Cyrus Engerer: most Labour voters say they would have ruled out voting for him had he been allowed to stand
Published:
May 17, 2014 at 11:53am
So perhaps the situation isn’t that dire, and they didn’t actually like all those scenes of the prime minister hugging him, putting him on a podium and calling him a soldier of steel.
Maybe there is some sense of decency after all. How reassuring. I prefer to look at it like that than to consider the ones who would have voted for him anyway.
17 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-05-17/news/18-still-willing-to-vote-for-cyrus-engerer-5034704896/
I’m not entirely sure on what you’re saying. I think they immediately dismissed him because he’s gay. If he wasn’t gay I don’t think they would have let him loose so easily. I don’t know, but from my experience Labour voters tend to come from very homophobic backgrounds.
[Daphne – In principle yes, with all their talk and aggression about ‘pufti’, but the reality is otherwise as Super One’s most popular personalities indicate, and they had no trouble at all electing Anthony Zammit to parliament repeatedly. So no, I think it’s the controversy and the prison sentence, added to the fact that he is perceived as an interloper from the PN. They wouldn’t vote for JPO for that reason, either, I suspect.]
Oh Daphne, you are an analytical person, but sometimes you lack that extra step. The difference between Anthony Zammit and Cyrus Engerer is that the latter is openly gay and makes a political issue about it, in fact, it is his political raison d’etre.
On the other hand, you would only discover that Dr. Zammit is homosexual by hearsay, as much as other PN prominent personalities. I do not think you would see anyone of them in the gay parade or supporting gay adoptions.
[Daphne – Anthony Zammit is openly gay and ‘not gay by hearsay’ (what a funny thing to say) and has been as long as I can remember, which is fairly long. So is his brother Robert who has worked in a senior capacity for the Malta Tourism Authority for many, many years. A reluctance to prance around in boas in public or to go to gay pride parades and make a meal of ‘gay issues’ does not mean a person is in the closet, but merely that he or she does not like that sort of thing. Anthony Zammit is a man of a certain age from a certain kind of background, and that means he prefers to avoid shows of vulgarity and be discreet, though he does clearly have a taste for very vulgar people as his relationship with Natius Farrugia indicates. That relationship, incidentally, has been common knowledge for years – unless you imagine that people think how sweet it is for the effeminate surgeon to have so much time and patience for the effeminate strip-waxer. Your views on gay people, I’m afraid, are very backward and entirely in line with those of the Labour Party (also backward): if one is gay then one must prance about and make a meal of it, speak of nothing else and bang on about gay issues. We women, though far more discriminated against than gay men, know not to do that because it makes us tedious, one-dimensional and boring – and it’s about time gay men woke up to that fact. Glorian Steinem, at least was brilliant and beautiful (that’s why the world looked at her). Cyrus Engerer is neither.]
Moreso, and this an important consideration, Dr. Zammit gained his first publicity by operating on Dr. Sant, way back…..
That may be, in fact, that is the reason why most of the people close an eye when it comes to this.
[Daphne – Oh, very intelligent: ‘vote for somebody because he operated on Alfred Sant, and we’ll even forgive him the fact that’s a ‘pufta’.’ I’d keep that kind of reasoning hidden if I were you.]
The problem with your argument is that you attribute an observation, a true and accurate observation for that matter, with a ‘view’.
First of all, your rather contradictory statement (you use ‘openly’ and ‘discreet’ in the same breath) confirms my argument.
[Daphne – I sometimes feel like I am explaining things to the natives of a vastly different culture. Openness and discretion about one’s sexuality are not mutually exclusive but normal behaviour among the civilised classes, among whom it is considered ill-mannered to flaunt anything from talents, to money to sexuality, to success, to travel plans. Any kind of ostentation or excess is frowned upon, and that includes excessively camp behaviour or showing off about one’s relationships (even heterosexual relationships). Discretion is just good manners, nothing more.
Unfortunately, your knowledge of gay men, and probably also gay women, comes from Super One TV and Labour Party/government propaganda in which the gay men pushed forward are of the fey type who are very camp and in trades and professions which encourage extravagant dress, hairstyles and behaviour. And the gay women pushed forward are very butch and uninterested in their physical appearance. The reality is that most gay people are ‘invisible’ not because they are in the closet but because they are not defined by, and do not define themselves by, their sexuality. The men get a normal haircut at the barber, put on a suit and tie and go to work in an office. The woman put on make-up and nice clothes and get their hair done and are so much indistinguishable from straight women that men try to pick them up. You have, in your head, stereotypes – and you are confusing those stereotypes with openness about homosexuality.
Why should a gay politician promote himself as a gay politician in the Cyrus Engerer mould? It is not his sexuality we’re voting for. Anthony Zammit has never made any bones about his sexuality. It is not his fault or his problem that people from the sticks are unable to work it out despite seeing him with an endless stream of rough trade and constantly in the company of Natius Farrugia. He is not expected to open conversations with ‘I’m gay’ or overprint his campaign collateral with the words ‘ BTW I am gay’.]
Normal people like me who never enquired about Dr. Zammit’s status, and who are not familiar with particluar social circles, only came to know that he is gay by hearsay.
On the other hand, I came to know about Engerer’s status in a local council campaign interview on TV, while still on the PN ticket, himself clearly declaring his status. Using this simple matter of fact, ie that there are homosexuals and homosexuals, you then somehow extrapolated to my views on homosexuals. Here, I am afraid, the only backward thing is your logic and assumptions.
[Daphne – No, Floater. It is you who are backward because your mindset is that a person’s sexuality matters and that it is a crucial factor by which they should be defined. A person’s sexuality does not matter. It is wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is a person’s behaviour. It should not matter to electors whether a candidate/MP is gay or not. What should matter, and what is relevant (as we have seen in such a horrible fashion) is whether he has a preference for sexual liaisons and behaviour which can put him at risk and might even place him in embarrassing positions that could lead to blackmail or pressure. This is the case whether a politician is gay or straight. It is Zammit’s tendency to pick up random men that you should have been looking at, and not his sexuality as such. Most gay men do not trawl about for rough trade, just as most straight men do not spend their time in bars picking up random women. This is exceptional behaviour and not the norm.]
Secondly, that Dr. Zammit was helped in the 2008 elections by the publicity he obtained for operating on Dr. Sant, is also a matter of fact. It has nothing to do with whether I agree, disagree or forgive for that matter.
Putting words in the mouths of those who expose some flaws in your argument, will not straighten these flaws.
[Daphne – I never suggested that Zammit wasn’t helped in electoral terms by having operated on Sant. He himself used that to his advantage by telling electors that he is the only person who knows what Sant looks like on the inside as well as the outside. My point is that openness and discretion are not mutually exclusive and that it is simple-minded to define gay men as people in stereotyped clothing who speak with a lisp so that you can conveniently identify them for reasons of your own.]
Labour acquaintances of mine did not like the way Joe Muscat was seen toadying to Engerer. As far as they are concerned, it is good riddance to bad rubbish.
Actually, there was no ‘good riddance’. The ‘bad rubbish’ is still there – now promoted to a suldat tal-azzar.
So far all they have to go by is that prison sentence and rightfully so they already decided that they don’t like him yet there is more to Cyrus Engerer’s dark deeds then that prison sentence.
If Muscat is wise he will now step back while he is still in time and release Engerer to his own destiny because in time more and possibly more serious circumstances will surface about Cyrus Engerer that will make his prison sentence pale in comparison.
Cyrus Engerer will back stab anyone as he tries to edge his way up. He did it the PN, he did it to his father, he did it to his fellow Councillors and he’s already done it to at least one Member of the MLP.
No one really likes him, not because he is gay, that’s irrelevant in today’s world for most but because he is a double faced back stabbing coward and a treacherous rat the kind of which Malta’s political scene would happily do without.
Eighteen percent is still unbelievable.
That is because, in their muddled thinking, they believe that it was all a plot to frame Cyrus Engerer. After all, Jo Muscat told them that Cyrus, like his parents before him, is a victim of PN persecution.
Law-breakers like Cyrus Engerer are hired to be consulted by law makers like Helena Dalli.
What a sorry state of affairs. Viva Joseph and all who cash in with him.
When Cyrus Engerer authored the book ‘Joseph – Malta li rrid nghix fiha’ he knew full well the extent of his crime and the consequences it carried.
Perhaps Joseph Muscat wasn’t fully cognisant of the squalid details at that time so Cyrus Engerer used this lack of knowledge to position himself as close to Joseph as possible and eventually use the Prime Minister as his shield to the detriment of others who probably merited that status more than he did.
This is how Cyrus Engerer’s sleazy mindset functions. Malta L-ewwel? No, it’s – ‘Jien l-ewwel’
What I write may seem rather scathing in respect of Cyrus Engerer but the truth is that he was never concerned that in authoring Joseph Muscat’s biography, he would one day embarrass his friend the Prime Minister who can now boast to be probably the only Prime Minister in the world whose authorised biography was authored by a person sentenced for sordid deeds to two years suspended for two years by a criminal Court.
Decency and MLP voter are two alien concepts.
I also agree with J Abela, the typical labour voter is homophobic. Just have a conversation with them on gay marriage and gay adoptions. You will get the typical “ma tarax” mixed with other insults. However the typical labour voter is extremely ignorant and will do whatever the leader asks them to do.
The problem here is that the real ‘soldiers of steel’ are grumbling like mad about the way they see it: that Labour has been turned into a “partit tal-pufti”.
Does being called Cyrus means that one can expect twerking? Though I have to say I don’t know who has been shafted here, Cyrus or the Prime Minister? Proverbially speaking of course.
Typical soldier of steel
https://www.facebook.com/jesmond.muscat
Read two examples lately, which put some light of reflection on Cyrus’s case.
1) What if a simple public service employee were to do what Cyrus did – would you think he would still have his job by now?
2) What if the same was done by a Catholic priest, and the Bishop decided to keep him on?
F’ghajnejn il-Lejburisti, Cyrus huwa fl-istess kategorija ta’ Franco Debono, JPO, Mugliette u Nazzjonalisti prominenti ohra li marru mal-Lejber. Tajbin ghax “sibnihom meta kellna bzonnhom”, imma hemm limitu kemm tista’ tafdhom. Naqra, naqra kollha ghal go l-iskipp — ghax hemm posthom — sew ghan-Nazzjonalisti u anke ghal-Lejburisti.