of her motivation was and still is transparently partisan. If it were not, she would not have allowed her justifiable quest to be turned into a political crusade, or permitted close associates to post things like this as comments beneath her photographs on Facebook:
nice photo hi…u btw sew ghamiltlu lil dak il bicca ta hanzir gonzi,jmissu jisthi ta li ghamel,ghandikun sew jajdu,hanzir taqtalu denbu,hanzir jibqa!!!well done and take care xxx
Nahseb aqta min hu il-hanzir.
37 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
As far as I was led to believe, Joanne Cassar’s relationship foundered precisely because she was not allowed to marry.
At least that’s my impression.
[Daphne – Relationships do not founder because one is not allowed to marry (rather the reverse, I would say). If that were the case, what would have become of all the relationships that could not be formalised through marriage because Malta had no divorce legislation? If the man in question did a bunk because he couldn’t marry her, then he would have needed that marriage certificate for other reasons, like the right to live and work in Malta. You don’t stop loving someone because you can’t tie the knot. That’s why I say she’s well out of it, and thank God for that.]
Mintoff made sodomy legal – just be grateful he didn’t make it compulsory.
That was only to have a clean conscience vis a vis what he did to the nation.
Abolish all state recognition of marriage. It is now devoid of meaning. It never had anything to do with individuals anyway.
Bertrand Russell said: ‘It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution’.
Just abolish Marriage, this is getting painful. Let the religious have their ceremonies etc but let them be unrecognised by the State.
Mission accomplished guys, you’ve got what you wanted. Congratulations to all those who were just jealous of those who were happily married and who could biologically have children. This is what this whole thing was all about anyway.
I always put the question: “Why should a couple get married in the first place and vow that they will be together till death do us (them) part, when there is a way out through divorce for this solemn vow ?”
Just abolish this ceremony and governments should recognise responsibilities of parents towards their children.After all, this right for marriage,cohabit and to divorce has become one big circus.
Governments have to recognise unmarried couples with children.
If you can’t beat them join them.
A free for all like it was in the dark ages seems to look more acceptable.
My concern is that our economy did not move one millimetre higher with this so-called progressive decision. On the contrary it can prove disastrous for the economy if it is abused like for example when two old men conveniently “get married” so that they will get more tax deductions and the right to each other’s pension.
I kind of think this group of “different” sexuality people are concentrating too much on their issues, like as if a country can stop to concentrate on their issues (only). There are many other things which are far more important, you know?
I cannot believe it.
“Ms Cassar’s original relationship, which triggered this whole quest to marry, foundered long ago. It foundered, she had said at the time, because the two couldn’t marry. ”
———–
If a relationship failed because the the two couldn’t marry, then what kind of a relationship were the two in?
In case these people don’t get it, heterosexual couples, sometimes, live a life time of love together without ever getting the “need” to get married. Because there’s a thing called “love” between them.
They remind me of those 21 year olds of 30 years ago, who used to pressure their boyfriends to marry them because everybody else was doing it and it was the right thing for them to do at the time, it felt good to be married and they felt accomplished.
But that was 30 years ago. Are we 30 years behind modern times?
I happen to know this woman and I think that if she’s really looking for a suitor when she hangs out with men, she’s doing it in rather bizarre fashion.
When confronted about it, she would coyly reply “Heqq xi tridni naghmel jekk lili jafuni hafna rgiel hux!?”
Once she had opened up to us about her past relationship (which ended about 8 years ago!) and made it quite clear that her battle with the government and courts was the least of the hurdles that she had to overcome.
She’s a good girl overall but to me it seems that she doesn’t mind being a cog in somebody else’s wheel as long as that keeps her in the limelight.
Ah, there you go. So it’s not about being recognised for who she is. Just about answered my point below. And I thought she was genuine.
There are a lot of heterosexual men (they class themselves as heterosexual anyway) who see this as a form of fetish, and “a little bit of wierd”. A once-in-a-while experience to go down in their sexual experiences collection.
*weird
I hope this doesn’t sound insensitive, but my opinion is that Joanne Cassar should have been much more clever with the strategies of her war against the State.
She has allowed her circumstances – her gender reassignment – to become more important than who she is.
When I see her face nowadays, I always go, “Oh that transgender lady once again”. She will forever be “The transgender” when she needn’t be.
Just imagine the meet-the-parents scene at her boyfriend’s home. Mum, Dad, she’s Joanne. Oh, the transgender. Her chances of a happy and NORMAL life are not great.
She has rid herself of the wrong gender, and suddenly acquired something she never needed – a status – THE TRANSGENDER.
In a conservative society, one lives his own realities in silence, fights his wars silently, and celebrates victory silently as well. That’s my opinion at least.
Exactly. She should actually keep a low profile after all that she’s been through. People who’ve been through tough times, normally do.
I would have thought that once the “difficult” operation is over and that their gender is realigned and that they start to feel what they have always hoped to be, they’ll put their past behind them and live the life they’ve always hoped for and not declare themselves Trans, spelling out to the world what they were, what they are and what they’ve been through.
People must really learn to cope with themselves.
Interested point by “Whoami”. When people see me, they don’t think, oh, there’s the heterosexual woman again.
Why do gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual have to have a lable attached to them? Isn’t that what equality is all about? Being indistinct?
I hate gay pride marches and all the hullabaloo that surrounds sexual orientation issues just because, quite frankly, I think they are self-defeating. Why do people have to make fools of themselves (in some cases) just to show their sexual orientation?
This Joanne Cassar issue is yet another issue. Why should she show herself to be a transgender at all costs? Hats up for her being so insistent and persistent.
However, it smacks of political opportunism to me and pity that she is letting the PL and the government to use her so blatantly in their propaganda. It is so insensitive of the PL to use her for their propaganda, even if she allows herself to be used.
A person who has been through hell and back should not be used like that, unless, of course, she is really hoping to find a man through politics.
Still I wish Ms. Cassar all the every best of luck. With all the nasty pieces of work (a.k.a “men” around) she will need it.
This deserves comment of the day, particularly the last sentence.
I meant for the comment by whoami
And another thing, remember all that fuss about poverty and the poor? how can this story supersede those who are supposedly living “below the poverty line” or the “middle earners”?
I would have expected the poor to be the first item on the Agenda.
I empathise with this person’s “wish” for a right to marry but I sometimes think these LGBT groups focus too much to the extent that they even have to take their issues to the Gov.
Not sure what you’re on about. The fact that she’s no longer in a relationship with the man she originally wished to marry has been mentioned in many media reports.
I disagree with you that it’s such a central detail – your fixation strikes me as a bit morbid, to be honest – but neither are you the only writer to think it warranted a mention. The reason for the breakdown – as given by Joanne herself – is the constant to-and-froing between lawyers and authorities. Relationships have broken down over less. Though again, I don’t agree that the reason the relationship broke down is in the public interest. And incidentally, while the PL is certainly using the case for political mileage, surely Mario de Marco is doing the same by saying that the PN made a mistake on the matter and should have acted differently – years after it can make a difference.
[Daphne – What fixation, TL? Rather the opposite. This is the first time I have written about Joanne Cassar, and it is to say that I am tired of having her shoved down my throat. Believe me when I say that is not the behaviour of a woman: that is the behaviour of a screaming queen. If Joanne Cassar carries on in this fashion, we will be forgiven for assuming that she was just a very camp gay man who became seriously confused at some point and now it’s too late. However straight-to-the-point this might sound, there is no way on earth anyone, anywhere, is ever going to mistake Joanne Cassar’s comportment, mannerisms, behaviour, speech ticks and the rest as those of a woman. They are distinctly those of a campy man, and the more she plays it up and shows off, the more obvious it becomes. She is only making it worse for herself, but I can’t help thinking that this is what she actually wants. She’s camp, very camp – and camp people, whether they are men, women, gay or sort of straight, just need to be right there showing off in the spotlight, doing outrageous things in outrageous clothes. Does sex have anything to do with it? Marriage? Relationships? Absolutely not. It’s the limelight, just the limelight, and the drama – how we love the drama.]
In as much as I would like to agree with Daphne, this time around, I simply can not.
One does not fight for her/his right to marry simply because s/he has a suitor.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but you have been seriously misled by the Labour Party’s propaganda. Joanne Cassar would not have been able to fight this case if she didn’t have a fiance at the outset. To start the case, she had to apply for marriage banns, so as to have her application refused and start the chain of civil suits and constitutional cases rolling. You cannot apply for marriage banns unless there is somebody prepared to marry you.
So yes, having not just a suitor but an actual fiance was crucial to her battle and without that fiance she would have had no battle to fight. Without that fiance and their application for marriage banns, Joanne Cassar would have been in exactly the same position as you and me. Without the need of marriage banns to start the case rolling, any one of us could have fought for the right of transgender people to marry a member of the now opposite sex. We didn’t need to be transgender ourselves or, as you said, even have a suitor. But that’s not how it works, because that’s just lobbying and a campaign. But she used the law to change the law, and to do that, she had to have a case to begin with.]
Joanne underwent GRS, the state recognised her as a female, yet denied her the right to marry someone of the ”opposite” sex. Lest we forget though: the state did recognise her as a female; even if not since birth.
I commend Joanne Cassar’s cause and battle with the State and I genuinely believe that what she want through was totally unneccessary and could have been easily avoidable had the previous PM not appealed her case on the 11th hour, as it were.
[Daphne – I’m afraid I have to point out once more that you have been seriously misled by Labour brainwashing and propaganda. The Prime Minister did not appeal against any case. In Malta, as in all other EU member states, we have a separation of powers. It is the relevant body which appeals, via its representative. These representatives and bodies do not include the prime minister. It is precisely because the prime minister allows the separate powers to function without interference or intervention – which is, strange as it might sound – a democratic safeguard, that Joanne Cassar’s had a tough battle to fight. You might consider it a good thing that the current prime minister intervened/interfered with the separate powers. It might have been a good thing for Miss Cassar, but you have to think clearly: if he is comfortable interfering with the separate powers for this issue, he will feel comfortable interfering for another issue that might not be quite as appealing as the ability of transgender people to marry.]
Even Mario de Marco recently issued a public apology to her on behalf of the ex-administration led by Dr. Gonzi.
[Daphne – He was absolutely and utterly wrong to do so, and he shouldn’t have. It was completely ill-advised. One does not apologise for doing the right thing in allowing the separate powers to work as they should. You were happy that Joseph Muscat interfered with the justice system to hurry it up and help Joanne Cassar. But are you happy that he did the same for John Dalli? There you have it. The end does not justify the means.]
Having said that, I am totally against the fact that she allowed the PL machine to use her, and her cause, in their pre- & post-election campaign. I don’t get why she’s allowing all of this to happen around her.
[Daphne – Simple: she’s Labour herself and she quite obviously adores all the attention. This is her 15 minutes of fame. She is not allowing it to happen around her. She is an active participant and collaborator.]
Joanne & I have known each other for a number of years and I have always known her to be extremely strong willed. But to let this happen? Why? She is gaining nothing from it, except the title, as Whoaml said, The Transgender.
Also, I do not get all this: Malta issa gharfietni bhala t-tifla taghha. I think it’s a lot of bluergh!
But to insinuate that her cause is unjust, simply because she currently does not have a fiance is not fair.
That’s just my 2c anyway.
[Daphne – I did not say that her cause is unjust. I said that the propaganda narrative is cockeyed without a fiance because a heartstring-tugging campaign about a girl’s desperate desire to get married needs a boy in the equation. You’ve forgotten, I suspect, that this long story began not with Miss Cassar’s ‘right to be able to marry’ but with her application to marry somebody in particular. This somebody then vanished from the (public) picture and all the propaganda, and suddenly, we were no longer talking about Miss Cassar wanting to marry Mr X, but about ‘the right to marry in general’.]
Thank you Daphne, for going to the root of things.
I think the Nationalist Party should start by examining issues on a veracity scale or ruler of this sort for everything that happens under this Labour Government and publish this veracity scale for people to understand from the outset what the logic is based on and how it is being twisted, distorted and manipulated.
Labour used some very simple graphics in their campaign. They exploited any situation in any way that suited them. Simple graphics and pictures are what people in general understand.
Asking them to read is like the ‘briksa’ ethics way of doing things.
Veracity scales are used to sort out communication problems and disputes and could be a good point of departure. One plots all information on the subject according to where it fits on the range: from gossip and hearsay to hard fact.
Not to be forgotten is also the fact that irrespective of politics, the advent of the internet and all developments since have happened at a very fast rate. People may have lost their bearings. What they knew has been changed on its head in more ways than one.
On another note: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130624/local/pm-to-hold-vatican-talks-today-changes-to-church-state-agreement-on-agenda.475139 – Such amateurism. Oh well, what do you expect from Super One Graduate Students?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Government-proposes-measure-against-precarious-wok-20130624
Stuck for something to do, the government is now concentrating on solving the problem of precarious woks.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130624/local/pm-to-hold-vatican-talks-today-changes-to-church-state-agreement-on-agenda.475139
Dawn xi brutti figuri huma?
Il-prim ministru ta’ Malta ixejjer idejh ma’ wicc il-Papa, u Mrs Micelle Muscat miexja quddiem bit-tfal, u il-Qdusija tieghu miexi warajha qiesu il-bell boy.
Without implying, in any way, that what follows applies to the person under discussion, I would remind readers of the following case in the UK, which somehow comes to my mind.
A person born and registered as a woman felt later in life that her sexual inclination was that of a man, and she had a sex change. This was duly registered and this person married a man. For some reason best known to this person, she then decided to give birth, naturally, to a child. And she did so.
I do not know under what category of “rights” this is to be classified.
Completely off tangent, but you must be very proud, just saw the article re your son. Have a good afternoon.
[Daphne – Thank you.]
In theory, I agree with you in that a relationship doesn’t flounder because the two can’t marry.
However, in practice, I am bombarded with examples of why relationships end due to external factors.
Celebrities blame the paparazzi and the excessive publicity and lies about them in the press.
Some people have different religious or cultural values.
Some people have parents who disapprove of their child’s partner.
In other cases, social class, money and other factors put stress on the relationship.
Not everyone is strong, and not everyone is able to withstand these pressures.
Maybe her former partner did not want to be a part of the publicity that was created when she decided to take up the court case.
Maybe he loved her, but wasn’t strong enough to be with her during her battle.
[Daphne – Oh indeed. Then exactly how did he plan to be ‘strong enough’ to take 50 years of whatever life threw at them, including sometimes harrowing experiences? That’s exactly what I meant – if they couldn’t even survive the tough times PRE marriage then there was no way on earth they were going to survive the tougher times beyond.]
Maybe he knew what she was about to do. Maybe many people around him persuaded him to find another woman he could marry.
Maybe he wanted children (even adopted) as much as he wanted her. I have no idea; but I believe one has to be in their shoes to form a reasoned opinion about whether he really loved her or not.
I also believe that in practice, it is the warriors who gain something. No rights were ever conferred without a fight – usually a collective fight. She did it on her own, and I am sure that she paid a price in advance for her three months of glamour.
I would not have wanted a year of glamour in return for one week of worrying about lawyers and bills and court cases. I freak out at the prospect of collecting money for, and paying the common part (flat) bills, let alone legal action against the government.
Regarding her boyfriend – it is very possible that he does not feature because he is (a) not the same one as ‘before’, and (b) that they still haven’t discussed marriage yet.
If they haven’t, and the relationship is still in its early stages, then she had the good sense not to drag him into any of her current publicity stunts.
I cannot blame this person for rooting for the party who will acknowledge her right to marry. Not only in her lifetime – but whilst she is still young.
[Daphne – Yes, it’s a matter of priorities, isn’t it? The party Joanne Cassar supports sought to deny her an EU passport/EU citizenship, but she’s thrilled to bits because it changed the law to allow her to marry. ]
There is plenty to criticise Labour for; let’s let her celebrate and the Labour Party gloat on this one. It’s not like the Labour party has more concrete examples of positive performance than this stroke of a pen.
“hanzir taqtalu denbu,hanzir jibqa!!!”
Hmmm, maybe Ciantar would have perhaps been wiser if she avoided the subject of snipping dangly bits.
Daphne, I think the pseudo Christian PN made Ms Cassar behave like this and turn bitter against the PN.
[Daphne – No, she was rabidly Labour to start with. Check out her Facebook page and the sort of charming friends she has. To say nothing of her boyfriend, of course, who is a real catch and truly worth fighting for.]
Look at same-sex civil partnership or civil union as they tend to call it in Malta, this was supposed to be enacted in the last PN term of office, but they failed to pass this law and lets gays and lesbians down.
Dr Gonzi’s divorce fiasco speaks for itself. The PN was too keen to please church-goers and ignore minorities. Unfortunately the many blunders committed by the PN, led to a Labour victory.
Minorities? Hardly. The yes camp was the majority.
No, they fought against divorce legislation because that was the only thing left to them. The PN thinks that Christian Democrat means opposing divorce legislation. Because they do not realise there are other political battles to be fought.
The prime minister as witness, Kurt Farrugia as page-boy, and upcoming Ambassador to Belgium, Ray Azzopardi, as bridesmaid, surely.
Cyrus Engerer photographer u iqassam is-souvenirs.
Here’s another fine picture of a good woman in search of marriage:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200416922560219&set=t.1249719440&type=1&theater
I just can never understand all the commotion that people like this create.
They have a right to do whatever they like and fancy as long as it is all consensual.
Marry my dog, have sex with my washing machine. It is all irrelevant to me.
As long as they do not involve innocent third parties, and I am referring specifically and emphatically to children, let them get on with it.
For fuck’s sake.
Precisely. As my strait-laiced grandmother used to say: “qishom skoprew id-dinja.”
Pathetic really. That’s what happens when you have ‘nouveau anything’ and discussional taboos.
All the champions of ‘the pink minority’ can now celebrate and gloat over the fact that a) for the first time the Gay Pride parade is government sponsored; b) we now have not only a ‘pink’ government but a fully-fledged ‘pink’ parliament.
With all this ‘positivity’ around our bread-and-butter issues will soon turn pink.
In the ideal world, you would be right. Unfortunately, in Malta you cannot grab the powers-that-be’s attention unless you politicise something.
One of the main reasons why Labour won this election is that all lobby groups disillusioned by the PN government jumped on the Labour bandwagon, even if some of those same lobby groups wouldn’t stand each other if they were put in a room together.
The end justifies the means, I guess.
What difference does it make if she was in a relationship or not? Do you know, for instance, that not all people fighting for same-sex marriage are gay people in a relationship? Do you know that some of them are even heterosexuals who care about HUMAN rights?
[Daphne – And do you know that I’m one of them? Obviously not. Low IQ/Read Nothing Except Facebook/Malta Taghna Lkoll. Buzz off, please. Life is short and I suffer fools far less gladly than I did even two years ago.]