Signed, sealed, delivered – he's yours
Adrian Vassallo, progressive porn hunter extraordinaire
I’m starting a ‘Help Make Adrian Vassallo’s Dream Come True’ campaign. The Labour MP told The Times that he would rather live in Iran and riot in the streets to defend his religion than live in a country where pornography is available in hotel rooms.
Adrian Vassallo has never been the sharpest knife in the parliamentary drawer, but you’d think that even he would have understood by now that Iran is full of Muslims and is a theocracy, which is why it is called the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Were he to riot there in defence of his religion, he might find himself dangling by the neck from the end of a crane, alongside homosexuals and the odd adulterer.
Perhaps it’s a good thing he’s not planning on taking Marlene Pullicino with him. Or Anthony Zammit, to tell the ayatollah that he’s got many gay friends and he’s not ashamed to be seen with them.
But let’s give our Adrian the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he does know that Iran is a wholly intolerant place which kills even its own people for religious transgressions. Perhaps he wishes to go down in heroic history as a Catholic martyr, who died in Tehran to defend his religion against conference participants from Germany watching Gangbangs of New York at €15 a pop while holed up in a hotel room in Malta.
Blessed Adrian Vassallo, who died to save Malta from…..well, it begins with W and ends with G. Apparently, people no longer believe that it makes you blind, and now look what’s happened.
So here we are, a group of concerned citizens raising funds for a one-way ticket and a nice little pant-house (when you’re surrounded by burqas you can get a kick out of your own ankle) in Tehran.
We’re gunning for citizenship or at least permanent resident status, and we’ll be hoping that Vassallo doesn’t come back so that we’ll be allowed a peaceful summer at least without any calls to measure the expanse of butt-cheeks on either side of bikini-pants that look more like thongs. That was him a couple of summers ago, wasn’t it?
Is anyone interested in helping out? No used clothes and saucepans, please. We’re hoping that Inspector Gadget (‘they bought votes from Labour junkies’) and Robin Hood (‘I made sexual overtures to a rubber puppet’) will join Adrian Vassallo in the Islamic Republic of Iran and leave the rest of us to get on with our 21st-century lives.
But it’s not going to happen, is it? The Labour Party is becoming more of a freak show on wheels, and those wheels are taking it closer to the seat of government. Malta post-2013 is not going to be a brain drain so much as a brain haemorrhage.
Will the last one out turn off the hotel porn?
Vassallo’s worst flaw as a legislator is not his desire to impose his perception of morality on the rest of us. It’s not his extreme control-freakishness. It’s his inability to think rationally. OK, so that’s the hallmark of the entire Labour Party.
It’s really tough to think rationally and vote Labour, still less stand for election on the Labour ticket, so any Labour MP is going to be handicapped by the ‘irrational thinker’ label at the outset.
Between them, Marlene (‘I want to live like the Madonna’) Pullicino, Anthony (‘strange men tied me up’) Zammit, Adrian (‘no thongs on the beach’) Vassallo, and Inspector (‘they bought votes from Labour junkies’) Gadget have turned their party into a laughing-stock.
And let’s not forget Justyne Caruana, who called for a law to prevent pregnant women leaving the country in case they had an abortion, and deputat mexxej Toni Abela, who actually boasted that he was the only lawyer to have acted successfully, on behalf of a man, to prevent his ex-girlfriend from leaving Malta because he suspected she ‘might’ have an abortion.
The ‘Pee Ell’ is looking increasingly like Dr Barnum’s Circus. All it needs is a bearded lady, but Adrian Vassallo has probably vetoed her on the grounds that God is against trans-sexuals, while Marlene Pullicino has said No because the bearded lady is divorced rather than an infinitely more acceptable double adulterer.
The least we should be able to expect from our legislators is commonsense and a reassuring level of intelligence. Instead, what we tend to get are overwrought emotions, pig-ignorance and superstition.
So let’s say Adrian Vassallo gets his way and the police are sent in to shut down the pay-per-view porn video service in hotel rooms. What then? The lone corporate traveller or kinky couple flip open their laptop, connect to the internet, and pull up an even greater store of thrills. The only problem they’ve got there is the small screen.
I can’t work out exactly what it is that Vassallo is objecting to here. If it’s porn in hotel rooms, then he’s got to ban wifi and personal laptops. If it’s the making of money from selling porn in Malta, then he’s got to build a mammoth firewall round every real or potential porn-site on the worldwide web, reducing internet in Malta to an intranet policed by champions of morality like him and Marlene Pullicino, with a little help from that Inspector Gadget person.
And if he’s against people buying porn in hotels, then – internet arguments aside – exactly whose morality is he trying to protect? The people who stay in hotel rooms in Malta have access to porn wherever they go. They don’t need Adrian Vassallo from Malta to protect them from their own decisions while they are temporarily on the island.
Ah, but then Vassallo probably thinks that Maltese people – heaven forfend – are checking into hotels to check out the porn videos. In that case, I do agree that we have a problem – not a porn problem, but a sad weirdo problem.
In any case, in his fatwah against pay-per-view porn in hotels, Vassallo is rather too late already. Laptops and the internet have dampened demand for that service quite considerably. It’s cheaper, and best of all, the hotel administration staff who keep track of billing don’t get to find out that you could only get to sleep last night by ‘unwinding’ to Sperminator III.
Unlike pay-per-view porn videos, the stuff you download from the internet doesn’t show up on your hotel bill – which is one very great blessing when you’re travelling on company expenses. Sure, the name of the video is never listed, to avoid embarrassment – the hotel equivalent of the brown envelope – but that causes embarrassment in itself.
Whether you’ve watched Bambi or Bambii Gets It On, you’re under suspicion. And when I say suspicion, I mean for the purposes of nudge-nudge-wink-wink-poor-desperate-sod giggles around the water-cooler, not action by Adrian Vassallo and his Willy Wonka (I always thought Roald Dahl had pulled some kind of pun with that name, and now I know what it is) Police.
Though the shallow and silly Joseph Muscat is getting no more than he deserves when he chunters on about being the progressive and moderate counterfoil to the oppressive forces of conservative darkness in government, I am almost beginning to feel sorry for him. Almost – because it is not really possible to empathise with someone quite so spoiled and frivolous.
Anyway, something tells me that he’s as backwoods conservative as the rest of them, but he’s going after the liberal-from-Sliema vote and is doing his damnedest to put on an act.
It’s a bit hard to convince the observant that you’re a progressive liberal when your wife superstitiously wraps rosary-beads round her hands and claims to have a whole collection of them kissed by various religious-dignitaries. Liberals rarely marry conservatives and conservatives rarely marry liberals.
If one spouse is conservative then you can safely bet your last cent that the other one is too.
While he struggles to keep up the myth that the Labour Party is at the vanguard of left-wing idealism and of change, our sole hope against the fusty, musty right wing which has had tenure on the government benches for too long, Muscat’s bubble keeps getting punctured by his very own people.
A less liberal bunch of backwoods bunnies I have yet to see. They seem to be falling over themselves to highlight the fact that, over the past couple of decades, the Labour Party has become Malta’s right-wing force of conservative bigotry, traditionalism, racial hatred, religious zeal and xenophobia. This is unsurprising: its core electoral support is among the most conservative elements of Maltese society.
Adrian Vassallo is afraid that, thanks to pornography in hotel rooms, Malta will end up like Britain “where children rape and kill each other”. Perhaps he thinks it is pornography, in hotels or elsewhere, that has given Malta its long history of child molestation and sexual perversion.
Perhaps he thinks that sexual repression and too much religious emphasis on the evils of sex in any context other than the missionary position for conception in marriage makes people less interested in pornography rather than more so.
Pay-per-view Adrian Vassallo videos – now there’s an idea. But is it allowed?
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
160 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The article reminds me of an office paper shredder!
red nose says:
THURSDAY, 10 JUNE AT 1337HRS
The article reminds me of an office paper shredder!
Reply:
MARCUS FLORES: shredders can tear off your own fingers if you don’t use ’em right! just like intelligence, or beauty, or high-explosive: they all require prudence, HUMILITY, and know-how to use safely………………… without inflicting self-damage!
E.P.I.C
Well, they beat you to it on facebook, with the formation of (yet another) group called ‘Fundraiser to send Dr. Adrian Vassallo to Iran’. Here is the link: http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=132887276723662
All the Labour Party needs now to solidify the outsiders’ perception of the LP’s concept of our national identity, is to employ a dwarf dressed in a white suit to go around shouting “The plane, the plane !”
They’ve got one, Alan. Our little Joey–except he shouts ‘Hold the plane, hold the plane!’
Child molestation and perversion are not a result of pornography agreed, but please tell me what good comes out of pornography. I, as an educator, can see the difference between those kids that are exposed to a promiscuous environment to others that are brought up in a sound religious background.
[Daphne – How about if we bring up children in an environment that is neither promiscuous nor religious? Those children end up the best off, all round. It doesn’t have to be either one or the other, you know. Religion closes minds and promiscuity disturbs them. What exists in between those two poles is not a vacuum but normality.]
Daphne wrote: “Religion closes minds and promiscuity disturbs them. What exists in between those two poles is not a vacuum but normality”
Why can’t some people understand this simple concept? Does everything have to be black or white with them? How about multiple shades of gray?
The fundamental point you are missing is that we are not talking about children seeing pornography but adults.
Whether any good whatsoever comes out of it is none of your business. Even if it’s bad for the adults in question, it is still none of your business!
none of our business?!?! you joking? what about your wife? your kids? So your wife would be right to separate from such perverted people! And keep her children far away from the husband. None of your business my foot. It is everybody’s business to know that your neighbour is a pervert and a possible pedophile, not only priests. And then they accuse women of being responsible for separations. With men like these perverts who needs enemies.
No sweetheart,
It’s none of your business if your neighbour sees (legal) porn. And define ‘pervert’.
For me you are a pervert if you demand to know if your neighbour sees porn – there is something disturbing about wanting to know about your neighbour’s private life, as long as it’s legal in NORMAL (i.e. secular) free societies.
Until recently homosexuals were considered perverts.
I agree that you have the right to know if your neighbour is a paedophile (and that within reason), but what on earth has that got to do with porn? Do you equate watching porn with being a paedophile? Then Malta has a serious problem. Excuse me for saying this but “ajma x’injoranza”
Your wife/husband? If anybody has a right to know then maybe she/he does, and vice versa, simply because a husband and wife should not keep secrets (again within reason) from each other.
As to this MEN business – the porn industry is largely run by women and from CNN I quote:
“In the first three months of 2007, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, approximately one in three visitors to adult entertainment Web sites was female;”
What good comes out of cigarettes? Alcohol? Watching football? Playing the lottery? Watching Big Brother? Playing video games? etc.
Not everything needs to bring about something good.
That’s quite a sweeping statement Daphne. So because I’m Catholic my mind is closed etc. etc.? I can’t exactly be offended by promiscuity, being a medical student in my final years.
Disagreeing completely with certain liberal tendencies does not make someone close minded. My mind is still open to new ideas, to the opinions of others and to science. I dislike people who use religion as an excuse to close their mind, but that’s what it is, an excuse.
So what do you call the great thinkers, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and Kant, the cultural revolution of the renaissance largely funded by the Church, much of western literature and music, the Church as the founder of Europe’s oldest and most prestigious universities, physicists such as George Lemaitre s.j (originator of the big bang theory), the beginnings of sciences such as seismology and many other achievements which I cannot list.
Here’s an interesting link for you
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260387/ref=nosim/catholiceduca-20
Jailing Galilei for life after adherence to the heliocentric model? Repressing the Darwinian theory for evolution by natural selection?
Yeah…religion has been the biggest contributor to science in all ages.
This is exactly the reason why the Scientific Method always starts with the unfallible premise that God exists.
As with art, i beg you to start with the Middle Ages, not with the Renaissance. Tell me, why was artistic development so poor during the Middle Ages?
And why was the Renaissance enriched by works of art? Because the Church is interested in artistic development?? You think?
If the Church is so interested in artistic development why does it continue to ban excellent works of art till this very day? Where do all the pieces of art and literature the church has banned throughout the ages fit in your argument?
The Catholic Church put a muzzle on free thinking since it grasped the emperor’s throne in Rome. If you wanted to study or run for public office you had to go through the church (you had to be more catholic than the pope) and you could only study the mystics and some rudiments of roman and greek philosophy.
After stagnating for almost a millennium Rome suddenly woke up from its slumber and started translating the classics back from arabic —realising that Europe was stagnating and collapsing into a mess of fiefdoms, fratricidal wars from within and horror of horrors muslims encroaching east and west.
Rome was more intent on killing apostates, atheists, polytheists, protestants and other independent minds than explore new knowledge. After all thinking outside the box threatened its monopoly on the faithful. Remember the infamous quote “God will know his own”.
It’s interesting for a medical student to list philosophers with a penchant for teleological arguments. Medicine and for that matter astronomy and the sciences that grew out of natural philosophy made a lot of progress since they left that myopic mumbo jumbo in the gutter! I thought Darwin firmly discredited teleology in your discipline over a century and a half ago.
Thinking for thinking’s sake is not enough, we need great minds who can tease out the universe’s most intimate secrets and transform them into beneficial technologies.
I believe she generalized. But yes, those people who open their eyes to other alternatives usually end up atheist.
Religion, any religion, closes minds because it doesn’t encourage people to think, but asks them to follow dogma.
The Catholic Church did play a role in building Western civilization, but it definitely didn’t do so on its own. And anyway, it mostly shaped Southern Europe. With the rise of Protestantism, Northern Europe acquired a different social ethic, which accounts for many of today’s stark differences between the two.
Fine. Keep your minds inside the atheist bubble then.
Jellybaby88, now it’s you who’s generalizing. Criticizing religion equals atheism, eh? That’s open-mindedness for you.
And it’s funny how you should mention one Jesuit, and forget another who was prosecuted by the Holy Office during his lifetime and when his works were being published posthumously (yes, posthumously), the Vatican issued instructions to “protect the minds, particularly of the youths” from his ideas.
I’m referring to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Now he’s ideas might sound a bit weird, but no-one should be in the business of “protecting minds” in our day and age.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dechardin.txt
I’m not generalizing. If you follow a religion then you stick to its beliefs. Saying religion closes minds does not give me the impression that you are religious people. So cut the crap.
On the other hand, the only one of you who I know does, in fact happen to be an atheist and a rather vocal one at that.
I wonder why the Dark Ages were so dark?
Faith is by definition, a rejection of what is rational. If there was enough evidence to believe in God etc, it would not be called faith, it would be called knowledge.
The church had its role once upon a time, it had money and it monopolised education. Yes the jesuits were probably quite a smart bunch. We should be above it by now, we can think of ethics in terms of the real world and reason. The god of gaps is also finding less and less space to live in. It is very hard nowadays to say you are rational and religious at the same time. Being religious implies you believe in things like resurrections, virgin conceptions, ethereal sightings and a million other impossibilities. How can you be a medical student and think that virgin conception is possible?
Jelly, I assure you atheism is no bubble but a big liberator. Once you accept that most probably, there is no supernatural creator, a lot about life starts making sense. Of course it requires the maturity to understand that life is what you make of it and that shit happens.
Cripes: not religious, then atheist. What hogwash. Can’t one just be indifferent to whole religion circus? Or believe in an impersonal god that doesn’t intervene in every worldly nook and cranny?
And that’s why religion closes minds, because one just follows beliefs. Say, why are you against divorce? Because the Church says so. You don’t explore any other alternatives which, for all you know, might be good, too.
religion closes minds. What intellectual knowledge! From which world university did such words emanate? Communist China, Russia and Albania together with totalitarian regimes, used to talk like that. I thought you were modern and progressive not like these totalitarian and godless states. But still religion came up the winner while these puppet regimes, became the big big big losers. Women had better remain in the kitchen and take care of their of bringing up their own children than writing stupidities on blogs.
I can’t understand these people. Are they moderates, progressive, socialists. stupid , silly, talibans or what?
They’re neither stupid nor talibans. They are morally upright citizens of Malta, without fear of saying what they believe in, unlike others who hide their obscene agendas. They are true men and women who have nothing to hide, and nothing to be ashamed of; but who love their meighbours as themselves. That’s why they are true men unlike other puppets on a string.
hmmmm is that what we now call the climax of a hotel-porn film? Obscene agendas (plural to boot)?
I’m lagging behind in modern day jargon.
Hmmmm…is it me or does he look like Ron Jeremy?
Have you checked?
Lol, good one!
Personally, I don’t think hotels should have available porn. To me it conveys a message that they are promoting porn. If people want to watch porn for free they can carry their laptop to their hotel room with them. I would feel the same way if a hotel has allocated space within their premises a theatre for porn films and a dozen theatres for clean films.
Finally, I like your jibes at the MLP. Your articles are so effective that they are not noticing that you are bruising them badly. What a confused party. In my opinion Maltese people are very bright and it is a big puzzle to me why half of Malta wants Labour in office. Where are the smart people within the MLP? Did they move to Australia?
Matt, what do you mean by ‘promoting’? I’ve never been in a hotel where I saw big advertisements for the porn films showing the coming night.
Porn in hotels is not free as your comment attests. You have to look for it using the remote control and you have to pay for it to actually access the station/s.
It’s just a service available to adults, because there is a demand for it, which all adults know about.
It’s the same as any other service you have in your hotel room from cartoon TV stations to a telephone to shampoo bottles in the bathroom. People can choose to use it and they can choose not to. Besides, what’s so wrong with promoting a movie anyway?
“Your articles are so effective that they are not noticing that you are bruising them badly.” What a load of rubbish – this site is not bruising anyone because the audience is not a PL audience.
[Daphne – Well, obviously not, because Labour’s core vote is semi-literate and doesn’t understand basic English. And the best that the party’s intelligentsia can produce is…..Maltastar. But aren’t you missing something here? I’m not a politician. I’m not in the vote-catching, people-conversion business. I’m in the entertainment business.]
I would also guess that any swinging voter of average intelligence would let this blog alone influence their decision come election day.
[Daphne – Swinging voters, eh? Very Austin Powers. There goes the porn vote.]
Most of the readers here are committed Nationalists (just read what they write) who would not dare vote for PL even if GBO rose from the grave had a conversion and tried to lead them – the PL – to victory.
[Daphne – Have you ever considered the alternative: that committed Labour voters can’t write? I am always more than happy to upload the comments and arguments of those who can, but I have to draw the line at a litany of misspelled obscenities.]
This is nothing more than self serving hope of turning around a practically guaranteed election defeat to a strong Nationalist audience.
[Daphne -No, gwap. It’s a discussion. It’s a way of whiling away the time. It’s communication. Why do you insist on seeing any political talk as an attempt at convincing others? What must conversation with you be like? Probably like one of those ‘discussion shows’ on television, which are exercises in talking others down.]
talking down others? talk about the pot calling the kettle black
oh another point – even the iliterates have the vote.
Sweet article.
Liberals. If Labour is still thinking it is a Liberal Party, it must be because it is still caught up in the few weeks leading to May 6th, when it appeared that in the UK, the Liberals will displace Labour and therefore it would be “fashion” to appear as Liberal rather than Labour. As things turned out, the Liberals remained the smallest party.
As far as I know, Liberal parties in Europe have never been very successful. Europe is by definition the Old World, highly conservative by any standard. Liberal parties are popular in the new world, like in Canada and Australia.
This does not mean that there is no liberal movement in Europe, but, as in Canada and Australia, liberals tend to be right wing. The UK is the usual exception.
No. “Liberal” in the European sense means liberal on social issues. Which is just about every party in Europe, bar the far right. And PN, MLP, AD.
The “liberal party” in Australia is a misnomer. It is a right wing party though and moving further to the right as time elapses.- A more appropriate description would be The Australian Tories.
What strikes me as inept in the Labour Party is their reaction. Instead of distancing themselves completely from this story, they try to excuse it.
Instead of pointing out that the Hon Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici took Adrian Vassallo up on his suggestions to investigate the matter (if I were the Hon Minister I would have told him to sod off), they come up with a story to tell us that there are parents who want to limit access to porn for their children be it at home or in a hotel . . . Now this I can just imagine . . . A family checking in a hotel room with the kids turning on the TV to look up porn. Is it me or is this a surreal situation from a Pinter or Ravenhill play?
It all makes me want to cry: WHY? WHY? Why does the Labour Party have to shoot itself in the foot at every opportunity?
As an individual, I am disturbed that Dr Adrian Vassallo has madde these unfortunate remarks and was daft enough to repeat them at the first opportunity. I am concerned that Joseph Muscat and his party machine have not distanced themselves completely from these remarks instead of trying to excuse them. I am concerned that the Labour Party does not realise that what Dr Adrian Vassallo is pushing for here is fundamentalism, oppression and religious rioting. I am concerned that these comments were taken seriously by the Minister responsible for police investigations. I am concerned because this same minister has in the past declared himself to be completely in favour of censorship. I am concerned because this Minister has coined up the laughable phrase that ‘the removal of censorship would lead to the proliferation of paedophilia, pederasty and other subversions’. I am worried that MPs from both sides of the house support censorship. I am concerned that Dr Adrian Vassallo’s senseless words are merely a symptom of inept governance (both sides) that still has no grasp of Freedom of Expression.
Dr Vassallo did the right thing. Not averyone has the guts of standing up to be counted. And while you are attacking Dr Vassallo, may I remind one and all that people like Dr Adrian Vassallo never attacked either physically or verbally any one not even on the opposite side of the political divide.
And I can easily say that he is a very moderate person, a civil man and a family man, unlike some of those writing here. I only wish Labour was full of such honest citizens. I would be the first to vote for it.
But alas, Labour is full of douds and sharks ready to pounce and kill their adversaries. Aim at others and not at such gentlemen. Let me remind you that the EU booted off Onor Buttiglione not because he was a fool or a thief but because he was a convinced Catholic and the EU discriminated against him because he was a Catholic. Because the EU is a godless creature, like the beast of seven heads.
[Daphne – I wonder what God thinks about the sport of bird-shooting. Perhaps we should ask Adrian Vassallo. Is it possible for you people to separate civic-mindedness from religion? I doubt it. Apparently, only religious people are good and have values.]
It is exactly, because I think Dr. Vassallo is a true gentleman, kind, moderate and civilized, that i am surprised.
I am not questioning his integrity.
It is the type of question he asked that is puzzling. Hence the reaction, especially knowing about the ‘free for all’ sex industry existing worldwide.
The EU ‘booted off’ Buttiglione because you cannot have a person who speaks against homosexuals as an EU commissioner, even you must see that.
Another think Kyle, I happen to be a practising Catholic and as a Christian I understand that we cannot, actually MUST not impose our beliefs on anybody. The only way the ‘keep the flock’ is voluntarily and through example, NEVER by imposing values. As Catholics we believe God gave man a free choice – who are we to take that choice away?
By the way, Kyle, besides the point but I’ll bet you think il-Muzew is a great idea!
”As Catholics we believe God gave man a free choice – who are we to take that choice away?”
I think you slipped up with the word Catholics there. Free choice/free will is not necessarily opposed to the idea of (weak or even strong) paternalism and restrictions. Or else following your argument ad absurdam one could argue that no laws should be enacted; If God gave us free will, who are we to legislate against people killing other people? Or on a more practical level we could argue about the legislation in favour of drugs and so on (issues not involving 3rd parties- if thats ever possible).
As Christians and Catholics (as you professed to be) we are called to be(in line with Catholic doctrine) compassionte towards others. If porn is seen as a moral evil in Catholic doctrine; it is not based on irrational dogma but upon the belief that porn has negative consequences on ones sexual development, relationships and consequently society in general.
If you adhere to that belief, then would it not be logical to legislate in some way to prevent this from happening? How and the practicalities are irrelevant here, i’m talking on a hypothetical basis about the justification of some form of paternalism. Also I must point out, that by paternalism and legislation I’m not referring to mere cencorship, that is oft the least effective way. Educational campaigns and support centres are always alternatives in these kind of issues.
Yes sure, Kyle Grima ” a civil man who never attacked either physically or verbally”
What about his disgusting hobby of blasting birds out of the sky. Is that civil? Aren’t those birds God’s creatures too?
What a hypocrite.
@Mike
“I think you slipped up with the word Catholics there. Free choice/free will is not necessarily opposed to the idea of (weak or even strong) paternalism and restrictions. ”
You deliberately misinterpreted me.
Of course not, to be a true Catholic, you HAVE to follow Catholic rules, no two ways about it.
However being Catholic has nothing to do with governing a country, government should/MUST be completely secular.
Countries laws have nothing to do with “Catholic Laws”, where they agree is completely coincidental.
“If porn is seen as a moral evil in Catholic doctrine; it is not based on irrational dogma but upon the belief that porn has negative consequences on ones sexual development, relationships and consequently society in general. ”
I agree, one cannot call himself Catholic if he regularly sees porn, and Catholics are forbidden AS CATHOLICS from doing so. But society (secular) does not necessarily share these beliefs and hence it should be allowed for those adults who freely CHOOSE to see it.
“If you adhere to that belief, then would it not be logical to legislate in some way to prevent this from happening?”
ABSOLUTELY NOT. It would be very illogical, undemocratic and unchristian of me to impose my beliefs on anybody else.
“Educational campaigns and support centres are always alternatives in these kind of issues.”
That’s fine, but at the end of the day it’s still up to the individual concerned.
”Countries laws have nothing to do with “Catholic Laws”, where they agree is completely coincidental.”
I disagree to a certain extent, in that a country’s laws effectively are enacted by parliament, that is the representative government, thus to a certain extent country laws are influenced by ”private” morality (take divorce, abortion, cohabitation etc.. etc..)
”ABSOLUTELY NOT. It would be very illogical, undemocratic and unchristian of me to impose my beliefs on anybody else”
It is not illogical at all. A majority always imposes its ‘beliefs’/values and ideas on the minority (granted it does not infringe their rights), that is infact part and parcel of a democratic society. I’m not saying i agree but why is it okay to ban drugs but not porn? Aren’t you imposing your values and beliefs on others? Aren’t I imposing a restriction on others and limiting their choice? Shouldn’t it ” be allowed for those adults who freely CHOOSE” to do drugs, to have legal access to them?
I disagree with this concept of seprarating all that is religious from all that is related to the running of the government and politics. Catholics are called to contribute to society on all levels, including i politcs. If you believe porn is wrong, you should believe it for a reason which is not dogmatic in my opinion.
To the extent that if you had to stop believing in Christianity you should still be convinced that porn is wrong. In this regard i believe that all moral issues should be supported by rational argument as opposed to ‘ax il-Knisja tghid hekk’.
”That’s fine, but at the end of the day it’s still up to the individual concerned’
I agree. Censorship/Banning has never solved such issues.
Well your comments are certainly informative, even though not in the way you intend.
“thus to a certain extent country laws are influenced by ”private” morality (take divorce, abortion, cohabitation etc.. etc..)”
They may be influenced but they still cannot impose the majority’s beliefs on the minority.
“A majority always imposes its ‘beliefs’/values and ideas on the minority (granted it does not infringe their rights)”
Agreed, in fact seeing porn (or anything else legal) in a private area like your house/room is in fact a right!
“but why is it okay to ban drugs but not porn? ”
Oh come on be serious, drugs affect negatively society as a whole, the only affect porn has (if any) is environmental with extra tissues being used! Any substances that affect us, like medicines and illicit drugs have to go under rigorous tests in any civilised and democratic country – drugs like cocaine etc do not pass the test, simple as that, hence they are illegal. many have tried to prove porn is actually harmful (forget sinful) in many countries – no one ever managed!
“Catholics are called to contribute to society on all levels, including i politcs.”
Obviously, Catholics are members of society too, but contribution does not include imposing their particular morals on a minority/others – besides, purely for arguments sake it is very arguable whether Catholics (i.e. church goers) are a majority any more.
” the only affect porn has (if any) is environmental with extra tissues being used! ”
So you’re saying that as a Catholic, you believe and abstain (or attempt to abstain) from pornography not because you believe it is beneficial to yourself, but on a somewhat dogmatic basis.
Though it may also affect one’s spiritual well-being, I believe pornography can have negative psychological effects on youths, I’d be surprised if it didn’t have actually.
If that effect is substantial enough (as the Catholic Church believes), to have a tangible (negative) effect on the individual and society, then it falls in the same basket of drugs.
Oh my god . . . here’s another comments from timesofmalta.com:
Pornography affects a viewer “just like a kid watching tom and jerry can take it literally and try to stab his little brother to death.”
Somebody pinch me!
Oh my God, this bloke seems to be the only person who isn’t affected by pornorgraphy. He likes it.
Well, to be honest I don’t like my kids (eldest is 4) watching Tom and Jerry either because I personally DO find it violent despite being a child’s cartoon.
There you see, I can be bigoted too.
In Sweden, Tom and Jerry is not fit for kids; too violent.
On the Facebook group ‘Fundraiser to send Dr. Adrian Vassallo to Iran’, Alex saliba of FZL says :
Alex Saliba : Din mhijiex kwistjoni ta partit, hija kwistjoni ta opinjoni personali tijaw! Il-partit dejjem kien car fuq principji tijaw, l-MP Adrian Vassallo ghandu opinjoni totalment kuntrarja ghal-dik tal-partit. Il-Partit Laburista kien ghadu u jibqa jemmen fil-principji progressivi
Yesterday at 6:32pm
OK, all is forgiven. The PL is in favor of porn in hotels, and none of them wants to go to Iran.
“hija kwistjoni ta opinjoni personali tijaw”
TIJAW? Can’t they even write in Maltese?
This is Rod Liddle from this week’s The Sunday Times explaining how his late parents were “highly instructive” about foreigners when he was a boy watching England play football on TV.
“They had a pithy little analysis for every country we played against, observations which have stuck with me into adulthood. Finland? Duplicitous and cruel drunkards.
Spain? Unclean, cruel, backward. Belgium? Filthy, overweight, devious. Italy? Childish, cowardly, hysterical. When we played the USSR, my mother informed me that everybody in that vast country had a television set, but instead of them watching it, it watched them.
So, as you can see, there was the occasional nod towards a very distant truth, but only an occasional nod. Mostly it was either totally arbitrary abuse (why are the poor Finns “cruel”?) or something vaguely rooted in some singular incident from the first or, more usually, Second World War.
Only one country escaped this blanket contempt, and that was Norway. Decent, honest people who give us a lovely Christmas tree every year. Malta got a half-decent review — plucky, loyal — although appended darkly was the qualifying conclusion “but almost Arabs”.”
What I would like to hear from the PL luminaries is how they would have managed to double the percentage rise in our GDP in the first quarter to 6.8% if they had been in charge.
Instead all we get from them is crap and loads of it.
The alternative government is crappy and bodes ill for Malta.
I agree with you, Daphne – who in his right mind wouldn’t?
However, despite the nonsense uttered by the Maltese mullah, there is a point which merits mention. Am I right in thinking that pornography laws exist in Malta?
If yes, the police should enforce the law, untill such time they are repealed. Just because a law is unpopular, doesn’t mean that it should be ignored.
Civilised societies do not enforce outdated laws. Repressive ones, unfortunately, still do.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy13.html
The url above lists some of Utah’s weird laws – suffice to say that if enforced, a substantial number of Utah’s population would probably languish in prison.
I forgot to add that the link is 12 years old. Chances are that those laws were repealed.
Vanni you are either in agreement with the maltese mullah or you are in agreement with Daphne. If you are a true man you cannot be in agreement with both. It’s either with good or with bad. That’s your problem and your choice. Cant be both.
@ Kyle Grima
I hate to burst your bubble, but my being a “true man” has got nothing to do with the argument. Casting aspirations do not strengthen your argument, but reveal your poor debating abilities. Similarly if I had to succumb to temptation and call you an ass, I would only be weakening my position.
The fact is that if a law is on the statute books, the police have the duty, moreover so when asked (as was done by the PL spokesman), to enforce it. Should enough voters disagree with the law, pressure should be brought to bear on the representatives to repeal it. The police, and their minister, may not, however asinine said law may in their opinion be, just ignore it, as they are charged with upholding the law, and should they ignore it, they will be setting a dangerous precedent.
Therefore, whilst I am in favour of the law being repealed, my opinion is that as long as it is on the books, it has to be upheld.
You don’t always have to pay for hotel porn. Here’s a trick I learnt. Check into the New Dolmen before 11am and switch on the porn channel immediately (before noon), and you can watch porn for free for 24 hours. Sad but true.
My god, occupancy rates will shoot up.
Lino Cert. Not ”sad but true” more like ”sick but true”.
You are the sad one.
At the Dolmen, we do not have any Pay per view channels, let alone a Porn channel. I tried all channels before 11.00 and there are no porn channels whatsoever. If this was the case, I am sure we would have been bombarded with complaints from our guests.
Complaints? It’s not like you chain them to the bed and force them to watch porn, Clockwork Orange style.
How to succed in politics:
1. Draw public attention to some particular social problem (which has been around for zonks but preferably its got to do with sex and/or religion) but give it a new meaning of fear;
2. Tell people that this is the sign of the libertine times we live in, where we have tolerated everybody doing what they like (as if this is the root of all evil) – use statistics (the best lies);
3. Suggest your cure to the problem (which will cause more harm but still sounds good) ;
4. Watch hysteria take hold as you stand fearless and determined to provide them with the solution;
5. Get elected / re-elected;
6. Have a cup of tea;
7. Go back to step 1 but use new fear wrapper.
.
” Labour is not split at all” said kev
The Labour Party must be very proud of the support they give each to other.
Times of Malta: Thursday, June 10, 2010
Opposition leader distances himself from MP’s Iran comment
A spokesman for the Labour leader said Dr Muscat said he “certainly” did not share such “preferences” but added that Dr Vassallo had a right to express himself like everyone else.
Times of Malta: Wednesday, 9th June 2010
I’d rather live in Iran – Labour MP
“Regardless of what (Labour MP) Owen Bonnici says, I am 100 per cent in favour of censorship and I told the party that if there’s a vote, I will not vote against censorship,”
said Labour MP Adrian Vassallo
Hawn tant problemi fil-pajjiz, il-pornografija fil-hotels taghthom f’ghajnhom lill-Labour Party.
Do they know that on internet there are thousands or pornographic sites accessable to everyone? Jew ghadu ma wasalx ghandhom l-internet?
Claire, I suspect that they want hotel guests to tune into One TV instead, to make it the TV Station of the Century.
Another big social problem that Malta has is the indiscriminate killing of birds. Adrian Vassallo, though a medical doctor and member of parliament, is very well known for his enthusiastic pursuit of shooting of birds.
“Pay-per-view Adrian Vassallo videos – now there’s an idea.”
They would be in the BDSM category.
Sei mitica Daphne!
Excuse me but an important point must be stressed. I copy and paste from timesofmalta.com:
“A spokesman for the Labour leader said Dr Muscat said he “certainly” did not share such “preferences” but added that Dr Vassallo had a right to express himself like everyone else.”
It is not Dr. Muscat, but a spokesman. Now that’s the epitome of sitting on the fence with a pole up your ass.
He might just be bitter that his preferred porn fantasies aren’t as readily available? Either way the bigot looks so cute in that picture I’m almost tempted to forget that he is a complete twat.
…
No sorry, can’t seem to get past it.
If this guy’s brain were on fire I wouldn’t piss in his ear.
OMG – let Adrian go to Iran and have a go at it……….
This fuss about pay-per-view porn in hotel rooms…don’t people have anything better to do? Aren’t there more serious issues to contend with, or are politicians so desperate for attention? Porn has been around and always will be. Just don’t watch it!
It’s days like these when I am so thankful for your commentary, Daphne. You said all I was thinking, and delivered it to a much greater audience than I could muster.
“The only problem they’ve got there is the small screen.”
Not if they carry their HDMI cable along.
or carry a pocket projector along , and watch it full size on the bedroom wall, sad but true
Dear Daphne, I cannot agree more with you, because that is exactly what I dream about, bringing up our children in normality, but we both know that this is only wishful thinking unfortunately.
Well, if you are one who thinks rationally you will not vote for PN either.
[Daphne – Rational thinkers choose the best of what is available, without letting their emotions get in the way. Only the extremely irrational vote for nobody. Once you are going to get a government in any case, you might as well try and choose it.]
The PL just makes me want to burst out laughing. The leaders and officials run around like a bunch if pastizzi-eating louts from the village corner who have no education and no idea how to run a country and a horde of (largely) uneducated supporters who follow the party line, whatever the party says and whether they agree with it or not (Viva l-Lejber).
I criticise the PN when criticism is due. But hearing a Labour supporter say something negative about the Great Leader? No way. They’d sooner kill their own mother I think. The PL is a party for losers and wannabes, and I shudder to think what will become of the country once they take power. I’m out, for one. Greener pastures abroad. And no Joseph. And no Inspector Gejit.
I think a healthy democracy needs voters who actively criticise their government, opposition and other leaders including faith and business.
If you don’t want to play the game, then your voice gets ignored. Bush got elected with a voter turnout little more than 50% and those are mostly the party loyalists and fanatics. The non-voter demographics get ignored when policy is formed and executed.
Agreed Daphne, but what you, Lou, Peppi and ABC miss by demonising the PL and justifying everything and anything PN you are actually making a disservice to those that are rational and reinforce the resolve of those who aren’t.
[Daphne – By ABC, do you mean the alphabet? Oh, I get it, you mean Andrew Borg Cardona. I suppose you belong to that class of person who finds it difficult to write more than two names and must perforce turn anyone with three names into an acronym. How lazy.]
[Daphne – Your prejudice blinds you. I do not demonise the Labour Party. I ridicule and mock it, because it deserves ridicule and mockery. Nor do I justify everything and anything the Nationalist Party does – far from it. People like you are unable to see beyond your noses. You think that if I criticise the Labour Party on Monday, then I have to criticise the Nationalist Party on Tuesday. There are a couple of columnists who do that, and guess what? They’re not convincing. Their inherent message is ‘please like me; I’m trying very hard to be balanced.’ The fact is, the Labour Party is total crap. Its leader is rubbish. I am not in the business of hunting for nice things to say about Labour so that people like you can call me ‘balanced’. I have no interest in being thought ‘balanced’. I am not a pair of scales. My interest is in being perceptive and clear-sighted. If I perceive that Joseph Muscat is a waste of space, then I am going to tell you so, in great detail, and explain why he is not fit to run the country. Anything less would be a disservice to my readers. On the other hand, I think the current prime minister is more than fit to run the country. On this I am absolutely clear: faced with a choice between Joseph Muscat and Lawrence Gonzi as prime minister, rational people would choose Gonzi. THAT is the choice. There is no other one, nor is there a butt-out option.]
Lou’s disgustingly one-sided pseudo journalism and your consistent ridicule of PL, ABC’s disparaging reference to elves and what not, is doing no favours to the PN and will actually increase the spitefulness come voting day. Irrational? Maybe but in the end, rationals and irrationals are all losers.
[Daphne – Rational people are never losers, because they can live with themselves. Also, I am more than reconciled to the spite, envy and vindictiveness of Maltese society. Neither of us is going to change that state of affairs. It’s a fact and a given.]
Solution? I would much prefer if you return to the good ol’days when you spurned the PN with your criticism. And if you remove your blinkers just for a moment, my word is there to criticise on! Irrationally, you seem to safeguard this status quo. Why?
[Daphne – Why? Why? Because things are fine and we have so few problems that we have ended up discussing hotel porn. Malta is a comfy bubble and the people who live here without an eye to life elsewhere just don’t get how sheltered and protected they are. That’s why they complain and whine. Even being poor here is a zillion times more comfortable than being poor elsewhere. I’d like to see the groaners living on some sink estate in some grim northern town in England, facing a choice between spending thousands a year on heating their homes or cracking the ice off the inside of their windows, while having to use public transport all the time because they can’t even afford to run one car for the household. The whinging is unbearable. People here are so spoiled and sheltered that when young people – from all social backgrounds – go ‘abroad’ to study or work, many of them come running back in fright at their first experience of what real life is like. When I ‘spurned the PN with my criticism’ as you put it, I had that mentality. I was in my 20s. I had lived a sheltered life. Now I am 45 and have a hell of a lot of life experience and that has made me more realistic.]
‘Malta is a comfy bubble and the people who live here without an eye to life elsewhere just don’t get how sheltered and protected they are. That’s why they complain and whine.’
Daphne, I agree with that statement but this particular insight of yours applies to those who whine on ‘l-gholi tal-hajja’ etc.. There is another type of ‘whiners’. They are those who long for transparency in public administration and meritocracy. I don’t think you have ever criticised this government for lack of transparency, something which was glaringly obvious in the latest powerstation saga. Well, you found it boring, apparently. And, by the way, before you start calling me a Labourite or some Maltatoday reader, I can assure you that I am neither.
Jean, you wrote that Daphne “spurned the PN” with her criticism. Did you mean ‘spurred’ perhaps? Doesn’t make sense otherwise as you don’t spurn someone by criticising them.
@ A Vella
Wow! You spotted the typo. Full marks! I follow your posts here and you’re another one who desperately tries to belittle coherent and fair criticisms on this ailing government of ours. Ah but according to Daphne and you we live in paradise so we can excuse the pathetic incompetencies of this government. I, on the other hand, would prefer if we SPUR this government rather then worry like you do that any sort of criticism towards the PN is an added point in favour of PL. That to me is irrational.
Daphne
within the same post you made a couple of assumptions on me that are so wide off the mark that no wonder you seem to me light years away on how rational people actually view this current government.
No, I don’t expect you to be balanced or criticise PL today and PN tomorrow, but it would undoubtedly have spurred this administration if you bothered to write about the complete debacle of the power station contract negotiations, suspension of EU funds to students and used your investigative prowess on the Gozo Channel mess. Do you honestly believe that there exists a rational person on this island who is not 100% sure you would have acted differently had we been under a PL government?
[Daphne – Guess what? I wrote about the suspension of EU funds. And yes, I would have behaved no differently under a Labour government. The things that bore my readers under a PN government will bore my readers under a Labour government. You and others who think as you do JUST DON’T GET THIS. I am here to do a job, and that job is not called ‘criticising the government and the opposition in a fair and balanced way and writing about each and every issue that happens to come up’. It’s called ‘keeping people amused and entertained and possibly also informed’. The sooner you get to grips with this fact, the better. My ability to do this job is the reason I still have it after 20 years, while numerous others who tried to keep people like you happy while boring the rest have long since fallen by the wayside. For the thousandth time: I am not in politics. I am in entertainment. Power station? Gozo Channel? BORING. EU funds – interesting to my younger readers and their parents.]
You think that if I criticise the Labour Party on Monday, then I have to criticise the Nationalist Party on Tuesday
This really bugs me. Let’s take global warming. Some talking head comes up with the thousandth programme on the issue and for the sake of impartiality s/he will have a ‘balanced’ panel and offer equal airtime to the those discussing the science and those peddling misinformation from moneyed interests.
I get irked, especially considering that for many people, it’s the only information they get. It’s one of the reasons why I prefer a strong state presence in the media. The best journalism comes from the BBC, PBS (US) etc…
Jean, it wasn’t just a typo. There’s a big difference between ‘spurn’ and ‘spur’: it radically changes the meaning of your sentence. A simple typo would be, for example, when I wrote Pabour instead of Labour on the Times website.
As for your posts being “coherent and fair”, I’m sure all Lil’Elves agree.
@ Antoine Vella
Whatever. If say it was a typo I can assure you it was. Besides, I would have thought that with all your boasting of being logical and rational you would have understood that my level of English (of course, not up to your standard) I would know the difference between ‘spur’ and ‘spurn’. Anyway, in pure outdated PN-style you’d rather attack the form than the substance, and if even that fails, you can always call them elves.
A decison not to vote for one of the major parties seems more rational than voting for either the PN or MLP given the choices on offer.
The more rational approach would be a small party with the balance of power to keep the bastards honest. I am not talking about a coalition here – I am talking about a third force sitting on the cross benches.
[Daphne- Faulty reasoning: when a small party holds the balance of power, who and what is going to keep the small party in check? Or are small party honest non-bastards by default? I hardly think so. I suppose you miss the irony that in the Conservative-Liberal coalition government, the first casualty – and within just a few days – was a Liberal, not a Conservative.]
There are more than two choices – I have just given you you a third one – be rational and consider it. If however there is no third force no one is going to convince me that “not voting” or making my vote invalid is not a rational choice.
[Daphne – It’s a free country, but let me just say this: I find it very difficult to respect people who abdicate responsibility – in whatever sphere of life.]
Daphne, the history of your commentary would lead any rational reader to believe that in your head anything other than a vote for the PN is an irrational act. This alone makes your comment above totally irrational.
[Daphne – Those who know me will tell you that I am wholly rational. And not just rational, but also very decisive and with no problem making choices. Yes, as things stand, a vote for anything other than the Nationalist Party is an irrational act. That is the assessment and the decision of somebody who came at the choice from the outside, not from the inside. Many of the idiosyncrasies we now see in our political parties – Owen Bonnici and Adrian Vassallo both Labour MPs, for instance – are the result of people not making rational political choices but going with the family’s political history. Owen Bonnici should be in the Nationalist Party. He isn’t in the Nationalist Party because he comes from a Labour family. Is that rational? No.]
Not voting simply means letting others make the choice for you, but the choice will STILL be made!
I am intrigued, Daphne. Why should Owen Bonnici belong to the PN? I am asking only out of curiosity to understand.
[Daphne – Because he has attitudes and an outlook that would, when a political choice is freely made, manifest itself in support for the Nationalist Party. I remember thinking this when I read a first interview with him some years ago: he’s in the wrong party and he’s going to hit a brick wall of frustration. He described how he grew up in a Labour family and when he developed an interest in politics, Labour was the natural choice. And I remember thinking, ‘But why was it the natural choice? These things are not hereditary and you are clearly at odds with the Labour way of thinking and doing things.’ Had he joined the Nationalist Party, he would have been a rising star.]
[Daphne- Faulty reasoning: when a small party holds the balance of power, who and what is going to keep the small party in check? Or are small party honest non-bastards by default? I hardly think so. I suppose you miss the irony that in the Conservative-Liberal coalition government, the first casualty – and within just a few days – was a Liberal, not a Conservative.]
So what – that is politics it could have gone either way
[Daphne – It’s a free country, but let me just say this: I find it very difficult to respect people who abdicate responsibility – in whatever sphere of life.] A person who determines that what is offer is not accepatbale and therefore deciseds not to vote is far more responsible than someone voting just for the heck of it
[Daphne – Those who know me will tell you that I am wholly rational. And not just rational, but also very decisive and with no problem making choices. Yes, as things stand, a vote for anything other than the Nationalist Party is an irrational act. That is the assessment and the decision of somebody who came at the choice from the outside, not from the inside. Many of the idiosyncrasies we now see in our political parties – Owen Bonnici and Adrian Vassallo both Labour MPs, for instance – are the result of people not making rational political choices but going with the family’s political history. Owen Bonnici should be in the Nationalist Party. He isn’t in the Nationalist Party because he comes from a Labour family. Is that rational? No.]
There have been several cases in Malta where brothers were eleccted politicians from opposing forces – KMB comes to mind. That’s democracy. To use the UK example – Cameron although a spoon fed blue blood is far far to the left of Maggie Thatcher and really a softie at heart. That is not rational; it’s what I call individualism.
[Daphne – Goodness, your reasoning. Blue-blood (he isn’t, anyway) = right-wing/conservative. Working-class = left-wing/socialist. In British political history, mass support for the Conservative Party came from the working-classes, while some of the most prominent pioneers of social reform/socialism/left-wing politics came from the upper middle-class (in the same way that Italian communists in the 1970s tended to be the spoiled progeny of privileged families).]
Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV (great × 5 grandfather) and his mistress Dorothea Jordan (and thus fifth cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II). As an illegitimate royal descendant Cameron is not in the line of succession to the British throne. His father’s maternal grandmother, Stephanie Levita, was a sister of Duff Cooper, 1st. Visct. Norwich, Conservative statesman and author, husband of Lady Diana Cooper (da. of 8th. Duke of Rutland) the actress and society celebrity.[17] His paternal grandmother, Enid Levita, who married 2ndly. a younger son of 1st. Baron Manton,[18] was the niece of Sir Cecil Levita, Chairman of London County Council in 1928. Through the Mantons, Cameron also has kinship with Alexander Fermor-Hesketh, 3rd Baron Hesketh,[19] Conservative Chief Whip in the House of Lords 1991-93 and Treasurer of the Conservative Party from 2003. Cameron’s maternal grandfather was Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet, an army officer and the High Sheriff of Berkshire, and Cameron’s maternal great-grandfather was Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet, Conservative MP for Newbury 1918-1922. CANNOT GET MUCH BLUER THAN THAT DAPHNE – ILLEGITAMTE OR OTHERWISE
“Will the last one out turn off the hotel porn?”
I love that line, Daphne, or anyway it can be paraphrased. Neil Kinnock blamed it for UK Labour’s defeat in 1992, what will it to Joseph’s fortunes, one wonders?
* Sigh…. * Kemm waqa fil-baxx il-Partit Nazzjonalist (ex Demokristjan)…. No values thanks to the former president of the Azzjoni Kattolika, Lawrence Gonzi.
The PN sure have an asset in opinionists such as yourself, Daphne.
[Daphne – Nobody knows that better than the Labour Party, which is why I am Public Enemy No. 1. They wanted me and they got Marisa Micallef – absolutely hysterical.]
AdIRAN Vassallo.
Dr Vassallo allows his emotions to think for him.
Have you heard rumours he does not want to contest the coming elections?
Waqt li d-dinja qed tinbidel bis-sieghat accelerati, Lilliput jitbaqbaq dwar konflitti medjevali.
Naha trid froga moqlija u l-ohra tridha mohlija. Zewg pippistrelli go toqba fil-kantina jitkawzaw b’xulxin fi dwett esponenzjali.
Sadattant, hadulhom il-jedd fuq il-munita, serqulhom il-futur ta’ uliedhom u rabtulhom il-ktajjen ma’ saqajhom. U hekk kif mal-katina jitwahhal ic-cangun, Lilliput jinghaqad haga wahda biex biex fis jitlob ghal cangun iehor.
Allura fil-bini tal-parlament Ewropew hemm il-pay-per-view porn, Kevin?
Kev, ma nafx x’fettillek toqghod tissendikalhom ‘il dawk iz-zewg pippistrelli go toqba fil-kantina. Hallihom ha jitkazaw. Ma hemmx night life alternattiva go Brussels? Jekk le, nissuggerilek lejl go xi hotel – basta jkollha servizz ta’ porn videos, m’ghandniex xi nghidu. Tanto, il-pulizija ta’ Malta mhux ser issibhom Brussels – jew forsi qed nizbalja?
You know, Ciccio, I still cannot understand the focus on hotel porn when internet porn can reach out much farther into the realms of fantasy… As I said not long ago, most people’s usage of the internet covers the area of a matchbox in the Louvre.
As to the pippistrelli, I thought I had regained something, but it was a false quest… You know, I once wrote a speci ta’ poem in Maltese. Just once. It was in April 1996. I think it is very apt for this post. Here it is:
Messagg Patriottiku Lil Kbir-Gensna
Mur sal-Manikata u ifrex tirmek mudlama lejn semghat Maltin indawwlin;
hemm, fejn jittajjar l-ghasfur ferriehi.
Ifflilu minn ma’ sidru c-comb Malti fin, bnin daqs midghi fis-sakra.
Fettah il-faldi ta’ Fomm ir-Rih,
intelaq qalb iz-zkuk u l-palm – u tahseb xejn;
Kun Malti, tahseb xejn…
halli ‘s-skiet ta’ dawk l-irdumijiet ivenven ghana pura Maltija:
“Hawn privat gbin – mela ma rajtx it-tabella!?”
Mur, itlaq, mexxi, farfar. Ara terga tersaq l-hawn.
Tista’ mqarr tmur f’buskett Malti,
li minnhom biss hemm wiehed…
Izda x’ghaxqa! Xi gmiel! X’kobor tal-holqien, meta waqt l-Imnarja tilmah
dawk l-ucuh imghawwgin, imbenglin, fgati minn gewwa fejn l-ebda mohh ma jsaltan; fejn l-ebda mohh m’hu shieh.
Xarrab gerzumtek bit-taghsir bnin Malti, tajjeb ghat-tisjir.
Ilmah il-ferh ta’ madwarek
– dahk imxajtan, ferh ta’ genn sajfi Malti, mdellek, imnitten, marid u mahmug.
Kompli, taqtax qalbek, zur l-gholjiet ma jaqtghu qatt
– hemm fejn l-ebda Malti ma jitniffes;
fejn l-ebda Malti ma jzomm shieh.
Xomm is-saghtar u tinsiex; ikkalma ftit, izd’ibqa’ ftakar:
Int hawn kont gejt imwelled – qalb daw’l-bdiewa gjuf Maltin.
(Silta mil-Qari ta’ Dnubietna tat-Twelid: “Mhux ghax Malti Nfahhrek Jien, Li Kont Franciz Infahhrek Xorta.”)
OK, Kev. I will not insist on hotel porn, which by the way, comes also with the name of “Value added services to one’s stay, in the comfort of his room, without the need to carry a laptop.”
But, does that mean that Daphne’s blog is a distraction between your porn site clicks?
Kev, in addition. Hidden away in Brussels as you are, you may think that the Maltese window on the internet is limited. Not as narrow as you may think.
See what’s on the internet: see the post with the date 30 April 2000.
http://www.imperium-europa.org/comments/guestbook.asp
Surely, the internet is a dangerous place.
Seems like that pojim goes well with such sites.
And I eventually remembered another pojim I wrote in the Maltafly days. This one, dated December 2002 is addressed to a Maltese ‘tellectual. For the famously obtuse, the hint is in the title and the first line of the third stanza:
Fil-Widien ma Jikbrux Fjuri
O Kbir-Malti intellettwali, jien kbirt ftiegħek l-ombra ġbin!
Kont nammira kif iddawwar dan il-Malti aħrax ffin.
Kelma waħda tfawwar foħra, kont nindilek bdak il-kliem;
Li kien jidwi ġewwa darna u jġibilna barka w sliem.
Iżda ż-żmien li l-bajtar sajjar, bmoħħi għamel dak li xtaq;
Bdejt infittex ħafna toroq, iżda flokhom sibt biss sqaq.
Nagħsar bdejt biex niġbed qatra, iżda ż-żokk tal-għerf kien xott;
Dur u dur mal-lewża jdawwar, mingħajr qatt ma tagħni frott.
O li veru kont bħall-friġġ, bl-ilma ġieri fik jiffriża,
Kont inlum lill-poeżija, mejta bħall-għasfur tal-priża.
Iżda l-ilma fik ifawwar, bla ma jifrex fil-widien,
U jekk hawn ma jikbrux fjuri, żgur li ssib lil xi ġurdien.
(Miktuba bil-barka tal-Papa)
Pity the apostrophes are gone – f’tieghek, b’mohhi… imma x’taghmel…
Kevin, poezija denja ta’ patriota Liliputjan.
What’s a ‘patriota’, Baxxter? Does it go with French fries and mayonnaise?
Ma nafx x’inhuma French fries, kev. Jien insejhilhom “chips”. U qatt bil-mayonnaise. Ghax dak parti mill-Yank conspiracy. Izda malt vinegar.
@David Buttigieg: mirabile dictu – I couldn’t express it better
@jellybaby: please do not mention the Church Fathers – you forgot Jerome[http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/jerome.asp] – they are in large measure responsible for the phobia of sex that has pervaded the Church right from the start. They emphasize the conflict between the “spirit” (who has ever seen it or proved its existence?) and the flesh. They talk of lust and “impurity” as if sex is akin to contaminated water. In nature, there is no such thing as pure or impure in sex. It’s all sex, full-stop. Says Augustine of Hippo:
“In the sixteenth year of the age of my flesh…, the madness of raging lust exercised its dominion over me (through sexual desire), and my invisible enemy trod me down and seduced me. In my sexual involvements, I drew my shackles along with me, terrified to have them taken off me. What made me a slave to lust was the bait of satisfying and insatiable momentary urge.”
Slave to lust? It was nature that made man a highly sexual animal. The human female is ready for conception all the year round as opposed to many other mammals. The dichotomy body-spirit was a Greek invention taken up by Christians who used it to turn sex into something filthy. Since, obviously, they could not condemn all sex outright as it would have meant the end of the human race, they grudgingly confined it to marriage which is itself a concept alien to nature.
As to Daphne’s article, in my humble opinion, it would have been better to stick to defending the principle of individual liberty in a democracy (Malta is only relatively democratic as long as Catholic fundamentalism continues to be rammed down our throats – deep or not so deep) rather than using this hilarious faux pas by this Maltese mullah to bring in partisan politics.
I suspect there may be a few on the PN side who do not quite disagree with this fan of Iranian bliss. BTW, I am no apologist for the PL at all. I refuse to jump on any party’s bandwagon. Actually, I am in somewhat of a quandary as I had resolved to back the PL in my disgust at the PN. Let’s see how things develop till the next elections but my choice is still between PL or abstention.
I doubt very much the PN will change in the foreseeable future. We were persuaded to support the PN with the promise of becoming EU citizens and then we see them embarking on a crusade not only against legislating divorce but even against the application of foreign divorce law to foreigners in our local courts.
The other Europeans laugh at us behind our backs or even in our faces. Custer’s last stand in defence of the indissolubility of marriage and the freedom to watch what we want. And what is the best of what is available, Daphne? The PN are no better than this ridiculous pornophobe where it concerns civil liberties.
[Daphne – Let’s get this straight: you plan to vote for a party that has committed itself AGAINST the introduction of divorce because the other party won’t commit itself either way? Common sense should tell you that if one party has committed itself AGAINST divorce, then you have more of a chance with the other. With a private members’ bill and no use of the party whip, Labour has effectively said ‘you’ll get no divorce from us’.]
Isn’t it the government itself that sent the police to poke their noses into what adults want to watch? So where is the difference? I admire your intelligence and verve but you would look much more credible and dispassionate if you made your arguments shorn of partisan politics. Sorry, I say it in all good faith…
[Daphne – This government does not ‘send’ the police anywhere. It respects the separation of powers. That is one reason I voted for it: because I grew up in a country with no separation of powers and in which the police force was the government’s enforcer.]
Hypatia, reducing European Union membership to the divorce issue is most shallow and your claim that the PN does not respect civil liberties is a blatant lie. I suppose you consider Mintoff, KMB, Sant and Muscat as defenders of human and civil rights in Malta
You should realise that people can see through your camouflage: it’s so obvious that you’re a Labour apologist desperately pretending to be ‘balanced’ and rational. If you have to be a Laburista, at least make an effort and be an honest one.
I must begin by saying that I do NOT agree with any of your arguments here, Daphne. And, much as I would like to reply to your article in its entirety, I cannot do so today as you raised too many points I believe I should rebut.
Tonight, I will restrict myself to “freedom of expression”, misused and abused as it is. Tomorrow, perhaps, I will write about the liberating, salvific effect the Catholic Religion has on the human spirit, and why it is such a joy to be a Catholic.
Your mention of freedom of expression took me back some four years into the hollows and dells and the retrieval-systems of memory, and I dug up some ideas on the subject which a Bondi-plus programme had triggered off.
I called it WAYNE IN WAINROPES, BONDI IN A BIND, and it clinched my long-standing conviction regarding the mediocrity which holds sway in this land of semi-literates and non-thinkers. For, if the “intelligentsia” is INcapable of fine distinctions and valid premiss, then just how more-INcapable must the fools and the ignorants be?
And, more importantly, who will the redeemer be who will pull them out of the confusion which clouds their thinking and bogs them down ever-deeper into the quick-sands of intellectual perdition?
Bondi was at his very worst; any perceptive viewer must have sensed the whirligig of butterflies having a field-day within him. He tried the obvious face-saver that is the refuge of talk-show hosts who have no more leg to stand on: He asserted his authority as moderator of the programme, and he accused the Chief Justice Emeritus of an ignorance of history. Labouring as they were in their shackles on the shifting sands of a cock-eyed premiss, I am not surprised that they couldn’t make sense of the Chief Justice’s chink-free and irrefutable logic….. As with mathematics, logic is NOT a matter of opinion!
Just as untenable were the “arguments” of Professor Wayne, almost in pari turpitudinem with his moderator.
Now, neither Bondi nor Wayne were promoting lies and slander or character-assassination. But they seemed to be all for UNbridled freedom, and this is where I disagree with them. Every expression, it has been said, involves a repression; and every repression an expression.
Freedom of expression is not absolute and regardless of what is being said; it must not be allowed to degenerate into licence where character-assassins can pillory and garrotte unconscionably, and expect to get away with it. Laws are needed to regulate it, and offenders must be confronted with their FULL FORCE. No censorship means no law, and no law is anarchy, the jungle where might is right. Freedom of expression must be curbed at the point where it stops being freedom, and degenerates into licence. For example: what is said must be truthful, and there must be sufficient reason to justify saying it.
Freedom is the right to act responsibly within the law, and the moral law is supreme! Offensive diatribe and vituperative invective, distortion of truth and half-truths can never be permitted under the flimsy pretext of freedom.
Let me tell you a little story from my personal cache of memories:
When I still lived in London, many millenniums ago, I was prepared to lay down my life for freedom. The freedom to hock up lungers and loogies and spit them out without any restriction or self-regulation whatsoever.
For this freedom of expression I campaigned vigorously, often vociferously, sometimes vitriolically. But the Prosecutor retorted in his decisively stentorian voice: “ Sure, you have a right to spit; but the right is relative and not absolute. You must make sure you are in the right place at the right time. You must not infringe the sanitation-laws; you must not besmirch or provoke or make stomachs turn and, above all, you must keep a watchful eye on your spittle’s trajectory, lest you slap some innocent bystander squarely in the face.”
Huh?
Joseph A Borg: “You’re confusing me! Which mathematics and logic are you referring to? mathematics and logic are useless outside a very strict remit circumscribed by testable experimentation otherwise the mathematician/logician is simply engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the argument.”
Marcus Flores:( I wrote somewhere elsewhere about criss-cross-soft-spaghetti for wiring, but it was edited out. In view of all the juicy-innuendo running riot on this blog, I cannot, for the life of me, fathom out what offence it could have caused….) Having said that: Yours is INDEED a MOST-enlightening statement which leaves you transparent. Trouble is, apart from its enlightening translucence, it comes over too garbled for me, and beyond my ken. Say it again in English this time, please, Joseph!!!
Joseph A Borg:” And who’s to judge that? shall we re-instate the inquisition? May I remind you that the enlightenment came afterwards…”
Marcus Flores: I seem to have heard this one, before, mate! What you say is the done-to-death, old saw of the relativists.
If you belong to this group, you are a ship without a rudder: footloose; but NOT free, a slave to feeling, whim and fashion, a product of your time. You stampede with the ephemeral in-herd (mentality). You do not even know why you were born, where you are and why, and where you’re going. No true-North for you! I sense the feeling of emptiness and aimless wandering in your existence,Joseph. The easiest way to fall into this trap, dear Joseph (and I am not being flippant when I call you dear) is to distance yourself from the one-and-only source of ABSOLUTE TRUTH which never deceives, although your own senses may do so. However, “Never, never argue with a fallen-away, for he has fallen away not for a reason but for a thing.” And ” A fallacy remains a fallacy even thought it may become a fashion.” Wrong does NOT become right, nor deceit become TRUTH by majority vote. Mentalities come and go and change with every age; but principles are invariable, ever-green, perennial, even as Eternal as God Himself………………. However, if you prefer to drink salt-water, you will……thirst again
marcus, marcus… sigh…
get over yourself! We, all of humanity with its origins, is an infinitesimally insignificant blip to the universe and that’s a fact.
Yet you come here comfortably pontificating about your personal god who created all this for you… so you can avoid looking face to face with your mortality and insignificance. If you have any references for your vague arguments please forward them as I like exploring other ideas.
Anthologists can trace a human lineage of sorts for the last half a million years at best, yet the solar system has been around for the last 4.5 billion years. Mind you the earliest Cro-Magnon remains date to some 35,000 years ago…
When god blew an immortal soul into man, did he do it to homo sapience or previously to homo erectus or later to neanderthals or was the holy breath reserved only for homo sapiens sapiens? Cause it seems like caucasians and asians have some neanderthal blood in them. Does that make us less human than africans? Are they god’s children? I’m asking these questions in jest as these arguments are all futile excursions fruit of a weak mind.
Truth is that the sun earth revolves around (yes, the earth revolves around the sun, I know your ilk was certain the other way round) is one of 100,000,000,000 in the Milky Way galaxy and there are some 10,000,000,000,000 galaxies in the known universe. Your ‘truth’ pales in comparison to the awesomeness science uncovers every day.
I’d suggest you read some Douglas Adams to restore your peace after finding out our insignificance. Maybe you’ll learn to accept we’re nothing special to the universe but we can only be special to ourselves.
H.P. Baxxter says:
FRIDAY, 11 JUNE AT 1630HRS
Huh?
Marcus Flores: huh? HUH!
“As with mathematics, logic is NOT a matter of opinion”
You’re confusing me! Which mathematics and logic are you referring to? mathematics and logic are useless outside a very strict remit circumscribed by testable experimentation otherwise the mathematician/logician is simply engaging in sophistry to obfuscate the argument.
“Offensive diatribe and vituperative invective, distortion of truth and half-truths can never be permitted under the flimsy pretext of freedom”
And who’s to judge that? shall we re-instate the inquisition? May I remind you that the enlightenment came afterwards…
“lungers and loogies…”
it didn’t take you long to go from obfuscated diatribe to bodily functions…
Does Dr. Vassallo remember what type of films used to be shown at Capitol and ABC cinema during the 70s and 80s?
Brillanti! One of the best articles I have read! Jien nghir ghalik ta Daphne. Veru ta. Ghandek pinna tad-deheb, Ingliz impeccabbli, u ma nafx kif jirnexxilek tpoggi l-ideat teghek tant tajjeb. Moreover, you are so funny!
“In that case, I do agree that we have a problem – not a porn problem, but a sad weirdo problem”. How true. U hekk ghandna ta bilhaqq. Nahlu il-hin niddiskutu ha nnehhu il-porn mill-lukandi. Ara veru m’ ghandniex x`naghmlu ta.
Min jaf kemm jidhqu bina il-barranin. It-tfal jaraw il-pornografija jekk jippermettulhom il-genituri BISS. U fuq l-internet ghalhekk qeghdin in-net nannies. Jekk minn naha l-ohra jkunu f’ lukanda mal-genituri, qatt u qatt ma jistghu jaraw xi haga li jridu jhallsu ghaliha, ghax sa fejn naf jien, it-tfal ma jkollhomx credit cards.
U naghmel imhatra li min qed jikteb hawn b’ hafna skrupli huma l-iktar nies li jaraw pornografijja u mhux imbilli jghidu.
Hadd ma johrog bit-tabella fuq darhu “Jien nara il pornografijja”. U jekk hu hekk ta, jien m ghandhi xejn kontrihom, anzi.
Ma nemminx li b’ daqsekk se taffettwa lit-tfal u x’ naf jien. Din sieheb ta jibzghu mid-divorzju ghax “ir ragel ghandhu mnejn jithajjar jitlaqni”. X’ mentalita` stupida.
Fi zmieni hafna mil-irgiel li kellhom l-opportunita jsiefru spiss kont tarahom gejjien lura bil `Playboy` fil-briefcase. Ghax ma kien hawn xejn. U biex tad-dwana ma johodulhomx, igibu tnejn ghallijistajkun ha jtuh wiehed minnhom.
Jien insib li dak iz-zmien iktar kienet eccitanti il-bicca xoghol. Issa tant jaraw li hafna anqas biss jaghtu kaz. Dal plejtu kollu ghal bicca Pay per view, qisna ta wara il muntanji!
Dr Vassallo reminds me of Dr. Scott from RHPS:
Ach, we’ve got to get out of this trap, before this decadence saps our wills.
I’ve got to be strong, and try to hang on. Or else my mind, may well snap!
Und my life will be lived … for the thri-i-i-i-ill …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlmcuB-wm8Y
Dr Vassallo, what a joke! And what a bigger joke to see Dr Joseph (is everyone a doctor?) come out and “distance himself” from Dr V.
The report says;
“Dr.Muscat does not aspire to lead a party that censors people (Dr V)”…..
But he apparently has no problem with aspiring to lead the whole country that is censured by Article 2 (2) of the Constitution!
Since the divorce debate lit up, it’s bringing the Dr Vassallo’s out of the closet (no, not That closet, the religious one). It has also shown the power of Art 2(2) to those who want to divorce.
Maltese citizens thought we’re part of the EU now and we’re secular Europeans. Now they find there’s a Constitutional right for the “Church Authorities to teach what is wrong and what is right” to ALL Maltese…and that means YOU! No exceptions.
It especially means the President, who has reportedly said he won’t sign a law that goes against Catholic teachings, the PM and Dr Joe.
The power of Art 2(2) enables the church to delay divorce, muscle the delay of justice in priestly paedophile cases, and empowers galahs like Dr Vassallo to say what he did.
And it means: Divorce? NO! Cohabitation? NO! Gay rights? NO! Bedroom Privacy? NO!
You want to watch what you want on TV? What cheek! NO! You’re an adult? So? We’re the Church Authorities! We teach YOU.
What? You didn’t know? Suffer it for Lent – Ignorance of the Constitution is no excuse. You’re no Catholic? Stiff! you live here, Malta is Catholicissima, so you do what we say…er..sorry..teach.
I wonder, Daphne, if you would allow this link to my poll in relation to Chapter 1, Article 2(2) of our Constitution.
Any Maltese may vote (once) but I ask non- Maltese to please respect the integrity of the poll by refraining from voting. Any one can look at the results.
Please send the link to all Maltese you know regardless of their beliefs, political or religious leanings or affiliations.
To vote or look at results (very interesting) click:
http://www.fuse.com.au/wpf/Malta-Poll1.html
I brought up this very same fact a little while ago. However the results are somewhat meaningless, as the people who bother to go and vote are most probably biased towards the “Remove it” vote.
I doubt a proper random sample of the Maltese population would answer in the same manner.
Suffice to say that in this country, atheism is looked upon as something profoundly evil, even by those whose behaviour is anything but Catholic.
I tried to vote and check the results but all I got was a message that there is ‘no such poll’. Any chance of an explanation?
“Anyway, something tells me that he’s as backwoods conservative as the rest of them, but he’s going after the liberal-from-Sliema vote and is doing his damnedest to put on an act.”
What makes you think Sliema is more liberal than, say, Bormla? Take my story (li tkisser sewwi) as an example. I guarantee you most Bormlizi just laughed (not exactly the intended reaction but whatever) while many Slimizi felt offended. I know this from personal experience.
[Daphne – This is not a discussion about who is more liberal than who. It is a fact that Muscat is after the liberal-from-Sliema vote. He is not after the Bormla vote because he has that already. As for liberalism in Borma – forget it. Liberal politics and attitudes are not about sex (though it is a common error to think so). Nor does promiscuity or a ‘different’ attitude towards family relationships make for liberalism. What you have in mind is something that is common to the underclass wherever. It has nothing whatsoever to do with liberalism. In fact, you will probably find that the people you are thinking of are among the most conservative in Malta. You will also find that it was the inherent vulgarity and coarseness that offended your Sliema readers, but if you grow up in an environment where coarseness and vulgarity are part of everyday life, then obviously you are not going to find it distasteful. Mine is the liberal approach, for example: I found your story extremely coarse and distasteful, but I know you had the right to get it published, the university newspaper had the right to publish it, and I had the right to reproduce it on this blog, while the university authorities were wrong and ridiculous to pursue the matter and bring in the police, and the police were equally silly in acting. ]
What I meant is that if you look closely you’ll see that there is no such thing as a “liberal from Sliema” vote.
[Daphne – There is. They might not actually live in Sliema or be from Sliema, but this is a social type. For example, I am the quintessential liberal from Sliema, even though I haven’t lived there since I was 26.The ‘Sliema’ category is really quite strange – on the one hand you have heavy participation in prayer groups, with attendant arch-conservatism, and on the other hand, you have true liberal attitudes (again, might I remind you that we’re not talking sex here – I mean liberal in the British political tradition).]
OK, but as the quintessential liberal from Sliema, when push comes to shove, would you EVER vote Labour?
Somehow, I don’t think so.
[Daphne – Em, why would a liberal vote for the right-wing, conservative, xenophobic, traditionalist Malta Labour Party? You’ve lost me there.]
Therefore, where is this liberal vote from Sliema that Muscat is supposed to be aiming for? Frankly I don’t see it.
[Daphne – Obviously not, because you’ve got your blinkers on. It’s the demographic that voted AD in the European Parliament elections of 2004, the very same demographic that abandoned AD for selected Labour candidates (mainly Louis Grech and Edward Scicluna) in the European Parliament elections of 2009, and then told everyone who would listen ‘But I voted for Louis Grech not for the Labour Party!’.]
Why would a liberal vote for the right-wing, conservative, xenophobic, traditionalist Malta Labour Party?
That’s been bugging me for the last 15-odd years.
I am a liberal voter from Sliema but would not vote Labour even if you hanged me upside down over a bed of nails. I don’t know any other liberal voter who would vote Labour. Our votes would alternate between PN/AD or no vote at all.
Great article, prosit – fully agree with the contents too. Is it possible that this guy has nothing better to occupy his little brain with – other than hotel porn?
Semper Fidelis….say it to the marines…
To some commenters, to MOST commenters, really, I’d like to say:
Muddled writing betrays muddled thinking; muddled thinking is the product of a muddled mind!
What’s the point of watching pornography if it doesn’t affect you? Some people can’t come to terms with the fact that pornography is just a form of entertainment.
One can have all sorts of pornography at one’s fingertips but just can’t be bothered because there are more interesting things to do. On the other hand there may come a time when rather than going fishing, reading a “clean” book (incidentally, I find the written stuff far more entertaining than what’s shown on film), watching Xarabank, or going over the stamp collection, one prefers to have some fun watching a bit of pornography and fantasizing about what could be or (more likely) could have been. Good for him. (Women just go for the real thing).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGpBp9JnJs0
Progressive means to be better or more advanced.
Now man is a rational animal. He can use his instincts or else use his reason. A person who acts only on his instincts, as a child does, is not considered to be a mature person.
Pornography is not progressive. It is regressive. It is based on simply exciting and satisfying the sexual instinct. It reduces sex to just pleasure. It runs counter to the dignity of men and women. Pornography has been defined by MacKinnon and Dworkin as “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words” (http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceModelExcerpt.html)
Besides, in political theory, the progressive and liberal ideologies are seperate and distinct ideologies.
David, maybe some commenters are mixing up the terms progressive, moderate and liberal. You cannot blame them, because the PL is conveniently doing so also.
Without going into whether pornography is progressive or regressive (it is progressive for those who make money from it, for instance, regressive for those who pay for it, if you wish), the point is whether the state should interfere with the individual’s right to have access to porn in a private place.
Of course, let us say we are asking the question with reference to a mature individual, since the subject would be different in the case of minors. In this sense, the point is one of liberal philosophy.
However, it can also be a progressive issue if the time has come for an existing legal position to be changed in accordance with currently accepted social or individual values.
I think you’re being “arch-conservative/prayer group” style here.
Pornography is neither progressive nor regressive – it doesn’t make you a better or a worse person. Progressiveness is, and my online dictionary says, “making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods”.
Sex is an instinct – the mind can’t rule this instinct which is why in a few cases, priests don’t manage to honour the celibacy promise. your argument doesn’t hold – no one has push buttons for “Yes Sex” or “No Sex” anywhere on the body – and even if we did have them, most of us would keep the Yes button switched on all the time.
Having sex is just pleasure, making love is something different altogether. All couples who are sexually active can make this distinction. Making sure that the other partner is having a good time during sex is an act of love in itself – as is performing acts that please both partners. The only time sex is degrading and undignified is when one partner is forced to perform acts that he/she doesn’t enjoy.
You are quoting Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Rita Dworkin, both radical feminists, and both of whom had very unsuccessful relationships with men – hence the anger. very balanced arguments indeed. Their views are all over the internet. What you fail to mention is that pornography is not just between men and women – there’s also gay and lesbian pornography. I can hear you say “Jaqq Jaqq” to this now.
MacKinnon and Dworkin just can’t be taken seriously – in any case, they come from a different era and their arguments might have made more sense then than now. Such feminist arguments are bollocks. Bye bye 1950s/1960s, hello 2010.
I totally disagree with Adrian Vassallo’s (and Carm’s) porn issues. but something needs to be put straight here.
To access porn in hotels, you don’t always need a credit card – most of the times you don’t actually. When you go on the porn channel, some give you a 15 second preview, then switch to pay-per-view. Others go to the pay-screen immediately. To confirm the payment, one usually only needs to input the room number using the TV remote, and voila – hump hump.
So I only agree with Adrian and Carm as long as their efforts concentrate on removing the previews from porn channels in hotels – and make it mandatory that porn channels take you to the payment screen immediately. In this way, watching porn will be optional and not “coincidental”.
Some hotels abroad also have a DVD library of porn, where you can actually rent a DVD (paying cash) and watch it on the player. So that the charge doesn’t even show up on the room bill – just in case someone else is paying it for you (the company for instance).
Most DVD libraries in Malta stock XXX films – ta’ taht il counter, jghidulhom.
I visited a 3rd world country (or so they say) this year, and there was a porn shop in a high street, selling DVDs and all types and shapes of sex toys. Makes me wonder min hu 3rd world fil-verita.
Ma nafx, thawwadt issa.
WhoamI, ma thawwad xejn. Ahna il-Maltin ghandna dinja ghalina. Jien ilni li skoprejta. Il-Malti jipprova ikun minn kollox – razzist, karitattiv, nisrani, poggut, korrot, favur il-kacca u kontra il-mohqrija tal-animali, jghid kontra il-qassisin u jigri warajhom,etc…kollox kif jaqbel u jhoss hu.
I think that something’s not regular here. Is this some form of human trafficking?
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=107507
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100611/local/woman-who-thought-she-was-arrested-leaves-court-free
Has anyone seen Joe Zammit’s letter in the TImes today? I’m copying here. Absolutely hilarious stuff.
“A little (or much) of it every day, pornography becomes an addiction, and this happens especially when one starts thinking pornography does no harm. Here I am not referring to children but to adults, to those who think they are free to do what they want in their room.”
“Ironically, they do not even derive any pleasure from it because pornography leaves them literally drained. It drains their energy and bank accounts. As soon as they turn away from the screen, they feel worse. Pornography unconsciously turns them into slaves. It is a very serious problem indeed.”
“Marriages are destroyed as husbands are unfaithful to their wives online. Jobs are lost and careers ended as people use their employer’s computers to view pornography. Addiction to pornography even leads some people to depression and suicide. We have voluntary organisations for people addicted to alcohol and drugs. We also need an organisation for people addicted to pornography.
All of us have a part to play in finding a solution for the problem, especially when a victim is related to us. Our members of Parliament should face pornography boldly and fight it with all their might.”
[Daphne – He’s right, Adrian. The problem is that he doesn’t distinguish between the people he describes (they are a reality) and those who browse occasionally. His description is of destructive addiction.]
Hello, again, my friends, do not fool yourselves: I love and respect you all; I am merely taking issue with your writings………….. No hard feelings. No innuendo. Nothing personal. No one-upmanship!
The Kaiser once said that good manners were essential even in a declaration of war. Please don’t rush to shower your aspersions on my innocent head: I am NOT declaring war on anyone; someone else has got the battle-lines drawn up, my friends: “The dogs of war are loose”…………
Dr. Adrian Vassallo is in the crosshairs………… Ah, stupid ignorant me!, Vassallo was merely its mouthpiece. It’s Moral Living that’s in the crosshairs!!!! Which reminds me of an English King of old, in his castle debriefing a servant. “Someone called to speak to you, Your Majesty”, she told him, “but I do not remember her name. However she must have been a woman of quality judging by the swear-words she used”. History has a habit of repeating itself, sometimes brutally so!
But let’s digress for a brief moment: Let’s reaffirm my faith. I believe all that the Catholic church teaches; I live by ALL her teachings, and there is nothing in her teachings I wouldn’t die for.
Having said as much, and knowing that THE ONE-AND-ONLY TRUE RELIGION might cut no ice with agnostics, atheists, hedonists and fallen-aways (including those whose brain is in the groin, as it were), for whom this handful of fleeting, fugitive years on earth are an end in itself, I will not argue from the Church’s Teaching Authority. Instead, I will expose the intrinsic evil of certain trends and why they are so popular amongst so many.
I can hide it no longer: I admire Dr. Vassallo for his stand; I admire him even more for having the guts to cut across party lines as I understand it. Not common in this day and age of playing to the gallery, immoral political mileage and stoopingly-obsequious political correctness……….
Adrian emerges all-the-more edifying in a world where religion is politics, football, unbridled illicit sex, money, the accolade of our contemporaries, unrestrained hedonism and sensory-satisfaction without counting the costs to self and fellow-humans. The multi-headed new deity holds sway in this exploited and devastated land where people are continuously suckered, and all that is written by anyone goes down the gullet hook, line and sinker. The only prerequisite for success, here, is to ensure that any babble masquerading as fact rationalizes our deviant aberrations of conduct. If you have been led to live without religion, your life is devoid of any meaning: Like saying, “I eat, I drink, I copulate! Bread and stones suffice to nourish me.” Adrian, on the other hand, has the courage of his own convictions; he contradicts the herd; he is NOT after popularity; fearlessly and defiantly, he raises his dignified head high above the hot air and the swill! No reference to human beings, here, merely to their spoutings. The central thrust of his words is “pornography or no pornography”; the Iran issue is minor and very-peripheral to me: A red-herring for his enemies to grapple with, oblivious as they are to the real point he wanted to make.
Lunging at the self-styled “progressisti”, Joey M., mlp would have said “progressivi”, he reminds us that the greatest progressives in history were ALSO the greatest conservatives of what has stood the test of time and come out unscathed: True tradition is nothing but accumulated wisdom, you know. “Just don’t you be a bigot, sunny boy”, the good are told; “just make sure you subscribe bigotedly to present-day schools-of-“thought”!
So why do we take a brave gentleman to task? Because, in truth, we are gutless spineless cowards; because his voice is a reproach to our conscience. Because we want no restrictions on our immoral pursuit of egotistical-pleasure. Now, I am not against righteous amusement and sex per se. But I am against illicit sex out of the context of marriage. Sex is SACRED, and it is for MARRIAGE; it is a far cry from plumbing, you know, as the world and the media would have us believe, as would those politicians ready to pander to degrading societal whims. A word of caution: “Be wedded to this age and you will be a widow in the next!” Register your disagreement, and I will counter; lose no sleep about it………
It will do, in this initial skirmish, to say that sexual intercourse is the most psychosomatic act a human being can engage in, for better of for worse, depending on the context and its nature, licit or illicit.
I admire Dr Adrian, too, for his prescience and his farsightedness, for his awareness that certain things are the thin edge of the wedge, and will grow exponentially if not nipped in the bud or made to wither on the vine. I pity the inanity of the Joseph Muscats, the Alfred Sants; they pale into insignificance, shipwrecked, as it were, on the rocks of parity. Even their former mentor, the formidable Dom Mintoff, spouted many a stupidity upon his return from China. And I also pity the Nationalists for all manner of different reasons
Lord Denning once wrote a book “Freedom under the law”. I recommend it to those readers who have grown out of their schoolboy’s English, and who prefer to tax their brains with something worthwhile rather than fritter their time away on escapist “literature”. What lifestyle and “beliefs” can you expect from anyone brought up on a diet of “Cosmopolitan” and similar magazines? “Gasp, then try it out on your partner………….” No wonder we are where we are, today!
Accept it or reject it, like it or lump it, the fact of the matter is that Human Sexuality is God’s gift to married couples when it is engaged in for loving, total self-giving; not for mere sexual-release or the enjoyment of “one’s animal function through the other’s animal function”. This reduces sex to the bestial, to the exploitative, and denudes it of it’s God-given beauty and spirituality in marriage. But it takes HUMILITY ( + or – intelligence) to understand this. Nothing is more harmful to sex than to reduce it to a sport……. The late Barbara Castle used to tell flirtatious male Parliamentarians in the House of Commons that she had more than just two legs: her human-dignity.
Other dangers lurk: Unmarried couples who practice premarital sex without compunction run the risk of being overwhelmed by the feel-good factor sex can temporarily engender, and close their eyes to the other’s very serious faults. Moreover, it denies them the training and discipline of the will that will counter life’s inevitable temptations even after the knot is tied.
The point of departure of any sound argument must NEVER be a feeling that something is right or wrong, because feeling is a vague and deceptive way of thinking. It may also be dangerously self-serving. What is needed is a thorough understanding of what constitutes human dignity. Human dignity is a direct consequence of our having been created by God in His own Image and Likeness with an Eternal destiny beyond the grave…………
And, by the way, masturbation , by whatever name, ancient or modern, scientific or vulgar, as well as any other illicit manner of sex, for that matter, still blinds, albeit not physically. I have been accused of obfuscation by people who are obfuscation-personified; but there is nothing more pathetic, and more blinding, more obfuscating, if you will, more detrimental to objective thought and objective truth than illicit-sex. It clouds the understanding, makes us impervious to reason and a clinically-detached view of things. It destroys the spirit! If the cap fits anyone…… may they wear it.
Lock horns with me if you wish; I have many more bullets in the breach. I am ready to use them in the service of TRUTH……
Marcus Flores
[email protected]
I have one simple test to see whether anyone’s position is rational or not.
“Is there anything in the world that would change your opinion?”
I leave it up to you to figure out the implications of the answer.
That was a long one Marcus … and very well written I must admit. However I have some issues with your comment.
“I admire Dr. Vassallo for his stand; I admire him even more for having the guts to cut across party lines as I understand it.”
You liked the first part of his statement: no to pornography. Many of us took issue with his other part: Iran. A theocracy that metes capital punishment to rapists, raped, homosexuals, masturbators or whoever irks the morality police. Such a statement from a politician who should be shaping and improving local democracy is very alarming.
Either he knows what Iran represents to the average European and he intentionally made the comparison or he is ignorant of what’s happening there, which reduces his credibility as an MP.
“I believe all that the Catholic church teaches; I live by ALL her teachings, and there is nothing in her teachings I wouldn’t die for”
I hope at least you are not ready to kill for it… as many have done in the past. I hope you realise that statement colours you fanatic. How can I discuss issues with you if leave your powers of criticism at the door when discussing the catholic church?
“Moreover, it denies them the training and discipline of the will that will counter life’s inevitable temptations even after the knot is tied”
But that goes with everything Marcus. We can say the same thing about food, study etc… Why aren’t does so actively pursued by the church? I’m not seeing the church turn cheap sweets into sin and actively lobbying governments to end its distribution. How come the church is actively imposing itself on 3rd world countries to block the distribution of contraceptives to combat aids and child poverty?
I agree with you that temperance is a virtue we all must strive for, that its benefits are demonstrable. There’s an interesting long term study on children who managed to control their urge to surreptitiously eat a marshmallow and their eventual success in life. I cannot understand the church’s obsession with sex… you want me to believe that god created the universe 14billion odd years ago, then created man some 500,000 years ago with the sole intention of regulating his personal sex life? Can you see how unreasonable your belief is?
Your namesake was a stoic who strove all his life to control his basic urges and found the rising church to be dangerous in its magical ideas. He found it a corruptor of otherwise reasonable men of great intelligence who preferred to believe in things than to reason.
Can we agree at least that forcing the state to control morality has failed since forever? That enforcing moral codes by threat of punishment is counter productive? The lax morality you are seeing nowadays has always been here even in the golden past of your memories.
Look not back, brave Marcus, lest ye be turned into a pillar of salt.
Harry Purdie says:
MONDAY, 14 JUNE AT 1903HRS
Look not back, brave Marcus, lest ye be turned into a pillar of salt.
REPLY:
Marcus Flores: Your sense of humour tickles me pink………
Like most commentors, you are high on form; but low on content. I wouldn’t dare scratch your belly for all the gold at Fort Knox, you know. I am also worried about the state of your health. I’ve only got me; yet you call me “ye”. Something wants tinkering with, my friend!
The Italians have a good expression for the naive, and the artless: Son dolce di sale, they say! In keeping with my convictions that true love is measured by sacrifice and complete self-abnegation, and in deference to this nation, I would willingly let myself be turned into salt.
sorry for the typo; my email is NOT .
it IS
@Antoine Vella: sorry, wrong on both counts. Why should I pretend anything? Camouflage? Why should I be dishonest when I know that many posters on this blog are diehard PN and nobody, least of all I, have any chance of turning them round? Arguing ad hominem, as you do, is a sure indication that those who use the language you use have run out of arguments on this issue.
And did I mention Mintoff, KMB, Sant and Muscat? This is a clear non-sequitur but then rational thought is not the best badge of die-hard apologists, is it? I look only to the future because I know the present already. The history of the PL does not interest me in the least. I did not reduce the EU issue to divorce. But many like me expected that we would be European in everything, including divorce. Don’t you remember when we used to say you cannot be European a’ la carte (as with Sant’s partnership proposal)? To me, denying the right to divorce, accepted universally, is being European a’ la carte because this is an important civil right ardently defended in all European countries. We are the laughing stock of Europe now with our quixotic crusades against divorce and now adult viewing. Indeed, the English Catholic Church separated from Rome on the matter of divorce, initially. Perhaps you could be kind enough to give me one single reason, other than religion, why we should not have divorce. Why this government will not even think of legislating divorce is obvious and, as it is obvious, I will not bother to mention it here.
I take exception to your calling me a liar. I do not write to hurl insults at you or anybody else. I have no brief to be an apologist for any party, as you seem to do. I suggest you learn good manners and refrain from being offensive – offending people because of their views will not earn a single vote for the party in favour of which you militate so aggressively. i would invite you to be more temperate in your choice of vocabulary. But, on the other hand, you may be right – your kind offended so many people in the past and yet the PN got re-elected, even if it was by the skin of its teeth. Maybe they are destined to remain in power for ever. Woe to this country if that is the case. Perhaps when PN supporters find themselves with their backs to the wall on the divorce issue, they will resort to offensive epithets. If you think those who do not agree with your party should not post here, say so and I’ll post elsewhere. There are plenty of blogs on the web and not all of them are pro-PN.
@DCG: so now promising a free vote is worse than totally excluding the possibility of a bill on divorce? Pardon my plebeian, low brow, intellectual powers but I fail to see the logic. Seems like pure conjecture to me. Now, suppose this bill is introduced and the PL gives free vote to its MPs and the PN does likewise, just to be more democratic than enforcing a vote against. Would that be a good chance to pass the bill into law? I know you’re in favour of divorce and I can understand that the categorical refusal by the PN to ever introduce a divorce bill makes it hard for you to defend that stance, try as you may. Just keep battling on. If I’m not welcome here, as is obvious by the use of offensive appellations by some posters, just tell me so and I’ll call it quits.
[Daphne – Hypatia, let’s talk this through calmly and assess the options. On the matter of divorce, the Nationalist Party has left its options open, and the indications are that it has done this not for reasons of morality or religiosity, but while it sniffs the wind. There has been no commitment for and more importantly, no commitment against. This is not a matter of ideology, but a matter of timing. That party has a track record of waiting until the electoral ‘pulse’ is enough to get a vote through. The only time this couldn’t be done was with VAT. The legislation had to go through come what may, and Labour won the 1996 general election when it promised to get rid of VAT. The Labour Party, on the other hand, has a commitment AGAINST divorce. Yes, read that again. It has said categorically that divorce legislation will NOT feature in its 2013 electoral programme. One Labour MP, Joseph Muscat, has said that when Labour is in government, he will bring a private member’s bill on divorce before the house. Because he also happens to be party leader, the uninformed, the gullible and the hopeful have taken that to be a party position on divorce. It isn’t. It is the position and the initiative of a single MP. The Labour Party position on divorce is ‘no divorce legislation’. For Labour to have a commitment for divorce, this would mean a commitment in the electoral programme for 2013. A major issue of this nature has to be in the electoral programme, because people have to know what they are voting for. Muscat has continued to mislead the uninformed, the gullible and the hopeful by saying that he will ‘allow’ a free vote on his private member’s bill. The reality is that the vote on a private member’s bill is always free. It has to be, because it is a private bill and so the party whip cannot be brought to bear. This of course begs the question as to why Muscat doesn’t bring his private member’s bill before the house within the next three years. You don’t have to be the prime minister to do it (in fact, you shouldn’t do it as prime minister, because prime ministers legislate and don’t faff around with private bills). You just have to be any old ordinary MP. The reason is that he wishes to continue to mislead the uninformed, the gullible and the hopeful – who, because they are unable or unwilling to think the matter through, haven’t challenged him.]
Hypatia, your self-righeousness shows you up as one of those people who dish it out but cannot take it – “oooh, I feel so insulted by all these appellations.”
This blog is read by tens of thousands of people – and they are not all PN “die-hards.” It is for this readership you write.
You claim that when we joined the EU, you expected divorce to be automatically introduced. This is not true: you cannot possibly have held such a belief because the PN had made it very very clear that there was absolutely no connection between membership and divorce. It was stated and repeated ad nausem that divorce would only be introduced if the Maltese wanted it. Whole radio and television programmes were dedicated to the issue, so do not play the ‘betrayed europhile’ script.
Let me repeat the other accusation of my previous post: it is a lie to say that the PN does not respect civil liberties.
btw Daphne, sorry, I forgot to point it out. Your argument about the separation of powers is not applicable here. Both the police and government ministers are members of the executive. Had a minister purported to give instructions to the judiciary, you would have been right.
The battle continues. See link below.
I think it has the potential to fill some more posts on this blog, besides filling some TVM prime time on at least one Bondi+ and one Xarabank special editions.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100613/local/pl-can-kick-me-out-mp
Dr Adrian Vassallo was on Favourite Channel yesterday evening: a one-on-one interview. I could not linger as this was during a commercial break during the Italy – Paraguay game.
I am just amazed at how much commotion can be raised by something said by a person. The worst thing about it is the fact that Dr. Vassallo never said he prefers living in Iran or that he wants to ban pornography.
So who came up with this stuff?
The media, of course. Journalists trying to raise commotion by simply re-wording phrases to please their dumb struck audience. Regarding the Iran issue for example. One can note that no quotes where added to the sentence claiming he would rather live in Iran. Hence he didn’t say it!
I can safely assume that journalists would have quoted such a controversial phrase. Regarding the pornography it was a simple PQ and everyone seemed to blow it out of proportion.
Now I wonder if any of you gullible hate preachers bothered to even watch the TV show today where a 1 on 1 interview with Dr Vassallo was held on live TV? If not, please do find a way to check it out as all of your queries and pointless arguments have just been clarified. Basically the Dr wins!
Not going to bother writing down what he said in person because that will only make my point even more valid than it all ready is.
Just wondering though how many of you actually know the man? Because everyone seems to be happy in writing stuff against people when they don’t even have the faintest idea how he looks like let alone understand his views about the matter.
On a lighter note – check out the video on the home page entitled ” Badass Soldier” – it’s absolutely hilarious! No wonder we are never gonna win the Eurovision.
Goerge Lucas says:
TUESDAY, 15 JUNE AT 0226HRS: No wonder we are never gonna win the Eurovision.
Reply:
Marcus Flores: Put it down to wartime-commotion while our singers’ parents were still gestating, or bad cheese in the singers’ childhood, Georgie!
you said: “The worst thing about it is the fact that Dr. Vassallo never said he prefers living in Iran or that he wants to ban pornography… So who came up with this stuff?…The media, of course”
Quoting the times quoting the horse: “He stressed that his Iran comment should not be taken to mean that he agreed with certain Iranian policies such as the hanging of gay people.”
The link for your leisured consumption:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100613/local/pl-can-kick-me-out-mp
I didn’t encounter any repudiation of his the original report in the article.
Daphne, I think Adrian’s stance about porn in hotel rooms is basically to convey the message to the rest of the world that
MALTA STILL HOLDS TRUE TO GOOD MORALS, if the guests then use their lap top – that’s their choice – but the message relayed and I agree with this is – THAT WE MALTESE STILL HOLD OUR VALUES ABOVE ALL ELSE.
[Daphne – Fine, they’re given that message because no porn videos are available, so they switch to cable TV and find hardcore porn there, something our heroes appear not to have noticed. Yes, there are hardcore porn broadcasts on cable TV.]
True that these are slowly dying and with it we are adopting other nations’ way of life, but I beg to ask which other countries who have let the sewers of immorality into their homes can boast of having happy and contented people?
[Daphne – Come on. We have little or no porn and we can’t exactly boast of having happy and contented people, but rather the opposite. It’s a sea of broken marriages and drug-addicted kids out there, with the rest complaining about poverty.]
If only we as a nation can understand that the ways of the world.. even as confirmed by Jesus himself when he claimed that his kingdom was far away and that the Prince of Earth was Satan, if we can again become a people who base our lives on true values, the whole discussion of divorce etc would be insignificant.
But unfortunately the evil that lives in the world is stronger than the good, and slowly but surely .. Have a simlpe glance at Facebook comments by the average Maltese.. you only see abuse, bad language etc etc. Now go onto similar wall of people for example from Nigeria.. and you will see that those people are far closer to real values and the western world, which has been taken over by materialism and consumerism.
[Daphne – You know what? I think religion – or rather the approach to it – actually IS the problem here. But we won’t got into that because I’m wiped out and fitting in these comment-uploads after an already late night. The reason for those Facebook stupidities is not lack of religion but lack of manners and commonsense, to say nothing of lack of IQ.]
Could not agree more Daphne. I really think religion is the biggest problem in society. You don’t have to be religious to have good moral values or be a good person. Most religious beliefs have immorality to them. To be quite honest, I think religion is the most brainwashing thing accepted in today’s society and people need to be able to think for themself.