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?

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.

Actually, there was no ‘good riddance’. The ‘bad rubbish’ is still there – now promoted to a suldat tal-azzar.

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.

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.]

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.

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.