MGRM and Aditus on Cyrus Engerer case
In Times of Malta’s print edition, yesterday (or see the e-paper):
(…)
Asked if he shared the Nationalist Party’s view that Mr Engerer should resign or be sacked as chairman of the government consultative LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) council, the head of Aditus Neil Falzon said: “As a human rights organisation upholding and promoting human dignity and justice we do feel that it is incumbent on Mr Engerer and on the competent authorities to take note of the legal and moral weight of the recent judgment.”
Aditus, he said, recommended that “this is done promptly and in the best manner deemed fit, in the interests of upholding and supporting Malta’s judicial processes.”
Malta Gay Rights Movement head Gabi Calleja took a neutral stand on this question: “It is the minister’s prerogative whom to
appoint as chair of the LGBT consultative council. We will work with whoever occupies this role in the best interests of LGBTI persons.”
(…)
20 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Obviously, Gaby would not step on the PM’s foot! So she keeps it ‘neutral’, miskina.
The next pertinent question they should have asked: Do you trust him?
Gabi Calleja knows how vindictive Joe Muscat can be, so she would never dare disagree publicly with him.
And Gabi Calleja would have the rest of us believe that she and the Malta Gay Rights Movement champion the rights of LGBT people and are their only viable representative and experts on their issues on a national level.
Before someone comes in defending her, I’ve had to work with her on a professional level and that is what she thinks.
You don’t do that by remaining neutral and legitimising the government’s clearly wrong choice of chairperson. A spade needs to be called a spade.
Touché
Moreover, her reasoning is deeply flawed:
“An act is not homophobic because it is directed at a gay person but because it is directed at someone specifically because he or she is gay. In this case, our understanding of the case is that Cyrus Engerer has been convicted of an act towards his ex-boyfriend, not because he had a problem with the fact that his ex-partner was gay but because of their personal relationship and whatever lead to its breakdown. So, one may classify such an act as one of revenge but to call it homophobic is a misnomer. What would classify as a homophobic act is a reaction from those who saw the pornographic images and treated the ex-partner differently, having found out he was gay. If one were to take the comparator of a heterosexual couple, a man who circulated pornographic images of his female partner would not be considered heterosexist.”
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-05-13/news/engerer-was-one-of-the-most-valid-ep-candidates-jpo-4974870532/
The reaction of the people who saw the pictures may not have been homophobic, but Engerer’s intention clearly hinged on the fact that he thought they would be. Doesn’t the intention make it homophobic? And doesn’t the fact that Calleja still recognises that Engerer’s was a criminal “act of revenge” mean that he is still the last person who should chair the LGBT council?
At this point I’m thinking they’re clutching at straws to try to appease the almighty Jo for his benevolence towards them. It’s sickening.
Gabi Calleja is defending the indefensible. Doing like the prime minister.
The Tana Lkoll click.
If Cyrus Engerer wanted to take revenge on his former boyfriend, why didn’t he cause damage to his former boyfriend’s car, or break something in his apartment?
No. He planned his revenge very carefully. He sneaked into his former boyfriend’s home while he was away and, after obtaining unauthorised access to his computer, resorted to carefully selecting pictures of his former boyfriend with other persons in compromising and embarrassing positions.
Cyrus then sent those pictures, in separate, repetitive emails to the employer of his former boyfriend.
What was the purpose of that act, taking into account the nature of the pictures?
If you ask me, it was surely that of exposing or using his former boyfriend’s sexual orientation and to instigate some reaction because of that. Had there been a reaction, Cyrus’s acts would have been the cause of that reaction.
With all due respect to everybody. You are misreading her comment.
She could have chosen to defend Engerer – but she did not. That would have been immoral.
She could have chosen to condemn him – but she did not, as that would have been impolitic.
So she chose to abstain from commenting. But the way she did this requires further analysis.
She did not abstain by saying that she has no opinion on the content of the matter. She abstaining merely by referring to the form – that is that she will work with anybody appointed by the Government.
My reading is that she condemns Engerer but will still work with him because that is required for the higher goal.
Of course, this speaks volumes about Calleja’s mindset.
But on the other hand, didn’t ALL our governments work with Gaddafi?
OK, Mintoff, KMB and Muscat loved Gaddafi. So they are/were as despicable as him.
But did Gonzi approve of Gaddafi’s regime? No, he didn’t. Yet, in Malta’s interests, he worked with him, because he had to.
In Maltese we say, xi kultant tbus l-id li trid tara maqtugha.
Gaby Calleja is showing her weak character in not forming an opinion and expressing it in a formal way.
There can be no ‘neutral’ on this issue. If Gabi Calleja does not say Engerer should go, she’s saying he should stay.
Aditus have not named names (no need to do that – we all know who they’re talking about) but their statement is clear: Engerer’s crimes carry consequences.
“Engerer is not a criminal.”
– Dr. Helena Dalli
He was surely found guilty though of committing a criminal act. And what should we call the man responsible of committing such an act?
If Gabi Calleja does not say Engerer should go, then she should go.
Meta l-Gvern ikun NAzzjonalist naqilbu d-dinja ta’ taht fuq jekk isir xi haga mhux floka, imma ghax nibzghu mill-bullying tal-Labour nitkellmu b’ dan il-mod.
You scratch my back and I scretch yours! No decency and morality in these people. What do you expect?
“We will work with whoever occupies this role in the interests etc., etc.,” even if this somebody would have been found guilty of distributing uncompromising photos of his ex boyfriend with the intent of destroying the reputation of the latter. Tajba din Gabi.
LGBT ..għandkom rappreżentant veru denju tagħkom. Hekk kif jiftilha ma’ xi ħadd minnkom jispiċċa jikxiflu awwaru. Lanqas f’xejn ma nafdah bniedem bħal dak aħseb u ara kemm nagħtih id-dritt jirrapreżentani. Oqgħodu attenti għax xi darba se tmiss lilkom. Possibbli m’hemmx aħjar minnu biex jirrappreżentakom?
It is the Minister`s prerogative to appoint people to occupy posts in the Ministry.
It is the people`s right and duty in a democracy to demand such a resignation.
It is also the duty of any group to disown any of its members found guilty of a crime. Otherwise that will signify complacency if not complicity.
It is the Minister`s prerogative to appoint people to occupy posts in the Ministry. And it is the duty of any group to tell the Minister that his/her prerogative has been exercised wrongly.
we are sick of these people