Isn’t he the author of some obscure volume on cock-raising, written in verse? I remember seeing him on one of those 1 a.m. intellectual culture talk shows on Super One.

I wish he’d call me. I think I shall send him another open letter.

Thank you, Matthew S.

Well worth reading. It is useful to to undestand how Joseph Muscat’s brand of liberalism “is more akin to anarchy, wanton destruction of social norms and at some points, even illiberalism.”

Why did they take Alessandra Pace with them, as a chaperone?

He is literally unable to adjust to reality and has never stopped causing pain and boredom to society at large with his attitude and behaviour.

He should seriously consider looking after himself.

First, some definitions:

A LIBERAL is someone who believes in liberty and freedom for every one. Giving women the vote was a liberal act because it gave them the same freedom to choose their leaders that men had.

An ILLIBERAL is someone who believes that freedom is for the few and the privileged. Enslaving blacks was an illiberal act because it restricted their freedom for no other reason than the colour of their skin.

A CONSERVATIVE is someone who wants to conserve all the he believes is good and beautiful. Opposing the writing of a new constitution is a conservative act because you want to conserve something that has worked well throughout the years.

Illiberalism and conservatism are often mixed up but they shouldn’t be. The opposite of liberal is illiberal not conservative. One can be liberal and conservative at the same time but can never be liberal and illiberal at the same time.

Margaret Thatcher was so liberal that she set a closed market free (liberalism is not only about sexual issues, you know?) but she was so conservative that she had no qualms about going to war to conserve that which she believed to be British and democratic.

There are no contradictions in her attitude. Once the market was set free, she had to conserve that state of affairs. There’s no point in achieving something good and allowing it to rot or waste away.

On the other hand:

Flushing your loved one’s remains down a sewer is not liberal. It is an affront to decency and a destruction of cherished and comforting funereal.rites.

A prime minister sticking up for a convicted criminal is not liberal. It is an insult to the victim of the crime and a perversion of justice.

The decriminalisation of drugs is not liberal. It is a headache for parents who have to try that much harder to keep young people off drugs.

Treating tattooed and pierced individuals as if they are a persecuted minority is not liberal. It is a rejection of common sense.

Moreover, interchanging the terms ‘illiberal’ and ‘conservative’ tarnishes the reputation of those who came before us, and who painstakingly built the social structures we now take for granted and consider as normal.

The reason why people (homosexual or not) were not allowed to marry partners of the same gender is not because society was illiberal but because the institution of marriage was created for a very specific purpose: a stable unit in which children could be conceived and raised. Couples comprising two men or two women cannot conceive so they didn’t fit into the marriage concept. Likewise, women who were getting on in age were not considered marriage material, not because they couldn’t find love or because society was illiberal but because they were losing their ability to bear children. And the birth of children out of wedlock was frowned upon not because society was illiberal but because these children did not (and very often still do not) have a stable family unit in which to grow up.

Many people forget that ‘marriage for love’ is a relatively modern concept concocted by Hollywood. If you want to express love, you do it by nice words, kind gestures, kisses, chocolate, poems, love letters and flowers. There’s no need to marry. Some of the greatest romantics never do.

This might come as a shock to many who think that there has always been a secret plot by heterosexuals to keep gays from marrying but the truth of the matter is that HOMOSEXUALS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED TO MARRY and indeed, many have done so (often unwisely) and went on to have children and raise families.

The state doesn’t try to figure out the sexual orientation of people about to get married. That is a purely personal matter. Every individual must decide beforehand whether marriage suits one’s lifestyle or not. If you’re a committed bachelor, a polygamist or a homosexual, then marriage (in its original form) doesn’t suit you. If a brand of shoes doesn’t suit you, it doesn’t mean that it is discriminating against you. You are free not to buy that brand and to opt for something different.

Being at liberty not to buy a brand of shoes; or not to marry, is in fact liberal. You have freedom of choice.

Many people don’t appreciate that same-sex-marriage laws fundamentally change the concept of marriage from a legal point of view. Without the possibility of procreation, marriage becomes purely about love. That is uncharted territory for the government. Loveless marriages either don’t last or are profoundly unhappy but, up to now, love has never been the authorities’ business. Not even the all-powerful genie could make Princess Jasmine fall in love with Aladdin. Governments deal with easily identifiable biological facts, statistics and quantifiable assets and not abstract notions. Love is hard to define and virtually impossible to quantify.

It is also quite wishy-washy. If marriage is only about love, why not let committed bachelors marry the person they love the most: themselves, or why not let people and pets who show affection for each other marry? Ridiculous I know, but it is the logic of the concept taken to its most extreme.

‘Marriage for procreation’ is a pretty much airtight concept. ‘Marriage for love’ is not.

That’s not to say that there isn’t scope for extending the definition of marriage to mean a union between any two people who love each other. I believe that there is, ‘adoption rights’ and all, but let’s not pretend that a great wrong has been righted. There was never a great wrong because ALL INDIVIDUALS (sexual orientation doesn’t come into it) have always been allowed to marry or not to marry. That IS liberalism.

To conclude, Joseph Muscat’s brand of liberalism rubs us up the wrong way because it is more akin to anarchy, wanton destruction of social norms and at some points, even illiberalism (Cyrus Engerer’s ex boyfriend has been denied a sense of justice for example). He also takes credit where credit is not due and confuses the terms ‘illiberal’ and ‘conservative’.

Meanwhile, I proclaim myself to be a liberal AND a conservative, and I’ll be voting for the Nationalist Party in the next election.

You’re about 5 days behind the news. But yes, he did, and yes, it is blackmail.

And yes, the brotherhood of the legal profession.

The MLP.