It-Torċa: Ħaddiema LGBT

http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=8706

22.11.9; minn Geitu Mercieca, Deputat Segretarju Ġenerali, GWU

Wiehed mill-ogħla prinċipji fundamentali huwa li kull persuna titwieled ħielsa bl-istess drittijiet u dinjità. Dan il-prinċipju universali intrinsikament ifisser li ħadd m’għandu jsofri diskriminazzjoni, la fis-soċjetà u wisq anqas fuq il-post tax-xogħol, minħabba razza, twemmin, sess jew orjentazzjoni sesswali.

Fuq dan it-twemmin ukoll hija msejsa d-difiża trejdunjonistika għad-drittijiet tal-bniedem fuq livell ġenerali u d-drittijiet tal-ħaddiem fuq il-post tax-xogħol fil-livell partikolari.

Għalhekk minn dan il-prinċipji joħroġ l-impenn tat-trade unions biex il-postijiet tax-xogħol, fejn ikun hemm rikonoxximent industrijali, dawn ikunu ħielsa minn kull forma ta’ diskriminazzjoni u jkun hemm l-ugwaljanza fir-rispett għad-dinjità umana irrispettivament mill-orjentazzjonijiet sesswali, kultura, razza, sess jew twemmin.

Il-GWU qatt ma qagħdet lura milli tiddiskuti b’mod miftuħ issues soċjali li jaħarqu. Il-GWU qatt ma beżgħet tindirizzahom l-aktar meta dawn ikun hemm min jipprova jew ma jagħtihomx l-importanza meħtieġa, inkella jaħbihom qishom ma jeżitux. Hekk għamlet il-GWU meta biss ftit tax-xhur ilu ħadmet u ħarġet policy paper fuq l-immigranti irregolari.

Dak inhar, u sa ċertu punt anki llum, ħafna huma dawk il-Maltin li qiegħdin juru l-għadab għal dawn il-persuni, għax aktar jinteressahom li juru li dawn l-immigranti irregolari qiegħdin jieħdu x-xogħol tal-Maltin, milli fil-verità joħroġ ir-razziżmu, il-mibegħda u sa ċertu punt l-isfruttament li qed issaltan ġo dawn il-Maltin.

Bħala GWU mill-ewwel għa-rafna li kienet responsabbiltà tagħna li nfehmu li dawn l-immigranti irregolari għandhom drittijiet, u għandhom ikunu rispettati bħal kull uman ieħor jiġi minn liema pajjiż jiġi. Kieku ma konniex kuraġġużi konna nkunu qiegħdin ninkoraġġixxu biex tinħoloq klassi oħra li tkun mistmerra.

U fuq hekk l-aktar li ridna nibnu, ċioè fuq li ma nħallux min jabbuża minn dawn il-persuni meta jħaddmuhom, ma nħallux lil min jiddiskrimina magħhom minħabba l-kulur tal-ġilda tagħhom, kif ukoll biex min iħaddem ma jużahomx għall-interessi tagħhom, biex jagħmel profitti minn ħidmiethom billi jħaddimhom f’kundizzjonijiet prekarji.

Policy paper oħra importanti li wkoll ħdimna għaliha fil-Kungress Nazzjonali f’Ottubru li għadda kienet tinvolvi d-dinja tax-xogħol għall-persuni Leżbjani, Gay, Bisesswali u Transgender (LGBT). Din il-policy paper poġġiet ukoll sfida għall-GWU, għax għalina ma kinitx faċli li nsawru politika bl-iswed fuq l-abjad fuq suġġett daqstant delikat, u li kważi saħansitra għadu kkonsidrat bħala stigma fis-soċjetà tagħna.

Il-GWU fasslet din il-policy paper wara li ġabret informazzjoni utli mingħand persuni LGBT biex b’hekk kienet f’pożizzjoni li tagħti ħjiel tas-sitwazzjoni ta’ dawn il-ħaddiema f’pajjiżna u barra minn xtutna. Barra minn hekk, il-GWU analizzat x’pożizzjoni għandha l-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tax-Xoghol (ILO) u x’pożizzjoni ħadet s’issa l-Konfederazzjoni Ewropea tat-Trade Unions (ETUC), li tagħha l-GWU hija affiljata, fuq din l-issue.

Ħafna trade unions f’bosta pajjiżi f’dawn l-aħħar snin għamlu fost il-prijoritajiet prinċipali tagħhom il-ġlieda kontra d-diskriminazzjoni fuq bażi ta’ orjentazzjoni sesswali. Infatti sar progress qawwi f’dan ir-rigward f’bosta mill-pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea fosthom bl-introduzzjoni ta’ leġiżlazzjoni kontra kull forma ta’ diskriminazzjoni li espliċitament tinkludi wkoll lil persuni ta’ kwalunkwe orjentazzjoni sesswali.

Saru wkoll liġijiet li llegalizzaw iż-żwieġ jew partnership bejn żewġ persuni tal-istess sess, bl-istess drittijiet u rikonoxximent ta’ żwieġ normali kif ukoll l-aċċettazzjoni ta’ dawn il-persuni f’pożizzjonijiet ta’ tmexxija, fosthom fil-politika, bħala senior management u fit-tmexxejja ta’ trade unions.

F’pajjiżna, bħal f’kull pajjiż ieħor, minkejja li bdejna nirrikonoxxu u nifhmu l-ħtieġa ta’ miżuri li jikkumbattu d-diżugwaljanzi, sa anki liġijiet għandna li jipprojbixxu d-diskriminazzjoni f’kull forma tagħha, madankollu d-diskriminazzjoni għadha prevalenti, anke jekk b’mod sottili, f’diversi oqsma.

Fil-fatt persuni b’orjentazzjoni sesswali għadhom mhux biss ikunu diskriminati iżda anke żżuffjettati u abbużati verbalment u fiżikament fuq il-postijiet tax-xogħol u anke fil-ħajja soċjali tagħhom.

F’laqgħa li bħala Union sejjaħna għall-ewwel working group għall-ħaddiema LGBT, ħareg ċar kemm għad hawn persuni li jippreferu jibqgħu jaħbu l-orjentazzjoni sesswali tagħhom milli joħorġu fil-beraħ u juru l-inklinazzjoni vera tagħhom minħabba li jemmnu li l-poplu, anke l-familji tagħhom stess, għadhom mhux lesti li jaċċettawhom kif inhuma.

Il-policy paper tal-GWU fuq persuni LGBTs intlaqgħet b’sodisfazzjon minn għadd ta’ organizzazzjonijiet, anke internazzjonali, kif ukoll ingħatat pubbliċità għax hija l-ewwel policy paper minn trade union Maltija tax-xorta tagħha.

Tant il-policy paper intlaqgħet tajjeb anke barra minn Malta li l-GWU kienet mistiedna mill-Ministeru tal-Iżvezja biex rappreżentant tal-GWU jagħmel preżentazzjoni fuqha bħala best-practice, xi ħaġa li tikkonferma kemm veru l-GWU dejjem tkun fuq quddiem biex tiġġieled l-istigmi u ‘tabelli oddjużi’ li għadhom jeżistu f’pajjiżna.

Il-GWU dejjem ħadmet u se tibqa’ taħdem biex dawn il-‘ħitan’ jitkissru fl-interess tal-persuni milquta. Il-GWU se tkompli taħdem favur LGBT u mal-working group is-sena d-dieħla ttella’ konferenza nazzjonali biex flimkien ma’ nies esperti kif ukoll ma’ membri parlamentari miż-żewġ naħat tal-kamra tidentifika diffikultajiet li jiltaqgħu magħhom il-ħaddiema LGBTs.

Il-GWU beħsiebha taħdem ukoll biex tqajjem diskussjoni nazzjonali fuq x’għandu jsir f’pajjiżna b’mod konkret u mingħajr dewmien biex dawn il-problemi jkunu identifikati u indirizzati. Il-GWU temmen f’dak li tgħid u bil-mezzi tagħha se tgħin biex id-dinjità ta’ dawn il-persuni tkun imħarsa.

---

Ara wkoll:

It-Torċa: Ix-xogħol: waħda mill-problemi kbar li jiltaqgħu magħha persuni LGTB

Times: AD says Imam should apologise

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091123/local/ad-says-imam-should-apologise

Monday, 23rd November 2009

Alternattiva Demokratika Żgħażagħ has expressed its disapproval of Imam Mohamed El Sadi's views on his "explicit" homophobia and his justifying physical violence on people who commit a criminal offence.

ADŻ spokesman Dirk Urpani said: "While we are all out for freedom of speech, it is highly irresponsible for a religious leader to promote anti-social policies."
Though he was referring to non-European countries, certain rights were universal and acts such as cutting off hands of people convicted of theft should be condemned by anyone living in a democratic country, he added.

Mr El Sadi's homophobic references were equally disgusting and he should apologise to the gay community, especially for ridiculing same-sex marriages or unions by comparing them to "marrying a cat or a dog", AD said.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]

It-Torċa: Ix-xogħol: waħda mill-problemi kbar li jiltaqgħu magħha persuni LGTB

http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=8723

22.11.9

“Persuni lesbjani, irġiel gay, bisesswali u persuni trans-gender (LTGB) qiegħdin jaffaċjaw problemi kbar fis-soċjetà, anki f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam ma’ xogħol. Meta tmur tfittex ix-xogħol, jgħidulek; jien ma inħaddimx nies bħalek, mingħajr ma jkunu jafu min int jew x’taf”

Hekk sostniet Brenda Scerri, persuna transgender meta kienet ikkuntatjata mit-TORĊA, fejn esprimiet il-ħsi-bijiet tagħha dwar il-problemi li qed jaffaċjaw persuni LGTB fis-soċjetà Maltija u dan anke, fid-dawl tal-policy paper im-fassla mill-General Workers Union (GWU) li tiddiskuti d-drittijiet ta’ dawn il-persuni fuq il-post tax-xogħol. Din il-policy paper kienet approvata mill-Kungress Nazzjonali tal-GWU li sar fil-5 ta’ Ottubru li għadda.

Brenda Screrri sostniet li, dawk li jħaddmu hemm bżonn li jkunu konxji li persuna trans-gender fuq il-post tax-xogħol “tgħaddi minn martirju sħiħ bħal bullying, tkasbir u iżola-ment”. Filwaqt li qalet li hi qatt ma għaddiet minn esperjenzi koroħ bħal dawn, kellha titlaq minn postijiet tax-xogħol min-ħabba ċirkostanzi simili min-kejja li kellha xogħol għal qalbha.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan kollu, Brenda tgħid li l-leġislaturi li kienu favur biex Malta issir membru tal-Unjoni Ewropea “sal-lum għadhom ma għad-dewx liġi waħda favur tagħna! Tal-mistħija jien ċittadina Ewropea u inħallas it-taxxi bħal ħaddieħor … fejn huma d-drittjiet tiegħi?” staqsiet Brenda. Apparti minn hekk, Brenda tgħid ukoll li mhux talli ma tħossx li hemm xi qafas legali li jipproteġiha bħala ċittadina Ewropea, iżda lanqas għandha identità.

Qalet li kien biss bis-saħħa tal-Partit Laburista u tal-GWU, li fl-aħħar xi ħadd irealizza li LGTB ma jridu xejn iktar minn ħaddieħor, għajr li jgħixu ħajja diċenti, jkollhom xogħol u jgawdu l-familja bħal kulħadd.

Fid-dawl ta’ dan f’Summit li iddiskutat l-Ugwaljanza fil-Konferenza Presidenzjali dwar id-diskriminazzjoni, kienet imfaħħra l-inizjattiva tal-GWU biex tiġi miġġielda d-diskri-minazzjoni fil-konfront ta’ persuni LGTB. Intqal li per-mezz ta’ policy paper li l-GWU ippublikat, qiegħda tagħmel użu mill-pożizzjoni tagħha bħala l-akbar Union tal-pajjiż, biex teduka lill-membri tagħha u iżżid il-kuxjenza dwar dan is-suġġett fost il-oplu.

Intant, it-TORĊA ħadet il-kummenti wkoll ta’ Carmen Caruana, li hija persuna gay, fejn qalet li l-problema l-kbira ta’ persuni LGTB hija l-biża’. Sostniet li ħafna minn dawn in-nies, jibżew jiftħu qalbhom ma’ sħabhom tax-xogħol fuq l-orjentazzjoni esswali tagħhom għax inkella joqogħdu jgħad-duhom biż-żmien. “Din hija sitwazzjoni skomda ħafna u twassal biex ċerti nies jitilqu mix-xogħol jew f’każijiet aktar estremi jispiċċaw bi problemi psikoloġiċi u nuqqas ta’ fiduċja fihom infushom”.

Qalet li l-problemi jibdew waqt l-interview “għax normalment l-avventura tax-xogħol tagħhom tieqaf hemm. Apparti minn hekk, ħafna minn nies jagħlqulhom il-bieb f’wiċċhom u jgħidulhom li nies bħalhom ma jimpjegawhomx. Din hija sitwazzjoni gravi ħafna għax dawn in-nies jispiċċaw jagħmlu affarijiet li ma jkununx iridu biex jgħixu”.

Fil-fehma tagħha, Carmen tgħid li f’Malta għadna lura ħafna f’kull qasam speċjalment fejn jidħol ix-xogħol. Irrimar-kat li l-unika liġi li hawn f’Mal-ta li tiproteġi lil nies LGTB hija dik ta’ fuq il-post tax-xogħol, “però liġi miktuba mhix kollox u ftit nies jafu biha”. Żiedet tgħid li l-unika Union li bdiet titkellem dwar dawn il-proble-mi hija l-GWU li dejjem uriet interess biex tissalvagwarjda l-interessi tal-ħaddiema kollha.

Sostniet li l-policy paper li ppublikat il-GWU huwa pass importanti għal nies LGTB għax b’hekk “ikunu nafu dwar kif dawn l-istituzzjonijiet qed jiddefendunha u qed jagħtu każ l-problemi tagħhom”. Qalet li l-Partit Laburista wkoll ħa inizjattiva simili meta waq-qaf fi ħdanu l-LGTB Labour.

Guardian: Brussels says churches must lift ban on employing homosexuals

EU decides British government was wrong to allow exemptions under equality law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/churches-lift-ban-homosexual-staff

Jamie Doward, The Observer, Sunday 22 November 2009

The government is being forced by the European commission to rip up controversial exemptions that allow church bodies to refuse to employ homosexual staff.

It has emerged that the commission wrote to the government last week raising concerns that the UK had incorrectly implemented an EU directive prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation.

The ruling follows a complaint from the National Secular Society, which argued that the opt-outs went further than was permitted under the directive and had created "illegal discrimination against homosexuals".

The commission agreed. A "reasoned opinion" by its lawyers informs the government that its "exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive".

The highly unusual move means that the government now has no choice but to redraft anti-discrimination laws, which is likely to prompt a furore among church groups.

In anticipation of a possible backlash from the commission, the government has already inserted new clauses into its equality bill. But even if the bill is jettisoned, future governments will be bound by the commission's ruling.

Under the new proposals being drafted by the government, religious organisations will be able to refuse to employ homosexuals only if their job involves actively promoting or practising a religion. A blanket refusal to employ any homosexuals would no longer be possible.

"This ruling is a significant victory for gay equality and a serious setback for religious employers who have been granted exemptions from anti-discrimination law," said human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell. "It is a big embarrassment for the British government, which has consistently sought to appease religious homophobes by granting them opt-outs from key equality laws. The European commission has ruled these opt-outs are excessive."

The employment directive outlawing discrimination in the workplace was finalised by the European commission in 2000 and became law in the UK in early 2003, following a public consultation exercise. At the time there were accusations that the government had "caved in" to religious groups that mounted a fierce lobbying campaign to be exempted from the new laws.

Under the terms of the exemption, religious groups were allowed to refuse a position to a homosexual employee "so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".

"In other words, if a significant number of followers of an organised religion didn't like it, there was no protection for a gay employee," said Keith Porteous-Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society. "Now the government must demonstrate its commitment to equality, rather than continuing to jump to the church's tune."

The EU's equal opportunities commissioner, Vladimir Špidla, said: "We call on the UK government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules."

But religious groups expressed alarm at the move. The Christian charity, Care, said: "If evangelical churches cannot be sure that they can employ practising evangelicals with respect to sexual ethics, how will they be able to continue?"

Independent: AD lashes out at Imam

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=97635

22.11.9

Alternattiva Demokratika and Alternattiva Demokratika Youth (ADZ) expressed their disapproval of Imam El Sadi views condoning the chopping off hands of thieves and his explicit homophobia.

AD believed his talk during a programme on the national station, was “shocking”, especially when El Sadi usually comes out as a moderate and well-meaning cleric.

“AD respects the right for everyone to practise their religion, but we can never accept statements, which apart from being contrary to Maltese legislation, promote hatred, violence and lack of respect for the dignity of the human person,” said AD spokesperson on Civil Rights, Yvonne Arqueros Ebejer.

“Certain rights are universal,” ADZ said in reaction to the Imam’s views.

“While we are all out for freedom of speech, it is highly irresponsible for a religious leader to promote anti-social policies,” said Dirk Urpani, ADZ spokesperson said in a separate statement.

Though he was referring to non-European countries, certain rights are universal and the cutting off hands of thieves should be condemned by anyone living in a democratic country.

Mr El Sadi’s homophobic references “are equally disgusting” Mr Urpani said. ADZ believes he should apologise to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender community, especially for ridiculing same sex marriages or unions by comparing them to marrying a cat or a dog.

ADZ said that Malta hosts refugees who have fled from the oppression of fundamentalist Muslim regimes. It is very offensive, to say the least, to people who left their country because of such persecution only to find a religious leader condoning the same practices that caused their oppression.

---

See also:

PRESS RELEASE: Call to the Imam to apologise to the Maltese Gay and Lesbian Community - AD and the PL LGBT Network should issue strong statements

Times: What's wrong with chopping off thieves' hands, Imam asks

Independent: This thing called marriage: why are we bothering?

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=97537

23.11.9? by Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

The legal recognition of same-sex marriage has become the clarion call for many of today’s gay and lesbian activists. Same-sex marriage, it is argued, is a basic human right that should not be the exclusive prerogative of heterosexuals. Gay men and lesbians, after all, deserve to be treated equally before the law. I agree.

Opponents of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, continue to vigorously oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In 2004, in an effort to stall or put an end to possible future judicial recognition of same-sex marriages, the Australian federal government amended that country’s Marriage Act (1961) to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman voluntarily entered into for life, which union is to the exclusion of all others. An express provision in the Australian Constitution grants the federal government and only the federal government the authority to pass laws on marriage. To put it bluntly, state, local and territory governments have no business in the business of marriage. Arguably, they can legislate to recognise same sex (civil) unions and registered partnerships.

In the United states, the Defence of Marriage Act 1996 defined marriage as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex. But differently from Australia, the US Constitution has no expression provision surrounding marriage that grants that country’s federal government exclusive power over marriage. Effectively, the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) provided that no state shall be required to give effect to a law of any other state with respect to a same-sex marriage but it did not preclude any state (or other political jurisdiction) from deciding for itself whether it wants to grant legal status to same-sex “marriage”.

In Malta, the Roman Catholic Church enjoys a privileged status. That privileged position is not afforded to any other institution or faith. Without doubt, it is the country’s most powerful lobby. Any legal recognition of same-sex marriage radically undermines the Church’s teachings on sex and sexuality and makes further inroads into the power it still enjoys over the institution of marriage. Take Section 21 of the country’s Marriage Act 1975, which provides that a marriage celebrated in Malta in accordance with the norms and formalities established by Canon Law shall not only be recognised and have the same civil effects as a marriage celebrated in accordance with the norms and formalities of the Marriage Act, but also so recognised as from the moment of its celebration. Sub-Section 23 (1) of the same Act goes on to state that an executive decision of a Catholic tribunal declaring the nullity of a Catholic marriage shall, where one of the parties is domiciled in, or a citizen of, Malta, upon its registration, have effect as if it were a decision by a court. Amazingly, Sub-Section 23 (2) bars the civil courts from re-examining the decision on the grounds that had been considered by the Catholic tribunal.

What is marriage?

Marriage means different things to different people and is entered into for a range of reasons. To some it is a sacrament, a convenient way of putting a smokescreen around the sexual act. It is also a (sexual) contract, with an offer and acceptance and a paraphernalia of duties, rights and responsibilities. To others, it is a public declaration and celebration of their love for each other and an opportunity to celebrate the event with their families and friends. Of course should your child happen to marry into a well-connected family, why not stick it up others you do not like by including a description of the nuptials in one of the leading papers, listing the titles of the bridesmaid and the best men! And you must also say where the reception was held and where the happy couple are honeymooning! Others marry because their girlfriends fall pregnant to the great relief of some parents, including I understand one prominent Maltese politician who is a great defender of the faith and the family! Some fall into marriage simply because they are unimaginative and think they have no other choice. For some marriage provides an ideal opportunity to experience what hell is like before meeting their maker.

In the past married women and children were deemed the property of the husband. Not that long ago, in common law the personal possessions of a married woman were considered to be the property of her husband who was entitled to use them as he pleased. As her husband’s property, a woman could not claim that her husband had raped her. Today’s marriage is supposedly a union between equals but some feminists still think of marriage as a patriarchal institution.

What we thought of marriage in the 70s

Most gay and lesbian activists of the 1970s would have been sickened at the prospect of same-sex marriages and even horrified at the knowledge of gay men and lesbians wanting to marry. We belonged to and felt right in the counter-culture. We took immense pride in our norms and values that ran counter to those of mainstream society. For if we thought religion was the opium of the masses, marriage struck us as a restrictive, diabolical and unproductive (except for the children) institution. After all, that was the Age of Aquarius, with hippy commune communities springing up not only in the country but also in the cities, and straight men refusing to declare their sexuality in support of their gay brothers and sisters. Such views were especially prevalent among gay liberationists, many of whom were socialist (there were many varieties of this, and frequent squabbles not unlike those among Christians) and only too happy to remind us of what Frederick Engels had written in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the state.

But there were other reasons why we opposed marriage. Many gay men and lesbians had been victims of domestic violence. They had been bashed by their parents and siblings because of their sexuality. They had been thrown out of their homes, disinherited and left with no choice but to live on the streets, often earning their living from hustling and peddling drugs. Some had been forced to marry and have children. Family courts had refused custody and access to homosexual parents, and society often treated them as traitors. The Church blamed them for breaking up the family and helping destroy the sacred institution of marriage, which Christ apparently transformed into a sacrament after he turned water into wine. One can only speculate whether any of the drunken guests were subsequently arraigned for riding their camels while drunk?

What it means today to some gay men and lesbians

So why do today’s gay men and lesbians want to marry? Because some have had different and healthier family experiences. And because the gay movement is now more preoccupied with securing civil rights and less with confronting society! But marriage is a different institution today to what it was 30 or 40 years ago. It is seen by many, heterosexuals included, as fundamentally a civil institution. In the past few decades, the Church has been sidelined and its influence has greatly diminished. High-ranking prelates are ridiculed publicly and priests are looked upon with suspicion.

Marriage also provides gay men and lesbians with an opportunity to reinforce the partition between state and Church. It promotes equality, provides a legal safety net and ushers in a range of rights that only that institution guarantees. Marriage also provides some protection to the children of same-sex couples however they have come to be born. For some, it is also a time for partying, wasting money and honeymooning in the south of France (or Filfla if you can’t afford it). Significantly, it is an opportunity to stick it up those heterosexuals who think they own marriage!

Dr Chetcuti is a barrister and solicitor in the state of Victoria (Australia).

He is also the author of Il-Ktieb Roza: Dnub, Dizordni u Delitt? and Queer Mediterranean Memories: Penetrating the Secret History and Silence of Gay Men and Lesbian Disguise in the Maltese Archipelago

See www.queermalta.com.

PRESS RELEASE: Call to the Imam to apologise to the Maltese Gay and Lesbian Community - AD and the PL LGBT Network should issue strong statements

20.11.9 by Dr Inġ. Patrick Attard

I was shocked to read [Times 19.11.09] that the Muslim leader in Malta, Imam Mohamed El Sadi, attributes the Wrath of God in the world to the acceptance of gay people. It is not the first time natural disasters are attributed to the increasing acceptance of gay people as was the Tsunami which hit Thailand (26.12.2004) which was called God's punishement for homosexuality by some Muslim leaders.

I would like to ask the Imam if he agrees with the ritual murder or execution of gays in the Muslim world, - for example the hanging of gay teenagers Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni who were publicly hung in Iran on 19.7.2005. I also would like to ask if he is suggesting that people who are gay should be executed in Malta.

The Imam should be grateful to the 15,000 to 30,000 Maltese Gay and Lesbian Tax-payers who help fund the search-and-rescue, shelter and distributed-food to his Muslim brothers and sisters who are fleeing hardship and war from their own Muslim country and being offered temporary assistance and shelter in Malta.

The Imam should issue a clear apology to all Maltese and Gozitan gays and lesbians.

With regards to homosexuality, the Imam delivered explicitly a message Josef Ratzinger has been hiding in euphemisms for over 23 years.

I hope that the Criminal Code (82A) will be soon amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of groups against which the incitement of hatred is punishable.

I hope that both Alternattiva Demokratika, which boasts that it doesn't only give lip service to the gay minority and the new Labour LGBT network, which is now facing it's first test, will stand up for the people they represent.

Times: Josie Muscat's belittling of the gay community

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091120/letters/josie-muscats-belittling-of-the-gay-community
Friday, 20th November 2009 by Bernard Muscat, Malta Gay Rights Movement, Mosta

In his bid to discredit the LGBT network created recently within the Labour Party, Josie Muscat (November 14) goes as low as to shamelessly place LGBT individuals and their struggle for equal rights on the same lines as "drug dealers" and "criminals", and the latters' claims to be but victims of society. His impudent association is shocking, cowardly, uncalled for and utterly disrespectful.

In his poor attempt to belittle the LGBT community in Malta, Dr Muscat seems unaware that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people occupy positions in all walks of life - from factory workers to teachers, from mechanics to academics, from lawyers to bus drivers, and indeed patients and members of staff in his own hospitals!

Somehow I am sure Dr Muscat has no qualms with LGBT patients receiving treatment in his hospitals - at a cost of course. Surprisingly, or not so much - given the barrage of unwelcome innuendos he uses in their regard - he is however firmly against LGBT individuals' rights to equal citizenship in a free and democratic society. It seems that his pledge to safeguard Maltese people's rights at European level, as he repeatedly stated was his intention before the MEP elections last May, was nothing more than a cheap electoral ploy. Or at least, his vision of the Maltese people clearly excluded any citizens who may be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Another major blunder Dr Muscat eases himself into is his mention of the "Diverse Families, Same Love" poster campaign organised by the Malta Gay Rights Movement in occurrence of the successful ILGA-Europe 2009 Conference held in Malta in the last week of October. The bus-shelter campaign ran a series of posters showing different family forms, reminding the public of the diverse relationships in today's society and the importance of equal treatment for all family forms. Dr Muscat erroneously announced that the "propaganda [was] paid by taxpayers' money..." The campaign was in fact carried out in Malta by means of funding received by ILGA-Europe. Dr Muscat can put his mind at rest that no taxes of his were used to finance it.

As Dr Muscat's opinion article title ran, Pandora's Box is indeed opening. What is leaping out of it is dangerous and unwelcome rhetoric based on prejudice and misguided facts. If this is what AN has to offer the Maltese public, perhaps the Box had better remain securely fastened.

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]

Independent: GWU’s LGBT policy

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=97438

19.11.9

The General Workers’ Union has presented its policy on lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender persons at a summit convened in Stockholm by the Swedish EU presidency. It was invited to attend by the Swedish Minister of Integration after he learned that the GWU had a policy paper on LGBTs. The GWU said it was also among European trade union and social organisations which presented a declaration urging EU members and European institutions to combat all forms of discrimination in the EU.

The declaration was an initiative of the European Confederation of Trade Unions (ETUC).

Times: What's wrong with chopping off thieves' hands, Imam asks

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091119/local/whats-wrong-with-chopping-off-thieves-hands-imam-asks

19.11.9 by Christian Peregin

Imam Mohamed El Sadi, the Muslim leader in Malta, believes chopping off the hands of thieves is a "deserving punishment".

Mr El Sadi made the statement during Monday's television programme Bondiplus, where he defended Sharia law, a judicial system used in some Islamic states and which can involve severe corporal punishments.

Contacted yesterday, Mr El Sadi stood by his comments and added the world was incurring the "wrath of God" through its permissiveness and destruction of spiritual and moral values, namely through the acceptance of " same-sex marriages, homosexuality, adultery and abortion".

Under Sharia law, such things are considered crimes that may even be punishable by death. When asked if he agreed with such punishments he said: "Yes, of course. I agree with everything Islamic."

The TV show discussed whether crucifixes should be banned from classrooms. When presenter Lou Bondì asked Mr El Sadi if Muslims could be more tolerant and "light-hearted" in their reactions to parody and criticism, Mr El Sadi said Europe's permissive values were not necessarily ideal.

"Are same-sex marriages a value? What is this value? If in the future the majority of people want the right for men to marry cats, dogs or horses, will we make a law to fulfil these wishes," Mr El Sadi asked.

Mr Bondì then asked whether religion should dictate the laws of the country, through, say, Sharia law.

"What is wrong with Sharia law? If someone steals, he is taking from the country or the poor, so why is it wrong to cut off his hand?" the Imam replied.

Mr El Sadi said the punishment should terrify thieves and criminals, "not the good people".
When speaking to The Times about his remarks, the Imam said: "Why don't you concentrate on what is common rather than pick on what is controversial?"

He said he was not proposing this system for Europe because it would be undemocratic. But it was also undemocratic for Muslim countries not to use it because most Muslims wanted it.
The system was practised in Saudi Arabia for centuries and yielded results but many Muslim-majority countries believed in secularism and did not employ such practice, he said.

He conceded there were different kinds of Muslims who thought of Sharia differently. "But whoever denies this is not a Muslim," he said, adding the law of God was perfect.

He said there were many safeguards to ensure Sharia law was applied justly, through a court system that depended on having several witnesses. "This does not apply to thieves who are poor or hungry. This is for people who have everything and want more; people who are greedy... The point is to frighten criminals."

Fr Renè Camilleri, who was also a guest on the programme, said he was "shocked" by the Imam's comments.

"I tried to insist violence is unacceptable. The concept is horrific to me. It is equivalent to the death penalty. I know it is what Sharia law dictates but, coming from him, such a moderate and tolerant person, I was shocked," he said, adding he never considered the Imam to be a fundamentalist.

Reacting to the television debate, anthropologist Ranier Fsadni warned against "misunderstanding" the comments and said such views were probably not shared by all Muslims in Europe.

He said many migrated because they did not like the society they lived in, while a large number of others came from countries that did not believe Sharia was prescribed by the Quran or meant to be taken literally without taking the culture of the time into context.

"Just as a priest does not necessarily represent all his community, the Imam does not necessarily represent all Muslims in Malta. Then, again, he is respected and appreciated as a pastoral leader."

Mr Fsadni said the Imam was simply being "intellectually honest" and defending his belief and was not proposing the system for Malta. He was also honest about his views of democracy and the rule of the majority.

A video clip with the Imam's comment can be viewed on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e2gtOO029U. [see below]

[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments on the Times' website.]

[See more comments here.]