@ MJ

Read Aditus’s statement carefully. The only place where they make a judgement about motivation is in the final paragraph. The PN is ‘politically motivated’ in its suggestion that citizenship should be withdrawn.

Elsewhere Aditus state that they would have stayed out of the issue because of political overtones. Some human rights NGO!

Have we seen a statement from Aditus about CHOGM? No, there was none. Tamil fundamental rights are less important than posturing about gay rights. Confused?

The question about statelessness is a red herring. Aditus could equally have said that they are concerned that any withdrawal of citizenship should not render persons stateless. Otherwise, withdrawal of citizenship from the super-rich (and probably corrupt, possibly murderous, etc) is not an issue that should concern Aditus.

But they just wanted to attack the PN for not signing relevant conventions. Regardless, those conventions are part of the general principles of EU law insodar as EU citizenship is concerned, and Malta cannot withdraw citizenship and make people stateless.

MJ I am not confused at all and no amount of confusing the issues is about to confuse me.

Maybe you’re confused about the role of NGOs in society. They are not there to fly any political flag – therefore if both PLPN are bandying about idiotic rhetoric, then maybe it’s a good thing to view things from the outside and say things as they are.

As the term implies ‘fundamental rights’ are for everyone and not just for the people you like.

Oh, and that final paragraph about the withdrawal of citizenship and statelessness – are you having a laugh?

So Aditus are concerned about the fundamental rights of people who pay 650k for EU citizenship now. Or do they just want to dig the knife in on the PN?

Ridiculous.

Oh, the double standards. So Aditus think it’s perfectly fine to have a big press event with labour in the run-up to the election wearing their LGBT hat, but won’t comment about a human rights issue because of politicisation wearing their refugee rights hat. What a joke.

On a related note, Dr Falzon drafted the civil unions bill, which is another example of labour putting image before substance. The law is ridiculously drafted. Clearly, Dr Falzon is not a family lawyer, did not bother to read the UK Civil Partnerships Act, is unaware of the real issues, and is acting like an utter charlatan. (And I thought that Aditus had said they wouldn’t participate in the LGBT forum or whatever it’s called after the pushback flight fiasco).

So excuse me if I don’t take this lot seriously.

As promoters of the sale IIP Henley & Partners are obliged to communicate a full and true picture to potential ‘investors’ in IIP including the level of risk attached to that investment, namely, that their investment in the purchase of Maltese citizenship stands to expire once the Muscat and the Partit Laburista are voted

Individuals investing in IIP by buying up a Maltese passport thus will be doing so at their own risk and it is incumbent upon them to hedge against the eventual loss of Maltese citizenship.