It was not an act of “aggression between a man and a woman”. It was an act of aggression of a male member of parliament *towards* a female member of parliament which took place in parliament, which went uncensored by the acting Speaker of the House and the Minister for Civil Liberties.

You are confusing – as did Helena Dalli – equality of rights before the law with equality of physical strength.

When you have an imbalance of physical strength, the crime of assault (and therefore the crime of the threat of assault) is greater. A young man who assaults a frail old man is punished far more severely than a young man who assaults another young man of equal strength.

A man who assaults a child is punished extremely severely.

A young woman who beats an old woman in her care is punished severely too.

Men are punished more severely for assaulting women than they are for assaulting men not because there is a difference of gender but because the difference in gender means an imbalance in physical power.

Men are stronger than women in terms of brute force.

it is terrible.

It will be that public reaction, and that alone that will decide his action. Nothing to do with principles, his (if they exist) or any other’s.

I’m afraid you’re wrong on that score.

Violence against women has socio-cultural relevance and significance which violence against men does not.

Think of the number of women in Malta who have been murdered by their husband, boyfriend, ex husband or ex boyfriend.

It’s what has been said and the bullying that is wrong. If the same words would have been said to a man they would have been just as bad although probably people would be less shocked.

If you take the above title and substitute the word woman with man, the title would still mean the same thing so the gender is irrelevant.