Saturday 31 July 2010

Times: Gay couple first to marry under new Argentina law


Argentine actor Ernesto Larrese (right) and his partner, actor manager Alejandro Vannelli, posing after getting married in Buenos Aires, yesterday. This was the first marriage to take place in Buenos Aires after Argentina's Congress legalised on July 15 same-sex marriages, but the first in the country took place just a few hours before between 54-year-old Jose Luis David Navarro and 65-year-old Miguel Angel Calefato in the northern province of Santiago del Estero. Photo: Juan Mabromata/AFP

Two men yesterday became the first gay couple to marry in Argentina under a law approved by Congress that set a historic precedent for Latin America.

The civil ceremony between architect Jose Luis David Navarro, 54, and retiree Miguel Angel Calefato, 65, was held in the city of Frias, in the northern province of Santiago del Estero.

"We've been together for 27 years. This for us is just paperwork, because the big achievement has been the approval of the law," Mr Navarro said in a television interview. Mr Navarro said there had been a "whirl of date changes" by couples vying to be the first to marry since the law was passed July 15, but said theirs had been previously scheduled.

Argentine actor Ernesto Larrese and his partner, actor manager Alejandro Vannelli, also got married yesterday in Buenos Aires a few hours later.

The new law amends the phrase "husband and wife" to "contracting parties" in Argentina's Civil Code.

It also extends equal rights to homosexual couples in matters having to do with adoption, inheritance and social benefits.

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

L-Orizzont: Prosit, Sur Engerer, imma ...

http://www.l-orizzont.com/news.asp?newsitemid=64894
30.7.10 minn Alfred Grixti, Sindku Laburista ta' Haż-Zebbuġ

Nhar il-Ħadd li għadda dehret intervista twila fil-ġurnal Malta Today mas-Sur Cyrus Engerer, kunsil­lier Nazzjonalista fil-Kunsill ta' Tas-Sliema. Kienet intervista interessanti u nistqarr mill-ewwel li nammira l-frankezza u s-sinċerità li bihom dan il-kunsillier żagħżugħ tkellem dwar is-sesswalità tiegħu personali, il-fatt li huwa favur id-divorzju u l-pożizz­joni tiegħu favur żwieġ sħiħ għal koppji omosesswali. Ta' min ifaħħar ukoll, f'dan il-kuntest, il-fatt li s-Sur Engerer jitkellem ċar li l-liġi tal-koabitazzjoni li jrid jgħaddi l-Gvern Nazzjona­lista mhix se tgħin koppji omosesswali biex jiksbu drittijiet indaqs bħalma jiksbu permezz ta' żwieġ koppji eterosesswali.

Li ma qbiltx u nibqa' ma naqbilx mas-Sur Engerer hija l-istqarrija tiegħu li "Storikament, dejjem kien il-Partit Nazzjonalista li biddel lil Malta għall-aħjar." Fil-ħajja, u wisq aktar fil-politika, ma tistax tagħmel asserzjonijiet assoluti bħal dawn. Ngħid dan, għax waqt li s-Sur Engerer jidher li huwa bniedem edukat u bilanċjat, f'din l-intervista ħareġ ċar li għandu aġenda li jipprova jxejjen il-kredenzjali progressivi tal-Partit Laburista. Sfortunatament għalih, l-istorja turi mod ieħor.

Dan għax il-Partit Laburista minn dejjem kien partit progressiv. Fil-fatt, huwa tajjeb u f'loku li nfakkru l-istorja tal-Partit Laburista bħala partit progressiv li meta ried jintroduċi ħwejjeġ li llum jittieħdu 'for granted' f'Malta kellu jiġġieled kontra l-irwiefen arċi-konservattivi ta' paj­­jiżna.

Dawn il-kisbiet progressivi tal-Partit Laburista huma bosta u jvarjaw mill-qasam soċjali sa dak ekonomiku u politiku sa dak ċivili. Biżżejjed insemmu ftit minnhom hawn, fost­­hom:

Il-vot lil kulħadd li jkun għalaq il-21 sena, inkluż in-nisa, wara t-Tieni Gwerra Dinjija;

L-introduzzjoni tal-'income tax' u pari passu magħha l-introduzzjoni tal-ewwel benefiċċji soċjali li eventwalment saru l-istat soċjali li nafu llum fis-snin 70 u 80;

L-introduzzjoni tal-edukazz­joni u s-servizz tas-saħħa b'xejn għal kulħadd;

Il-vot liż-żgħażagħ meta jagħlqu t-18-il sena;

L-introduzzjoni tal-paga mi­nima nazzjonali indaqs għan-nisa u l-irġiel;

L-industrijalizzazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tal-qasam tat-turiżmu fis-snin 70 u 80 b'politika dikjarata ta' ekonomija mħallta fejn il-Gvern ikkommetta ruħu li jipprovdi l-infrastruttura biex is-settur privat ikun jista' jinvesti;

Is-separazzjoni bejn Stat u Knisja;

L-introduzzjoni taż-żwieġ ċivili u rikonoxximent għal divorzji li jinkisbu minn paj­jiżi barranin;

It-tneħħija ta' omosesswa­lità minn att kriminali.

M'iniex qed ngħid li kulma għamel il-Partit Laburista matul dawn id-90 sena ta' eżistenza tiegħu kien perfett jew li ma għamilx żbalji. Imma l-punt tiegħi huwa li, bir-rispett kollu, nies bħas-Sur Engerer għandhom jinformaw ruħhom sew dwar l-istorja u l-fatti tal-istorja qabel ma jagħmlu stqarrijiet bħalma għamel hu meta pprova jagħti l-impressjoni li l-partit tassew progressiv f'Malta huwa biss il-Partit Nazzjonalista.

Ngħid dan la b'disprezz u lanqas b'suppervja lejn is-Sur Engerer imma ngħidu għax anke fil-qasam tad-drittijiet ċivili m'hemmx bżonn tmur 'il bogħod ħafna biex tara kemm il-partit li qiegħed fih hu mhux talli mhuwiex prog­ressiv imma talli reġġa' l-arloġġ lura. Għax tajjeb li nies tal-età tas-Sur Engerer ikunu jafu li mhux talli l-Partit Nazzjonalista fil-Gvern mhux biss lanqas biss ikkontempla li jibda dibattitu dwar iż-żwieġ u l-possibbiltà tad-divorzju meta ż-żwieg jitfarrak, iżda talli fl-1993 iffirma ftehim mal-Istat tal-Vatikan li reġa' ta effetti ċivili liż-żwieġ fil-Knisja u anki poġġa l-annullament ċivili fit-tieni post wara dak tal-Knisja. Ħaġa li anki mħuħ progressivi fil-Knisja Maltija ma qablux magħha imma li mponiha l-Gvern Naz­zjonalista ta' Eddie Fenech Adami biex jingħoġob mal-Vatikan.

F'kelma waħda Sur Enge­rer, prosit tal-kuraġġ tiegħek li titkellem apertament fuq ħwej­jeġ daqstant delikati…imma qabel ma tagħmel asserzjonijiet assolutisti, jekk jogħġbok, ivverifika naqra l-fatti.

Times: Portugal, Argentina and soon…

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100730/opinion/portugal-argentina-and-soon
Friday, 30th July 2010 by John Attard Montalto

It is not every day that it is put to me that I am a pillar of society and model of decorum. So it was with both hands that I gratefully accepted the implication when, the other week, a journalist asked me if I intended to attend the Gay Pride march in Valletta. Usually, the people who are asked such a question are those expected to reinforce the dignity and authority of the statement being made by the marchers.

My reply was that I would not be attending. And, indeed, I did not. My non-attendance had nothing to do either with “previous engagements” or with a lack of support for the general cause of greater civil rights for “gay people” in Malta (that is, the entire range of people represented by the Malta Gay Rights Movement).

If I am prepared to declare my support for gay marriage publicly, why not participate in a Gay Pride March, as well? For a while, I thought the answer had to do strictly with my personal temperament. Now, I am inclined to think there are some broader issues.

I do not feel comfortable participating in marches, although I sometimes have. I feel like a fish out of the water. I fully respect those of my colleagues, across the political spectrum, who attend such events. I cannot help noticing, however, that film footage tends to show politicians behaving differently from most other marchers. While the latter carry placards, whistle and make boisterous noises, politicians tend to walk in the company of a colleague, making casual small talk or somehow looking aloof enough to suggest that they are, at the same time, there and not there.

I am sure their presence is appreciated. But I would myself feel uncomfortable and out of place. Moreover, I would look it. I think the Gay Pride organisers deserve better than that.

The discomfort has nothing to do with the issue itself. The Love Parade, which was recently in the news because of the tragic deaths in Duisburg, Germany, was originally connected not with Gay Pride but with international peace and justice, issues that I took an active interest in at around the same time that the first Love Parade was held in (West) Berlin. However, I never participated in that, either. Parades are not my thing.

So far, so personal. What are the wider implications?

I think that, as far as discomfort about participating in marches is concerned, I am fairly typical of a large segment of the population. However, for those who feel uncomfortable about participating in a Gay Pride march, it may be easy to feel that this discomfort might have to do with a discomfort with the issue itself.

However, the two should be kept separate, especially by journalists trying to understand the level of support for gay rights by looking at willingness to participate in Gay Pride marches. Otherwise, an interesting shift in popular attitudes may be missed.

It was towards the end of last year that the student organisation, Move, published the result of a survey it conducted. It showed that almost half (49 per cent) of the University students surveyed were in favour of gay marriage. Another 16 per cent were undecided. Granted, the survey was not scientific. However, in terms of showing a general trend, it was consonant with other international developments.

Gay marriage laws are usually associated with liberal states like The Netherlands and the Nordic ones. Yet, worldwide, of the 10 states that permit gay marriage (as distinct from civil unions), three are now “Latin”. They are equal to the three Nordic states that permit it. Moreover, this year has seen two of these Latin states introduce gay marriage. Portugal did so earlier this year; Argentina earlier this month.

It is likely that other Latin American states will soon follow. These are countries whose populations still overwhelmingly identify themselves as “Roman Catholic”.

An international culture change is afoot when it comes to marriage that is now finding roots even in those countries whose culture was considered to be inhospitable to gay rights. Politicians and policymakers ought to pay close attention.

Dr Attard Montalto is a Labour member of the European Parliament.

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

Friday 30 July 2010

The Mail [Australia]: Briffa goes boldly as 'other'

http://www.themail.com.au/news/local/news/general/tony-briffa-goes-boldly-as-other/1878779.aspx
7.7.10 by Goya Bennett

[Click on image to enlarge.]

HOBSONS Bay deputy mayor Tony Briffa is thought to be the only person to describe his sex as 'other' in the Victorian Local Governance Association survey of numbers of males and females in local government.

The Altona Ward councillor was born with an intersex condition, which saw him incorrectly assigned as female gender as a child.

Asked why he described himself as 'other' when he fought so hard to be male, Cr Briffa sets the record straight.

"I fought to be me. It wasn't so much about me becoming Tony, a male; it was more about finding out who I was meant to be had doctors not interfered.

"I wanted to understand my true nature and be the person I should have been before doctors castrated and modified me through surgeries and hormone treatment.

"I was born ambiguous in terms of my sex and doctors weren't sure what my sex was at birth.

"As a child, then even as a teenager, I questioned whether I was a boy or a girl.

"I was always a feminist; I always believed in affirmative action and equal opportunity.

"I was attracted to girls, not boys, which was also confusing to me, particularly as I was at an all-girls' school.

"It's about being true to myself and that whole journey about discovering who I would have been had it not been for the medical intervention, and just being the person that nature made me."

As vice-president of the Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome Support Group Australia, Cr Briffa has long lobbied for childhood gender assignments not to be surgically reinforced.

"Thanks to the work that we've done and the support group that I run at the Royal Children's Hospital, they've done a 30-year follow-up study of children with these conditions treated at the Royal Children's Hospital," he said.

"If a person's got my condition, for example, if they were raised as a female it would be unlikely they would then do irreversible surgeries like castration as a child. The records at the Royal Children's speak for themselves: 8 per cent of children in that 30-year study period were raised in the wrong sex, which is a horrible statistic given that they reinforce that sex surgically."

Cr Briffa said the VLGA survey, marking the Year of Women in Local Government, specifically asked for councillors' sex.

"I just thought, to be true to myself and to have the record accurately reflect the situation, let's put 'other'.

"In any elected position these days in Australia, it's a nonsense, it's a fiction to think that women aren't able to participate as equally as men. Our Governor General is a woman, our Prime Minister is a woman, and our local member is a woman.

"There's no impediment to public office if you're a woman."

Guardian: Why it's never too late to be a lesbian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/22/late-blooming-lesbians-women-sexuality
22.7.10 by Kira Cochrane
Kira Cochrane

More and more women are discovering after years of marriage to men, and having had children, that they are lesbians. Were they always – or is sexuality more fluid?


More and wore women are coming out as lesbians late in life.

More and wore women are coming out as lesbians late in life. Photograph: Image Source / Rex Features

For Carren Strock, the revelation came when she was 44. She had met her husband – "a terrific guy, very sweet" – at high school when she was 16, had been married to him for 25 years, had two dearly loved children, and what she describes as a "white-picket-fence existence" in New York. Then, one day, sitting opposite her best friend, she realised: "Oh my God. I'm in love with this woman." The notion that she might be a lesbian had never occurred to her before. "If you'd asked me the previous year," she says, "I would have replied: 'I know exactly who and what I am – I am not a lesbian, nor could I ever be one.'"

From that moment Strock's understanding of her sexuality changed completely. She felt compelled to tell her friend, but her attraction wasn't reciprocated; at first she wasn't sure whether she had feelings for women in general, or just this one in particular. But she gradually came to realise, and accept, that she was a lesbian. She also started to realise that her experience wasn't unusual.

Strock decided to interview other married women who had fallen in love with women, "putting up fliers in theatres and bookstores. Women started contacting me from across the country – everyone knew someone who knew someone in this situation." The interviews became a book, Married Women Who Love Women, and when it came to writing the second edition, Strock turned to the internet for interviewees. "Within days," she says, "more women had contacted me than I could ever actually speak to."

Late-blooming lesbians – women who discover or declare same-sex feelings in their 30s and beyond – have attracted increasing attention over the last few years, partly due to the clutch of glamorous, high-profile women who have come out after heterosexual relationships. Cynthia Nixon, for instance, who plays Miranda in Sex and the City, was in a heterosexual relationship for 15 years, and had two children, before falling for her current partner, Christine Marinoni, in 2004. Last year, it was reported that the British singer Alison Goldfrapp, who is in her mid-40s, had started a relationship with film editor Lisa Gunning. The actor Portia de Rossi was married to a man before coming out and falling in love with the comedian and talkshow host, Ellen DeGeneres, whom she married in 2008. And then there's the British retail adviser and television star, Mary Portas, who was married to a man for 13 years, and had two children, before getting together with Melanie Rickey, the fashion-editor-at-large of Grazia magazine. At their civil partnership earlier this year the pair beamed for the cameras in beautiful, custom-made Antonio Berardi dresses.

The subject has now begun attracting academic attention. Next month at the American Psychological Association's annual convention in San Diego, a session entitled Sexual Fluidity and Late-Blooming Lesbians is due to showcase a range of research, including a study by Christan Moran, who decided to look at the lives of women who had experienced a same-sex attraction when they were over 30 and married to a man. Moran is a researcher at Southern Connecticut University, and her study was prompted in part by an anguished comment she found on an online message board for married lesbians, written by someone who styled herself "Crazy".

"I don't understand why I can't do the right thing," she wrote. "I don't understand why I can't make myself stop thinking about this other woman." Moran wanted to survey a range of women in this situation, "to help Crazy, and others like her, see that they are not abnormal, or wrong to find themselves attracted to other women later in life".

She also wanted to explore the notion, she writes, that "a heterosexual woman might make a full transition to a singular lesbian identity . . . In other words, they might actually change their sexual orientation." As Moran notes in her study, this possibility is often ignored; when a person comes out in later life, the accepted wisdom tends to be that they must always have been gay or bisexual, but just hid or repressed their feelings. Increasingly researchers are questioning this, and investigating whether sexuality is more fluid and shifting than is often suspected.

Sarah Spelling, a former teacher, says she can well understand how "you can slide or slip or move into another identity". After growing up in a family of seven children in Birmingham, Spelling met her first serious partner, a man, when she was at university. They were together for 12 years, in which time they were "fully on, sexually," she says, although she adds that she has never had an orgasm with a man through penetrative sex.

Spelling is a keen feminist and sportsperson, and met lesbian friends through both of these interests. "I didn't associate myself with their [sexuality] – I didn't see myself as a lesbian, but very clearly as a heterosexual in a longstanding relationship." When a friend on her hockey team made it clear she fancied her, "and thought I would fancy her too, I was like 'No! That's not me!' That just wasn't on my compass." Then, aged 34, having split up with her long-term partner, and in another relationship with a man, she found herself falling in love with her housemate – a woman. After "lots of talking together, over a year or so," they formed a relationship. "It was a meeting of minds," says Spelling, "a meeting of interests. She's a keen walker. So am I. She runs. So do I. We had lots in common, and eventually I realised I didn't have that with men." While having sex with a man had never felt uncomfortable or wrong, it wasn't as pleasurable as having sex with a woman, she says. From the start of the relationship, she felt completely at ease, although she didn't immediately define herself as a lesbian. "I didn't define myself as heterosexual either – I quite clearly wasn't that. And I wouldn't define myself as bisexual." After a while she fully embraced a lesbian identity. "We've been together for 23 years," she says, "so it's pretty clear that that was a defining change."

Dr Lisa Diamond, associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, has been following a group of 79 women for 15 years, tracking the shifts in their sexual identity. The women she chose at the start of the study had all experienced some same-sex attraction – although in some cases only fleetingly – and every two years or so she has recorded how they describe themselves: straight, lesbian, bisexual, or another category of their own choosing. In every two-year wave, 20-30% of the sample have changed their identity label, and over the course of the study, about 70% have changed how they described themselves at their initial interview. What's interesting, says Diamond, is that transitions in sexual identity aren't "confined to adolescence. People appear equally likely to undergo these sorts of transitions in middle adulthood and late adulthood." And while, in some cases, women arrive at a lesbian identity they've been repressing, "that doesn't account for all of the variables . . . In my study, what I often found was that women who may have always thought that other women were beautiful and attractive would, at some point later in life, actually fall in love with a woman, and that experience vaulted those attractions from something minor to something hugely significant. It wasn't that they'd been repressing their true selves before; it was that without the context of an actual relationship, the little glimmers of occasional fantasies or feelings just weren't that significant."

Diamond has a hunch that the possibility of moving across sexual boundaries increases as people age. "What we know about adult development," she says, "suggests that people become more expansive in a number of ways as they get older . . . I think a lot of women, late in life, when they're no longer worried about raising the kids, and when they're looking back on their marriage and how satisfying it is, find an opportunity to take a second look at what they want and feel like." This doesn't mean that women are choosing whether to be gay or straight, she clarifies. (Diamond's work has sometimes been distorted by rightwing factions in the US, who have suggested it shows homosexuality is optional.) "Every one of the women I studied who underwent a transition experienced it as being out of her control. It was not a conscious choice . . . I think the culture tends to lump together change and choice, as if they're the same phenomenon, but they're not. Puberty involves a heck of a lot of change, but you don't choose it. There are life-course transitions that are beyond our control."

This was certainly true for Laura Manning, a lawyer from London, who is now in her late 40s. She had always had a vague inkling she might have feelings for women, but met a man at university, "a really gentle man, Jeff, and I fell in love with him, and for a long time that was enough to balance my feelings". She married him in her late 20s, had two children in her early 30s, "and once I'd got that maternal part of my life out of the way, I suddenly started thinking about me again. I started to feel more and more uncomfortable about the image that I was presenting, because I felt like it wasn't true." In her late 30s, she began going out clubbing, "coming back on the bus at four in the morning, and then getting up and going to work. I was still living with Jeff, and I just started shutting down our relationship. He knew I was pushing him away."

The marriage ended, and Manning moved out. She has since had two long-term relationships with women, and says she's much happier since she came out, but suspects that her biological urge to have children, and her genuine feelings for Jeff, made her marriage inevitable on some level. "The thought of sex with a man repels me now, but at the time, when I was in my marriage, I didn't feel that, and I didn't feel I was repressing anything. The intensity of feeling in my relationship with Jeff overcame and blanketed my desires for women."

Sexual fluidity occurs in both men and women, but it has been suggested that women are potentially more open and malleable in this regard. Richard Lippa, professor of psychology at California State University, Fullerton, has carried out a variety of studies that have led him to the conclusion that, "while most men tend to have what I call a preferred sex and a non-preferred sex . . . with women there are more shades of grey, and so I tend to talk about them having a more preferred sex, and a less preferred sex. I have definitely heard some women say, 'It was the person I fell in love with, it wasn't the person's gender,' and I think that that is much more of a female experience than a male experience.

"I've never had a straight man say to me, at age 45, I just met this really neat guy and I fell in love with him and I don't like men in general, but God, this guy's so great that I'm going to be in a relationship with him for the next 15 years." In Diamond's study, around a quarter of the women have reported that gender is largely irrelevant in their choice of sexual partners. "Deep down," said one woman, "it's just a matter of who I meet and fall in love with, and it's not their body, it's something behind the eyes."

When Tina Humphrys, 70, first fell in love with a woman, she didn't define herself as a lesbian, "I just thought: 'It's her.'" Humphrys was in her mid-30s, had two children, and was coming out of a horrible second marriage. "I hated my life," she says. "The four bedrooms, the children – well, I didn't hate them, they just bored me to tears. I used to lie on the couch and my eyes would fill with tears as they had their naps."

She had found women attractive in the past, "but I think women do, don't they? You look and you think – that dress looks fabulous, or isn't she looking slim, or doesn't she look pretty. But you don't necessarily put sexual feelings on it." Then she went to university as a mature student, joined a women's group, and started to fall for one of the other members. "It was a bit of a shock to find that I was attracted sexually to this woman, but then it was also a decision to leave men. It was a decision to leave a particularly oppressive and restrictive way of living and try to live differently." She moved into a "commune-type place", and had non-monogamous relationships with women for a while, before settling down with her current partner of more than 30 years. While she had had "a very active sex life with men", she enjoyed sex with women much more. "I was once doing a workshop with a woman who used to tear hideous things that had been said about women out of the paper, and she had a piece about this blonde model who had romped with a lesbian – because they always romp, don't they? – and she said: 'It wasn't proper sex, it was just a load of orgasms.'" Humphrys laughs uproariously. "I think that just about sums it up, doesn't it?"

Beyond the sex, Humphrys found a connection that was more intense "on every level" than any she had found with a man. Strock echoes this view. "I've run workshops with straight women, and I've asked them, did you ever feel those sky rockets go off, or hear the music playing, when you fell in love with that significant other? And very few raise their hands. And then I went to a gay women's group, and I said, how many of you have ever felt the same? And almost all the hands went up. So connections with women are very different to connections between women and men."

The psychotherapist and writer, Susie Orbach, spent more than 30 years with the writer Joseph Schwartz, and had two children with him, before the partnership ended, and she subsequently formed a happy, ongoing relationship with the novelist Jeanette Winterson. Orbach says that the initial love connection between mother and daughter makes lesbian feelings in later life unsurprising. "If you think about it," she says, "whose arms are you first in, whose smells do you first absorb, where's that body-to-body imprint? I mean, we're still not really father-raised, are we, so it's a very big journey for women to get to heterosexuality . . . What happens is that you layer heterosexuality on top of that bond. You don't suddenly switch away from it. You don't give up that very intimate attachment to a woman."

Of course, the notion that your sexuality might shift entirely isn't welcomed by everyone; as Diamond says, "Even though there's more cultural acceptance than there was 20 years ago, same-sex sexuality is still very stigmatised, and the notion that you might not know everything there is to know about something that's so personal and intimate can terrify individuals. It's really hard for people to accept." That's why the writing and research in this area is so important. When the first edition of Strock's book was published, "a woman came up to me at one of my early speaking engagements, clutching the book and sobbing," she says. "She thought she was the only married woman ever to have fallen in love with another woman, and had no one to talk to, didn't know where to turn. And she had decided that the best thing was to kill herself on a night when she knew her husband and children were going to be out late. She'd planned her suicide. She was coming home from work for what she thought would be the last time, and she passed a bookstore, and they were putting my book in the window, and when she realised that she wasn't the only one, she chose to live".

The late-blooming lesbians I spoke to had all found happiness on their different paths. Strock is still a lesbian – and also still married to her husband, who knows about her sexuality. "He would never throw me away, and I would never throw him away," she says, "so we've re-defined our relationship. I'm a lesbian, but we share a house, we have separate rooms, we have two grandchildren now, and our situation is not unique." Most of the other women I spoke to were in happy, long-term relationships with women, and had found a contentment that they'd never experienced in their previous relationships.

"While some people find change threatening," Diamond says, "others find it exciting and liberating, and I definitely think that for women in middle adulthood and late life, they might be the most likely to find sexual shifts empowering. We're an anti-ageing society. We like people to be young, nubile and attractive. And I think the notion that your sexuality can undergo these really exciting, expansive possibilities at a stage when most people assume that women are no longer sexually interesting and are just shutting down, is potentially a really liberating notion for women. Your sexual future might actually be pretty dynamic and exciting – and whatever went on in your past might not be the best predictor at all of what your future has in store."

Independent: Natural & Civil Rights

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=109728
28.7.10? by Prof. Pierre Mallia
"Now divorce may also seem to me to be legitimate in many cases where there is abuse, violence, negligence or simply lack of interest in one's self or in the partner. To be told to continue in this partnership, even for the sake of the children, can only hold on moral and religious grounds"

The recently revived divorce debate has given rise to the question of whether divorce is a right that humans should have. One renowned person has taken this to the European Court of Justice. It seems to me that the ECJ will not make a decision on whether Malta is prohibiting people from this right or not – and indeed, it would seem that it cannot, as this would involve an interference in what are basic 'rights' of the country with respect to how it implements its Constitution. But I stand to be corrected. The argument however will probably centre around whether this right is a civil or a natural right. If it is a natural right, then the European Court of Justice will have something to say.

The distinction between natural and civil rights is not always easy. On a religious level we can speak about God-given rights, and state-given rights. On a societal level we can speak about 'human' rights and other rights given by the state. What human rights are has not always been clear. In this regard, Hegel was right in that humans follow a certain natural history in understanding morality. Thus slavery was probably always felt to be a wrong. Indeed no one wanted to be a slave, and if anyone accepted his or her fate, it was because they could not do anything else and not because accepting one's place in society was in itself a good thing. Even moral institutions, like the Knights of St John, a Catholic institution, had their own slaves – usually infidels caught in battle. It was only a matter of time when countries acknowledged that humans cannot 'own' others. This interfered also with the feudal system when, although they were not slaves, people were owned by the land-owners. If you happened to live on the land that was owned, you were part of the property. Other human rights are the right to work, the right to form a family etc.

Bioethics involves debates which often involve the family, the rearing of children being at the foremost of discussions. Do parents have complete rights over whether an operation is to be done or not on their child? Departments of social services, as in the case of the Siamese Twins, have often interfered with parental decisions, even when taken in good faith and, according to them, in the family and child's best interest. But what about reproductive rights? We have seen the controversy that exists in legislating for In Vitro Fertilisation. There can be no doubt that, given healthy parents, having children is a natural right. In fact one basis for an annulment can be that one of the spouses does not wish to have children.

This seems also a natural right and 'ethos' of family life. Yet when it comes to pathologies which require only the use of medical technologies, which bypass temporarily the sexual union, moral questions are raised. It would seem that once having children is a natural right, and once health care is also a natural right, these reproductive technologies would fall under natural rights as well if they can be available. Yet experience has shown that they are not considered so because they bypass a natural act of conjugation and therefore, failing natural rights, have come to be seen as civil rights. Clearly arguments such as the naturalistic fallacy – that if something is that way in nature, it does not necessarily mean that it ought to be that way all the time – have failed with respect to our moral institutions.

So how can we see divorce as a natural right? Clearly if getting married is a natural right, it does not follow that divorce should also be that way. I have also always been sceptical of biological arguments – which are nothing more than natural arguments. Some would argue that homosexuality occurs naturally in biological systems and therefore it is natural for some people to be homosexual. Whilst this can be true, it is also true for polygamy, incest and paedophilia. Yet we do not accept the latter three. Homosexuality is recognised today not to be a disease, but in my opinion not enough studies have been done into the natural history of homosexuals and as a GP, I see many people with different sexual tendencies to have had an experience/s in childhood, especially during the time of puberty, which affected their sexuality. But the fact that we recognise it to be 'natural', does not mean it is a natural right of individuals. We give it civil protection because we know that these individuals have had no choice often in their sexual orientation and that they do no harm to anyone.

The same cannot be said of paedophilia. But why do we not accept polygamous marriages? These have been found to occur naturally in many different forms in primitive cultures, and it is only economic reasons which prohibit many Muslims from marrying up to four women. Yet the union between a man and a woman is natural enough in itself. The physical union leads to children who must be reared and the 'tying of the knot', which prohibits other people from interfering with this couple, at least in theory, is a natural result of this rearing. It can be seen as a natural right. Whilst the act of marriage is a natural right, the contract is often seen in a civil context. Perhaps this subtlety is part of the problem.

Can something which is natural be reduced to an easy process of disunion? It is not the aim of this column to enter into a definitive answer, but only to put forward some reflection. I too, like many today, ask myself whether divorce is or ought to be a 'right', and if so whether it is only something states can confer or whether it is a human right? It would seem to me that children have a 'natural' right to parents, even if many do not have this privilege. Some would also accept homosexual parents. Be this as it may, we accept the argument that children have a right to be reared by parents because otherwise they would perish. Failing this, we institutionalise them. The fact remains that children must be nurtured in a family environment. What impact does this have on marriage?

It is clear that children form one of the main issues of the argument of divorce. It is also clear however that sometimes it is in the best interests of children not to be reared in an environment of verbal or physical abuse or other types of hostile environments. Secondly whilst marriage is a natural right, it is also natural that some marriages are void, and it seems to me that the main contention we face is whether this nullification is to be conferred by an ecclesiastic or a civil authority. Why nullifications take as long as they do, when we probably know from the very beginning whether they qualify or not, is indeed a disservice to many. One lawyer I know has described them as so dirty as to have discouraged him from helping his clients further in that process. If we are to protect the institution of marriage, one way is to show that we have the courage to eliminate those marriages which do no good to the very institution of marriage. These people can marry again and we should encourage this. I am pleased to note the energy our Archbishop is putting into administering the cases of annulment more efficiently.

It is also clear that many problems couples face are not insurmountable problems. Many are due to simple hard-headedness or even a giving-up on love. People sail through these murky waters for years until at one point they simply want to bail out. If problems are indeed surmountable and if we believe in this institution, then perhaps we should provide for more accessible professional and spiritual help before the problems become so deep that they cannot be unravelled. Clearly these marriages would not qualify for an annulment, because it is not a case that marriage has never been. It simply did not continue to 'be'. It is for these circumstances that we often seek divorce.

Now divorce may also seem to me to be legitimate in many cases where there is abuse, violence, negligence or simply lack of interest in one's self or in the partner. To be told to continue in this partnership, even for the sake of the children, can only hold on moral and religious grounds. Indeed the greatest love is that love which is difficult and probably not felt to be deserved. These kind of marriages cannot be said either, in my poor opinion, to form part of the fabric which keeps society together. But if these do not qualify for an annulment, do they naturally qualify for a divorce? If this question can be answered in the affirmative, then we must be tempted to admit that in certain circumstances, divorce is a natural right – as it is natural for me to protect myself and/or my children and find someone with whom to continue sharing my life.

Insofar as these problems can be treated with help and good will on both sides, the marriage can never be described as void. If one searchers into individual past histories and finds psychological problems which were there but which the partner had no idea of – and there are many people who enter into a relationship in a psychological sadistic manner – they are probably angry at themselves and at life, and turn this anger into apathy or violence on the partner. In such a context there is indeed a case for the marriage to be voided. I believe there are many of these. The problem is that they are so difficult to define that we do not give the annulment – or at least not quickly. And many remain waiting for years. Because of this, many feel that an easier and just path is simply not to divulge into one's psychological past and find blame, and to provide a divorce. If this is the case we have to admit that divorce is not a natural right but simply a civil right, procured on grounds that we do not have the means to define the 'natural' void of the marriage.

With this comes the dangerous slippery slope that many will then see this as a right, civil or not, and perhaps use it as a weapon. To live under the threat of an easy way out can entail a greater love; but it can also be a conditional one. We all enter marriage with the promise to society that we intend to remain with each other for life. We read this in our vows and we even intend it psychologically on the day of our marriage. If something changes on the way we must at least ascertain that something is insurmountable and is causing harm to all concerned, before we even contemplate a civil right such as divorce. Otherwise it simply becomes a right, such as the right to stop doing one kind of work and starting on another career. I would hope to think that this is not what we are looking for.

Pierre Mallia is Associate Professor in Family Medicine, Patients' Rights and Bioethics at the University of Malta; he is also Ethics Advisor to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College of Family Doctors.

Tuesday 27 July 2010

MaltaToday: Strange bedfellows [Interview:] Cyrus Engerer

http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/interview/strange-bedfellows-cyrus-engerer
27.7.10 by Raphael Vassallo

With his progressive views on divorce and gay equality, Cyrus Engerer would not be out of place in a European liberal party. So what on earth is he doing representing the traditionally conservative Nationalist Party on the Sliema local council?

Cyrus Engerer: not exactly a religio et patria politician

Openly gay, pro-divorce and in favour of full marriage equality for same-sex partners, Cyrus Engerer is not exactly your typical ‘Religio et Patria’ sort of politician. Nonetheless, the Nationalist councillor for Sliema argues that his own chosen party, and not Labour, can claim to be Malta’s truly progressive political force.

“Historically, the PN has always been the party that changed Malta for the better,” he tells me as we meet for our appointment at our offices in San Gwann. Having said that, he also confesses that contesting with the PN was not an automatic choice… coming as he does from a politically mixed family.

“There are only two parties that have the practical ability to form a government, so the choice was always going to be between those two. Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses. But when you think about it, it was always the PN that took all the right decisions at the right time – especially since Independence.”

Be that as it may, at a glance Cyrus Engerer certainly appears out of place militating within the PN. On his Facebook page he describes himself as “liberal on some issues, conservative on others” – but most would agree that his liberal views outweigh his conservative ones by a very wide margin.

Surprisingly, however, Engerer himself disputes the particular perception of the PN as a ‘conservative’ party. On the contrary, he believes that ‘conservative’ is actually an epithet the party has picked up only fairly recently in its 125-year history.

“Nowadays, the PN is labelled ‘conservative’, true; but it was only a few years ago, when Alfred Sant was still Opposition leader, that the PN was actually seen as the more progressive of the two…” Besides, he argues that it would be a grave mistake to assume that ‘the party’ exists as a single, homogenous entity in its own right.

“Who is the Nationalist Party, anyway?” he suddenly muses. “Is it the leader? The supporters? The candidates? Who…?”

Answering his own question, Cyrus points out that the party is actually composed of a few hundred ‘kunsilliera’ (let’s call them councillors, for lack of a better translation) who together decide on policy.

“No two people will agree on all things at all times. I am often asked, ‘so why do you remain in the PN if you disagree with them on so many things?’ The truth is, I am not in agreement with the party leadership on some issues – mostly civil liberties – but I agree on others, like economic policy.”

And how many of the PN councillors agree with Cyrus Engerer? He assures that me that “many” see eye to eye with him on such issues as gay equality… though few would currently speak out in public. Ultimately, however, he argues that in politics one has to evaluate the package as a whole: and on balance, the Nationalist Party remains a far more credible option than Labour.

Furthermore, he insists that once you sift through their various stands and positions – especially on so-called ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ issues – you will find that the two parties are actually indistinguishable.

But what about divorce, I ask? What about Muscat’s promise of a vote in parliament, as opposed to Gonzi’s clear stand against..?

Cyrus Engerer reminds me that there is a distinction between ‘party’ and ‘leader’ in the PL, too. “If you look closely at what Labour is saying, you will see that Joseph Muscat himself is in favour of divorce, yes… but the party itself has never taken a stand. Has the party placed divorce on its electoral manifesto? No…”

Engerer is also sceptical about whether Muscat actually enjoys grass-root support for his divorce proposal – and a cursory glance at the current composition of the Opposition bench in parliament strongly suggests that he might not even enjoy the backing of his own MPs.

Now that we are on the subject of divorce, the question becomes inevitable. What does he himself think of the issue?

“I am in favour of divorce,” he replies without hesitation. “I know it may sound contradictory, but I firmly believe that in order to strengthen all families, we need to introduce divorce. As things stand, we are witnessing the emergence of new types of relationships, which are not recognised at law. This creates problems. Besides, people marrying for a second time are likelier to approach marriage with more caution…”

As he talks, I can’t but notice the emphasis on ‘all families’, ‘new types of relationships’… is he also referring to gay marriage: a topic all but taboo within Nationalist circles? And if so, what about the difference between Labour and PN on this issue? Surely, Labour would be closer to his own views on the subject, having recently set up an LGBT section, and all that…

But Cyrus Engerer is unconvinced.

“Again, Muscat has claimed he is in favour of some form of civil partnership being recognised at law. But it is not on the same footing as marriage, and he has certainly not promised anything like marriage equality on the party’s manifesto…”

What if he did? Would Cyrus Engerer consider contesting with Labour instead of PN, if it promised full marriage equality?

To my intense surprise, he nods. “It would make a difference, certainly.”

Would it make such a difference that he’d consider jumping ship…? He answers slowly, as though conscious of the weight of his own words. “Let me put it this way: If Labour took that step, and really put full marriage equality on its manifesto, then… yes, I would vote for them. I know I earlier said that you have to look at the whole package, and I still think on balance the PN is the better choice. But this issue… this issue makes a big difference to me.”

Engerer acknowledges that others might find this attitude hard to understand. “I wouldn’t expect a straight person to change allegiance over an issue like this. But for a gay person, it’s another matter.”

He also makes it clear he considers it highly unlikely that Labour – which he believes is just as conservative as the PN, if not more – will ever take that step.

“At the end of the day, Labour suffers from the same internal struggles as the PN. If I were to join Labour, I know I will have to fight exactly the same battles all over again.”

Foremost among these battles is (unsurprisingly, given the above) to convince a Catholic-leaning party of the need to achieve full equality for the LGBT community. But how does the party respond when he brings up these issues internally? Does he encounter any resistance?

“Yes, obviously. Everyone encounters some form of resistance, no matter what he tries to do. And if you look back at the party’s history, there was resistance to its most important achievements: Independence, EU membership – all these things had to be fought from within first. And there were Nationalists who supported Labour achievements, like the Republic. I would qualify this as normal…”

At the same time, Cyrus Engerer talks of a ‘silent majority’ within the PN – which is perhaps a little too silent for his liking – which at least acknowledges that such change is inevitable.

“Personally I am hopeful things will change. In the UK, change happened overnight. In the mid-1990s Tony Blair introduced gay equality out of the blue, and it was accepted. The same happened in Spain under Zapatero…”

Pre-empting the obvious question, Engerer himself points out the political fly in the moment. “Of course, both Blair and Zapatero were Socialists. But then, it’s the Socialists in Europe who tend to be progressive, who favoured EU membership, and so on. In Malta, it’s the other way round…”

But he also acknowledges that internal fights within the PN over such ‘basic’ issues can sometimes be disheartening, to put it mildly. “There were moments when I said I couldn’t take it any more… that maybe I’d leave the party, or even the country. Over here I feel like a second class citizen sometimes. And I’m not alone in feeling this way. There are many people out there who are genuinely suffering. But in the end I said ‘no’… I will remain, and fight for change.”

Apart from basic prejudices, Engerer argues that gay couples face an uphill struggle against the authorities for recognition on a wide variety of levels.

As an example, he cites adoption – pointing out how the availability of single parent adoption indirectly makes it possible for gay couples to adopt a child.

“But it’s not the same thing as adoption by a couple. It can also cause problems. Imagine you have a same sex couple, and one of the partners adopts a child as a single parent. When the child is still small – say, six or seven years old – the registered adoptive parent dies. What happens to the child?”

As the couple was never recognised as a family at law, the partner of the deceased will not be recognised as a parent.

“The child would be taken away,” Engerer continues, answering his own question. “The remaining parent will have no rights over the child. This is a reality in Malta right now…”

Wouldn’t the cohabitation bill, currently debated in Parliament on the insistence of the PN, address this issue anyway? Engerer grimaces at the word. “Yes,” he answers slowly. “Cohabitation could change matters in this regard. But cohabitation is an insult to me. It may be necessary to grant rights to, say, siblings living together… but it is no alternative to marriage equality. Cohabitation is currently being used as a pretext to put both divorce and marriage equality aside for the time being…”

But for all these shortcomings, Engerer nonetheless challenges the perception of the PN as a ‘gay-unfriendly party’ – though he does agree that ‘elements within the party’ are ‘behind the times’.

Pressed to elaborate, he invites me to consider a notorious quote attributed to Lawrence Gonzi when still speaker of the House in the 1990s – to the effect that, as leader, he would ask any candidate to leave the party if discovered to be gay.

Engerer insists the future PM had originally been misquoted. “What (Gonzi) actually said was that he wouldn’t want anyone as a candidate if they were uncomfortable with their own sexuality, and kept it hidden from the party. And I think he was right. Imagine the party was in government with a single-seat majority, as it is today, and that one of the MPs – who is gay, but hasn’t told anyone – was being blackmailed…”

Now that he has brought the matter up himself, I ask him his views on whether it is justifiable to ‘out’ such public figures, even if they themselves would prefer to remain inside the closet.

“You mean like your newspaper did with Karl Gouder?” he says, with reference to MaltaToday’s description of the Nationalist candidate as ‘Malta’s first openly gay MP’, when his own mother was unaware of his orientation.

“I think you were right,” he continues. “In an ideal world, it would be up to the individual to decide whether or not to come out into the open. However, in politics it could be dangerous if he doesn’t.”

Coming back to Lawrence Gonzi and his reputation as an arch-conservative, Engerer insists that the Prime Minister is a very different person when met face to face.

“He is not a closed book. Far from it: I find him to be quite open. He is always there. He always listens. We may not agree on all issues, but there are several areas where we are in total agreement. The economy is one, but there are also certain civil liberties: for instance, transgender rights. Where we disagree completely is marriage equality. But like I said, you have to look at the package as a whole.”

Looking instead at the country as a whole: how optimistic is Cyrus Engerer that Malta will one day change in the way he’d like it to?
“Malta is changing, undeniably. It has changed since I was a child. It’s changing right now…”

He takes the opportunity to attribute at least some of this change to the Nationalist governments of the past. “I don’t want to sound elitist, but I think that education has a lot to do with it. The general level of intelligence has increased. Look at your own survey on divorce – you will find that the vast majority of those who agree with divorce have at least secondary school education, many of them a university degree. I don’t think this is a coincidence.”

This, he argues, is the fruit of an explosion in tertiary education since 1987.

“More people are going to university today. A lot more. There were around 800 university students in total before ’87... Today, there are over 10,000…”

Engerer also points towards what he calls a ‘detachment’ between youths and the Church: a good thing, he reasons, as the Church appears to have stepped up its rhetoric against homosexuality of late.

Cyrus Engerer does not disguise his distaste for the stand taken by the local Church on gay issues.

“The Gozo bishop talks about homosexuals all the time, about how it is a sin. Recently, the head of the Cana movement even described homosexuals as a ‘detriment to the family’. A detriment to the family? How? In what way…?”

Engerer argues that this is ultimately tantamount to hate speech, and should be made illegal. “People who are totally faithful to the Church are being told we are an abomination. No wonder gay suicides have increased recently. With its constant attacks on gay people, the Church is now instilling guilt even in parents. This should be a crime. After all, legal action is taken against people like Norman Lowell for spreading hatred towards people of different races. The Catholic Church is doing the same with homosexuals. This must be stopped.”

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

Follow this website on Twitter


You can follow the news here: www.twitter.com/patrickattard

Monday 26 July 2010

Cyrus Engerer: Pride March: Sealed With a Kiss

http://cyrusengerer.com/pride-march-sealed-with-a-kiss/
21.7.10 by Cyrus Engerer

This year's Malta Pride March has come and gone and as every year all political parties sent their representatives, who gave a small speech at the end of the event. How many of these politicians actually walk the talk and talk the walk, is a question that one should ponder on. Another question that arises out of the first question, whether or not should politicians who do not believe in the cause, actually attend the event.

In the past years, we had ample occassions where politicians attend Malta Pride, give a beautiful speech about rights and what they would be willing to do in Palriament (National or European) or within their party, and after barely a few weeks vote in a different way when enacting legislation or speak in public in front of a different audience, in a complete different way. Contradicting all that thet would have said at Pride or infron of the LGBT community.

Should this continue being done? To be fair, this year all three speakers fromt he three different parties were more cautious than usual. However, differences could be seen: there was one who totally believes in equality and invited all to join his party in order to draft the future electoral manifesto together; an other, who although believing in equality had to remain cautious and held back in order not to compromise his party; and the last one, who actually had nothing concrete to say, since his party has no stand at all on the issue so far and is still reluctant to actually discuss it.

What on earth were the representatives of PN and PL doing at the march if they do not support the call RIGHTS NOW! that was being manifested? They were definately not walking their talk and they were not heard talking the walk!

Meanwhile, the media seems to have focused mostly on a kiss that has sealed the march. The fact that there was all this reaction on a kiss confirms that Malta still needs many Pride Marches in the future that continue increasing LGBT visibility in the country. We are making a fuss on a kiss, let alone on legislating marriage equality!

Sunday 25 July 2010

Times: Church blasts gay priests leading 'double life'

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100725/world-news/church-blasts-gay-priests-leading-double-life
Sunday, 25th July 2010

The Catholic Church in Italy, still reeling from the clerical sex abuse scandal, lashed out at gay priests leading a double life, urging them to come out of the closet and leave the priesthood.

The Diocese of Rome issued the strongly-worded statement after the conservative Panorama news-weekly said in a cover story and accompanying video that it had interviewed three gay priests in Rome and accompanied them to gay clubs and bars and to sexual encounters with strangers, including one in a church building.

One of the priests, a Frenchman identified only as Paul, celebrated Mass in the morning before driving the two escorts he had hired to attend a party the night before to the airport, Panorama said.

In a statement last Friday, the Rome diocese condemned those priests who were leading a "double life", said they should not have been ordained and promised that the Church would rigorously pursue anyone behaving in a way that was not dignified for a priest.

It insisted that the vast majority of Rome's 1,300 priests were truthful to their vocations and "models of morality for all".

Those who aren't faithful to their vows "know that no one is forcing them to remain priests, taking advantage of only the benefits", the diocese said.

"Coherency would demand that they come forward. We don't wish any ill-will against them, but we cannot accept that because of their behaviour the honour of all the others is sullied."

No-one knows the exact number of gays in the priesthood. Estimates of the number of gays in US seminaries and the priesthood range from 25 to 50 per cent, according to a review of research by Rev. Donald Cozzens, an author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood.

Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and the Vatican has recently cracked down on gays in the priesthood. (PA)

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

Mons. Mario Grech: Il-Kulturi għas-Servizz tal-Verità

Sintesi tal-omelija ta' Mons Isqof Mario Grech [Isqof t'Għawdex] fl-okkażjoni tal-festa ta' San Ġorġ Martri, Rabat, Għawdex - Il-Ħadd 18 ta' Lulju 2010.

Fl-Ewropa qed nassistu għal konfront bejn il-kultura Kristjana u dik Illuminista. Għalkemmr-razzjonalità xjentifika kienet kawża ta' kisbiet importanti, huwa veru wkoll li meta l-iżvilupp xjentifiku ma jkunx imsieħeb minn żvilupp morali, il-ħila tal-bniedem xi drabi tista' tkun qerrieda.

Infatti fl-Ewropa qed ngħixu fi żmien ta' skwilibriji kbar: min hu mejjet fis-sakra u min hu mejjet għal qatra! Il-kbir aktar qed isir b'saħħtu, anke politikament, u ż-żgħir aktar qed isir dgħajjef. Għandna min hu reliġjuż fanatiku u min qed jgħix l-ateiżmu prattiku.

Billi l-bniedem għaraf il-qawwa tar-raġuni, imma fl-istess hin mhux konxju tal-limiti tal-istess raġuni, huwa kapaċi jasal biex jagħmel manipulazzjoni tan-natura:

billi kixef il-mappa ġenetika tiegħu nnifsu, illum l-bniedem kapaċi "joħloq" il-bniedem fil-laboratorju skont il-gosti u l-ħtiġijiet tiegħu!

Apparti li l-għerf uman wassal biex il-bniedem joħloq frott ġenetikament modifikat, huwa wkoll fatt li minħabba motivi ekonomiċi, il-bniedem jaf jeqred l-istess frott tal-art! Huma l-istituzzjonijiet li jitolbu li jintrema l-frott biex ma jaqax il-prezz tas-suq! L-istess ħaġa ġieli tiġri fejn jidħol is-sajd, u x'aktarx li minħabba prassi bħal din l-aktar li jbati huwa ż-żgħir.

Ir-raġunar tagħna qed jgħidilna li nistgħu nilagħbu bl-istituzzjonijiet naturali, bħalma huwa ż-żwieg u l-familja, u nippromovu stili ta' ħajja li jmorru kontra l-istess natura umana.

Dan kollu qed iseħħ għax l-enerġija umana mhix akkumpanjata minn enerġija etika u morali. Mhux biss iddgħajfet il-morali personali, imma qed tgħib il-morali pubblika. Ir-raġuni dejqa mbuttat kultura li b'mod verament ineditu fl-istorja tal-umanità qed teskludi lil Alla mill-kuxjenza pubblika.

F'pajjiżna sikwit nisimgħu eku ta' din il-kultura sekularista ċinika meta direttament jngħad li Alla m'għandux jidħol meta qed jiġu diskussi temi umani u soċjali. L-istess diskors jingħad indirettament meta ċ-ċittadin Nisrani jsib ruħu eskluż mid-dibattitu pubbliku sempliċement għax ir-raġuni tiegħu hija mgħejjuna mid-dawl tal-fidi fi Kristu. Dan kollu f'soċjetà Illuminista li tiftaħar li maż-żmien kisbet drittijiet fundamentali kbar, bħalma huma d-dritt tal-espressjoni u d-dritt għal-libertà reliġjuża!

Mhux ir-riferiment għal Alla li għandu jbeżża', imma t-tentattiv li hemm fl-Ewropa u fostna biex ikollna soċjetà li assolutament tbarri lil Alla. Min joqtol lil Alla, joqtol lill-bniedem!

Il-Martri tal-Kappadoċja, San Ġorġ, fi żmien id-dekadenza tal-Imperu Ruman meta l-imperatur għamel lilu nnifsu alla, stinka biex jerġa' jagħti ċittadinazza lil Alla fil-belt ta' Nikomedija. Illum ukoll, iċ-ċittadin Nisrani għandu din ir-responsabiltà li jgħin lis-soċjetà kontemporanja tagħmel spazju għal Alla, għax kif jgħid Kristu hija l-verità li teħlisna tassew.

MaltaToday: What is the Nationalist Party?

A Nationalist local councilor defies conservative homophobes by kissing his partner during the pride march. And in a re-edition of the 1960s political-religious struggle, a placard proclaiming that God is against divorce is directed against the Nationalist MP who tabled a pro divorce law. Is religio et patria in deep crisis?

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/blogs/james-debono/what-is-the-nationalist-party
Monday, July 19, 2010 by James Debono

Historically the strength of the Nationalist Party has been its ability to contain within it a very wide spectrum of ideas and to absorb and co-opt potential adversaries in a system of patronage where ideology and entrenched business/media/institutional interests interlope. Ever since the party accepted the reality of mass politics and shifted to the centre (in case of social welfare to the centre left), it has become a formidable electoral machine which won a majority of votes in all elections since 1981 with the exception of 1996.

And this was all thanks to the re-invention of the party in the mid 1970s when Eddie Fenech Adami as leader of the opposition transformed it from an elitist and conservative party to a mass popular party.

Despite and perhaps because of the Christian Democratic ideology it endorsed, the party became less dependent on the church by building its own local structures. In this way the party became a popular party in its own right. Borg Olivier might have been more secular in his world view but he was actually powerless without church backing. The more confessional Fenech Adami changed this. By presenting itself first as a mass movement against the Mintoffian excesses and than as a movement for Europe, the party managed to accommodate both traditionalists and cosmopolitan liberals in one big church.

Discussion on Divorce, civil rights and greater pluralism were postponed to an age of liberties following membership. Ironically following Malta's entry in the EU,a conservative reaction followed within the ranks of the Maltese establishment. Possibly the PN itself was caught by surprise even if elements within the party seemed happy to accommodate this reactionary movement. The party's flirting with Gift of Life fundamentalists is a case in point.

But in the meantime something all the more surprising was happening in Maltese society. It was the ability of social progressives to kick back not in the usual sporadic manner but in more systematic and organised way. The issue of censorship is a case in point. It might well be a case where the conservative elite has overstretched its arms.

Just as the PN had to respond to the greening of civil society before the 2008 election, despite being traditionally close to the pro development lobby, the PN might come the realisation that the time is up for confessional politics. The necessity of political survival might even prevail over one of the last marks of PN identity; conservative social values. For just as much as I resent this conservative mentality, it would be difficult to recognise the PN without it.

Alternatively the party might choose to keep the charade alive by relegating important issues like divorce to the Hyde Park status. But this will come at a cost.

For the purpose of this blog I limited my analysis to the clash between secular and confessional politics, but one can't ignore the crisis of the PN's social model-based on buying the peace and upholding aspects of the welfare state while undermining the re-distributionist model which makes this model sustainable in the long-term. Even on this front, something has to give.

In many ways contrary to what happened in the 1970s when the party reacted to Labour's hegemony, the party finds itself responding to social changes ushered by its own policies in the past two decades. Rather than a recipe for salvation procrastination is increasingly looking as the way to perdition. The real battle for the party's soul may well be fought after the next election especially if the party ends up in opposition.

Times: Love and death in a hot climate

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100720/opinion/love-and-death-in-a-hot-climate
Tuesday, 20th July 2010 Kenneth Zammit Tabona

As time passes and traffic intensity increases so do the number of small memorials along our roads that remind us not only of the loss of loved ones but of the need to drive more carefully. I have often seen fresh flowers and candles placed at these memorials and felt a pang of sorrow for those left behind who cannot and will not let go.

Last week, as temperatures soared, I was driving to Valletta to attend an Arts Festival concert. In Pietà, I noticed a couple placing a bouquet of flowers on one of these monuments. I had never before witnessed anyone doing it and my heart went out to them. No amount of sympathy, no amount of kind words and no amount of talk of resignation can ever heal a wound like this. Many a young life has been truncated savagely and nightmarishly. Those left behind remain permanently scarred. You may argue that it is the story of life and you may be right. However, try and explain this to anyone who has lost a teenage son or daughter, a husband or a wife, a lover or a friend.

As life marches inexorably on, people around us fall off the perches in various ways. Coming to terms with death is not easy. Faith is supposed to help in cushioning the blow and, although we are taught that this life is but a prelude to the eternal afterlife, instead of looking forward to our departure date, as we logically should, we prolong and delay it for as long as we can. Therefore, while declaring Sunday in and Sunday out that we "look forward in joyful hope" and all that, our entire life is spent trying to cheat death in every possible way. As human beings we have to contend with the disconcerting fact that every day that passes marks one more step on that long or short road of deterioration towards death.

We have but one life. Not everyone can be like Queen Elizabeth II who, as princess, had declared that her life "be it long or short" would be dedicated to the service of her subjects.

Admirable as that may sound it did not prevent her anni orribili from happening and the marital disasters in her immediate family circle show that not even this self-sacrificing paragon of royal virtue could get it right! Life is illogical. Therefore, a faith that denies the "right to happiness" on this earth is doomed to extinction. A faith that thrives on guilt cannot survive. The denial of civil rights and the marginalisation of minorities cannot but diminish the authenticity of various religions, all claiming to hold the absolute truth, especially when proclaimed and maintained by an elite who claim to live by the rules and who like imposing them on everyone else.

As a gay person I live in a no man's land. Since the dissolution of the Theban Legion, homosexuals have survived by the skin of their teeth as best they can in eras of increased or diminished tolerance till Stonewall changed the face of civilisation in 1969.

The explosion of gay culture that happened in the 1970s was short-lived.

The outbreak of AIDS in the 1980s was unfairly blamed on the homosexual community and aided and abetted a mounting feeling of homophobia which, today, in our sad and drab post 9/11 world, has created a confrontational situation that is further exacerbated by the Catholic Church.

I refuse to believe in a god who is that capricious and cruel as to have made me the way I am to suffer the condemnation of his representatives should I not emulate the priests of Cybele.

Ergo, although the Church says that there is nothing wrong with being gay, gay sexual activity is prohibited. But then so is heterosexual or any kind sexual activity outside the confines of marriage. As we all know , less and less people, gay, straight or otherwise, give a fig about what the Church says and many people today either form their own a la carte religion or ignore the Church altogether, which, in a civilisation like ours is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Church has just flung down the gauntlet with regard to how Catholic politicians are to vote should the divorce issue be brought up in Parliament, which led to the Prime Minister's abrogation of Parliament's rights and responsibilities by placing the decision which determines the fate of a minority on the entire electorate where, of course, it will be defeated.

Now, cohabitation, according to Prime Minister, is on the cards. What sort of animal it will turn out to be remains to be seen, however, in the light of the above, it cannot ever be particularly user-friendly, if it materialises at all. For, if the Church was so quick to dictate how Catholic MPs should vote with regard to divorce and with a Prime Minister who refuses to change his stance about divorce by stating that his party wishes to strengthen the institution of marriage, can you imagine what the Church would do should cohabitation, which, in my humble opinion, is logically even more anti-marriage than divorce, be put to the vote? As usual, I am perplexed and my flabber is highly ghasted!

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

Alternattiva Demokratika: Malta Gay Pride 2010

PR17/07/2010 AD participates in Gay Pride

Alternattiva Demokratika - The Green Party participated in the Gay Pride march organized by the Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM) in Valletta.

Michael Briguglio, AD Chairperson, said: 'AD salutes the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community and the movements and activists who struggle for LGBT rights. We support such calls for a more equal and inclusive society, which is ultimately what democracy should be all about'.

'Green parties have always been the most progressive parties when it comes to LGBT rights. The track record of the Greens in the European Parliament is a case in point. Greens are also the most ardent supporters of LGBT NGOs'.

'Malta is no exception. Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green is against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and, unlike the other political parties in Malta, we fully support the proposed anti-discrimination directive being proposed within the EU. AD is also the only party with a clear declared stand in favour of registered partnerships'.

Yvonne Arqueros Ebejer, AD spokesperson for Civil Rights, said: 'Various societies have introduced various social reforms - from anti-discrimination at work to recognition of gay families, yet, many challenges remain. In some societies, such as Uganda and Iran, basic gay rights are still inexistent and being gay can actually lead to death. In others, such as the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Britain, Denmark, South Africa, and Canada, to name a few, various rights exist, including forming civil unions, depending on the country'.

'In Malta, even though homosexuality was decriminalised in the 1970s and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at work was made illegal following Malta's EU accession, people with an LGBT identity are being discriminated in various other areas, most notably when it comes to family policy'.

'The LGBT community can rest assured on AD's support. Unlike others political parties, we do not say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience'.

Independent: Parents urged to support their gay children

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=109224
18.7.10? by Elaine Attard

The Drachma parents' support group yesterday urged fellow parents of gay people to show solidarity with their sons and daughters instead of driving their children to suicide.

Spokesmen for the Drachma group spoke to The Malta Independent on Sunday at the Gay Pride march in Valletta yesterday.

Gay people suffer a great deal, especially because they fear that their family will reject them, explained one parent. "We encourage other parents of gay people to love their children with great compassion and not throw them out of their home. When a gay person decides to 'come out of the closet' it is an opportunity for the family to unite and show that love is overpowering. Gay people do not need their parents' sympathy, they need support to stand up for their rights."

"We are committed to encourage… LGBT people and their families in an effort to create more awareness of the difficulties faced because of the stigma society unfortunately attaches to those with a different sexual orientation," states the group's website. The parents' group was established in April 2008 and welcomes any parents who need its help.

Although the Drachma parents' support group is a Christian organisation, its members believe that the Church's stand on matters relating to their children's sexuality creates a need for them to come together and decide their own response, as parents of LGBT children. "We believe that there may be an opportunity for the Church to grow in this area also and we are perhaps in the best position to offer our discerned reflections and act as intermediaries with the local ecclesiastical authorities, to ensure that LGBT people feel embraced by the Church," says the website.

The Gay Pride march, which was attended by around 150 people, was organised by the Malta Gay Rights Movement. It was characterised by gay people and their friends holding bunches of colourful balloons and blowing noisy whistles. Some held placards with slogans such as "I really shouldn't need to be here", "Attitudes are the real disability", "God is an equal opportunities lover". One particularly large banner proclaimed "Civil rights? = Gay Rights!". The march went from City Gate, along Republic Street, St John's Street, Merchants Street and South Street. A small stage was erected in front of the Social Policy Ministry and statements were read out by various political parties and NGO spokesmen.

Representatives from the political parties attended. David Agius and Karl Gouder represented the Nationalist Party, Owen Bonnici and Evarist Bartolo represented the Labour Party while Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio and Yvonne Ebejer Arqueros represented the Green Party. German MEP Holger Krahmer, who is a member of the Alliance of the Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), also took part.

Mr Krahmer said in a short speech that the rights of LGBT people were important for him and for society. He pointed out that homosexual people should be treated the same as straight people and should also have the right to be married.

He said he look forward to the day when homosexuality is regarded as normal and wondered when homosexual couples would be seen as responsible and trusted and with equal rights to a traditional marriage.

"Discrimination and rejection of other individual lifestyles starts in the heads of people and cannot simply be overcome by some anti-discrimination law. Tolerance and the ability for open discussion are necessary to abandon prejudices. Play your part and live in tolerance," he continued.

Meanwhile, this year's Gay Pride march marks a number of achievements for the local LGBT community. MGRM are celebrating the Social Policy Ministry's announcement that the remits of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality will be extended to cater for sexual orientation discrimination. Earlier on this year, MGRM hosted the ILGA-Europe conference, which saw some 400 international delegates discussing LGBT issues in Malta. Discussions on same-sex partnerships have been initiated, even though there are as yet no concrete solutions to the various points of view regarding same-sex partnerships and cohabitation legislation.

PL spokesman Owen Bonnici reiterated that the acknowledgment of civil partnerships is the first step towards other civil rights. With everybody cooperating, Malta should enjoy the same civil rights as in the rest of Europe, he said.

PN whip David Agius, was booed by the crowd when he spoke about the cohabitation law that will be discussed in Parliament soon. He pointed out that discrimination is unacceptable at any level and that the PN is committed to ensuring that everyone enjoys the same opportunities.

Green parties are the most ardent supporters of LGBT NGOs, said AD chairman Michael Briguglio. "In Malta, even though homosexuality was decriminalised in the 1970s and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at work was made illegal following Malta's EU accession, people with an LGBT identity are being discriminated against in various other areas, most notably when it comes to family policy. The LGBT community can rest assured of AD's support. Unlike other political parties, we do not say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience," he said.

It-Torċa: Bżieżaq u lwien jikkaratterizzaw il-Pride March

http://www.it-torca.com/news.asp?newsitemid=9941
18.7.10 minn Charmaine Craus

Fl-istess ħin li fil-Varsavja, fil-Polonja, il-bieraħ sar għall-ewwel darba l-Euro Pride, f'Malta bżieżaq u lwien ikka-ratterizzaw it-toroq tal-Belt Valletta meta mijiet ta' persuni LGBT attendew għall-Pride March.

Dan kien il-qofol tal-attivitajiet organizzati din il-ġimgħa mill-Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM), fejn persuni gay, leżbjani, bisesswali u transesswali jingħaqdu f'attività li fiha jwasslu l-appell kontinwu tagħhom għal drittijiet ċivili ndaqs u jsejħu lill-awtoritajiet biex jieħdu dawk il-miżuri kontra d-diskriminazzjoni li jsofru fil-konfront tagħhom.

Mal-mijiet ta' persuni li mxew mat-toroq tal-Belt Valletta, ingħaqad Holger Krahmer, Membru Parlamentari Ew-ropew Ġermaniż, kif ukoll membru tal-Alleanza tal-Liberali u d-Demokratiċi, li f'kumment lit-TORĊA qal li taħt għajnejn il-Ħallieq, kulħadd għandu jingħata l-istess drittijiet. "M'hemmx għalfejn mara tħobb raġel jew raġel iħobb mara biex ikun hemm imħabba," żied jgħid Krahmer. Jistaqsi għaliex ma jistgħux persuni bħal dawn irabbu familja jekk jafu jħobbu lil xulxin daqs kemm raġel jaf iħobb mara u bil-kontra.

Huwa qal li qed jistenna b'ħerqa dak iż-żmien fejn l-omosesswalità tibda titqies bħala normali u fejn tintemm darba għal dejjem l-istigma marbuta mal-omosesswalità li sal-lum għadha titqies bħala xi ħsara jew theddida.

Matul il-mixja ħadna kumment minn persuna omosesswali, li qaltilna li mhuwiex biżżejjed li l-gvern jim-plimenta liġijiet li jindirizzaw id-dis-kriminazzjoni. "L-ewwel ma jrid isir hija t-tolleranza lejn persuni LGBT. Aħna persuni li bħalkom nafu x'inhi imħabba. It-tolleranza hija l-iżjed fattur ewlieni biex jingħelbu l-preġudizzji li jeżistu."

Lejn tmiem il-mixja, Gabi Calleja mill-MGRM, semmiet l-impenji li l-moviment daħal għalihom matul is-sena li għaddiet u qalet li minkejja li dan l-aħħar sar ħafna diskors dwar ir-rikonoxximent ta' relazzjoni bejn persuni tal-istess sess, xorta għadu mhux magħruf x'se tkun il-protezzjoni, jekk ikun hemm, fil-konfront ta' persuni tal-istess sess u t-tfal jekk tiddaħħal il-leġiżlazzjoni dwar il-koabitazzjoni.

Fakkret ukoll fid-dikjarazzjonijiet li għamel il-President ta' Malta meta ddefinixxa familja bħala koppja mara u raġel bit-tfal. Gabi Calleja qalet li dawn huma perċezzjonijiet insolenti u omofobiċi.

Qalet ukoll li l-MGRM se tkompli tiġġieled għad-drittijiet tat-transesswali u qiegħda tistenna bil-ħerqa d-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Kostituzzjonali dwar id-dritt li persuni transesswali jiżżewġu, wara li jkunu għamlu l-operazzjoni. Id-deċiżjoni se tingħata fl-aħħar ta' Novembru li ġej.

Biex juru l-appoġġ tagħhom lill-komunità LGBT f'pajjiżna, għal din il-mixja attendew il-Membri Parlamentari David Agius, Evarist Bartolo, Owen Bonnici kif ukoll iċ-Chairperson tal-Alternattiva Demokratika Michael Briguglio u attivisti mill-Moviment Graffitti.

Times: Cohabitation law is 'insult' to gay lobby

Some 300 gay rights activists attended the march in Valletta. Photo: Alan Carville.


Holding rainbow-coloured balloons, placards and scarves, gay rights activists yesterday marched through Valletta and demanded equal treatment by being allowed to have legally recognised families.

"It is still not clear whether the upcoming cohabitation legislation will provide protection to same-sex couples and their children," said Gabi Calleja, coordinator of the Malta Gay Rights Movement.

She said the cohabitation law, set to be enacted by the end of the year, appeared to put same-sex couples in the same basket as relatives, siblings and friends living together.

"This is an insult to those of us who chose to live in a loving, committed relationship," she told a crowd who braved the sweltering morning heat to participate in the annual Gay Pride Parade.

Ms Calleja said that President George Abela and the chairman of the Parliament's Social Affairs' Committee, Edwin Vassallo, had said that same-sex couples and their children were excluded from the traditional definition of family.

"Time and again, reference is made to the nuclear family defined as a married, heterosexual couple and their children," she said, adding that this was "outrageous and insulting".

However, Nationalist MP David Agius, who marched with the crowd, said the cohabitation law would not draw distinctions. He added that while the rights of gay people had to be upheld, homosexuals too had to understand that they lived in a community whose beliefs must be respected.

His comments were greeted with disapproval from the crowd who, however, cheered the speech of Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Michael Briguglio who pledged the Green Party's support towards registered gay partnerships.

Politicians present for the event included Labour MP Evarist Bartolo, Nationalist MP Karl Gouder, and the president of the PN Executive Committee Marthese Portelli. German Liberal MEP Holger Krahmer was also present.

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

Times: Malta and EU members reject Moscow Gay Pride request

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100717/local/malta-and-eu-members-reject-moscow-gay-pride-request
Saturday, 17th July 2010 by Ivan Camilleri, Brussels

Malta has joined other EU members in refusing a formal request by Moscow's homosexual community to hold some of this year's gay pride activities at their embassies in Russia, where homosexuality is frowned upon.

The decision was taken following talks at ambassadorial level.

The Moscow Gay Pride - a gay manifestation being marked today also in the EU, including Malta - has been banned by the Russian authorities for the past five years. It was marred by violent incidents and arrests when the organisers went ahead with their demonstration without the official permit.

This year, to prevent a repetition of past incidents, the organisers of the Moscow Gay Pride sought the formal support of some EU member states represented in Moscow. A number of ambassadors had initially said they would be willing to support the event but later changed their stand after talks with their EU colleagues stationed in Moscow, the organisers, who raised the issue in the European Parliament, said.
Apart from Malta, the organisers had also approached the ambassadors of the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Contacted by The Times, a Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman confirmed Malta had rejected the Russian gay community's request.

"The request was not whether Malta supports the Moscow Gay Parade but whether the premises of the Embassy of Malta can be used for the purposes of holding a reception and a seminar to promote homosexuality and the Moscow Gay Pride," the spokesman said.
"The Embassy of Malta replied that, in its view, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations did not allow the use of diplomatic premises for such purposes, except for fulfilling its diplomatic function," the spokesman added.

Ironically, just a few days ago, the British High Commission in Malta started displaying a gay pride flag in the lobby of its offices in Ta' Xbiex for the duration of Gay Pride Week, being commemorated in Malta this week, as a symbol of support for the equality cause.

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

Friday 23 July 2010

L-Orizzont: Illum isir il-Pride March fil-Belt Valletta: Ambaxxaturi barranin jiddikjaraw appoġġ għall-Pride Week mill-MGRM

http://www.l-orizzont.com/news.asp?newsitemid=64548
17.7.10 minn Sammy Sammut

Hija ironija li waqt li l-aw tori tajiet governattivi Maltin qegħ din isibuha komda ħafna li jżommu rwieħhom 'il bo għod kemm jista' jkun minn kull attività li ssir b'sejħa għal drittijiet ċivili ndaqs għal persuni LGBT, aktar rappreżen tanti uffiċjali tal-gvernijiet bar ranin f'pajjiżna qegħdin jiddikjaraw fil-beraħ l-appoġġ u s-sostenn tagħhom għal attivitajiet simili, bl-aħħar eżem pju jkun dak tal-Pride Week li qiegħed jorganizza bħalissa l-Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM).

L-aħħar dikjarazzjonijiet ta' appoġġ għall-ħidma mwettqa f'Malta fejn jidħlu d-drittijiet ta' persuni gay, leżbjani, bisess wali u transesswali saru waqt laqgħa mill-aktar kordjali li uffiċjali tal-MGRM kellhom mal-Kummissarju Għoli Ingliż għal Malta, Louise Stanton u mal-Ambaxxatur Olandiż, Rob b ert Gabrièlse.

Fost is-suġġetti diskussi f'din il-laqgħa kien hemm l-attivitajiet li qegħdin jiġu organizzati f'dawn il-jiem bħala parti mill-Pride Week 2010, li bħala tema għaliha ntgħażlet dik ta' "Rights Now! – Dritti jiet Issa!".

It-tema magħżula tagħti ħjiel ċar tal-ħtieġa kbira li persuni LGBT u l-familji li huma jifformaw, jingħataw fost oħ rajn drittijiet li huma l-istess għal dawk gawduti minn familji oħrajn. Hija wkoll sej ħa biex kemm jista' jkun malajr jittieħdu dawk il-miżuri kollha meħtieġa biex ma tkomplix id-diskriminazzjoni li qiegħda ssir kontra persuni LGBT, fosthom fejn jid ħol l-aċċess għal prodotti u ser vizzi.

Hu biss bir-rispett, id-dinjità u l-ugwaljanza għal kul ħadd li nistgħu nilħqu l-poten zjal sħiħ tagħna bħala bnedmin umani, kemm individwal ment kif ukoll kollettivament. Jien infaħħar il-ħidma sfieqa li qiegħed iwettaq l-MGRM biex ikun indirizzat in-nuqqas tal-ugwaljanza fis-soċjetà," qa let il-Kummissarju Għoli In gliż Stanton waqt li esprimiet it-tama li b'appoġġ aktar mif rux u b'aktar edukazzjoni tasal biex titwettaq bil-fatti din il-viżjoni.

Interessanti wkoll il-fatt li kontra dak li qatt jistgħu jo ħolmu li jagħmlu ministeri u dipartimenti governattivi f'Mal ta, għat-tieni sena konsekuttiva matul il-Pride Week organizzata mill-MGRM, il-Kummissjoni Għolja Ingliża qiegħda tesebixxi l-bandiera tal-gay pride fis-sala tal-mer ħba tal-bini tagħha f'Ta' Xbiex, b'turija ta' appoġġ għall-ugwaljanza għal kul ħadd irrispettivament mill-orjentazzjoni sesswali tiegħu. L-istess għamlet ir-Rappre żen tanza tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea f'Malta li wkoll b'sinjal ta' appoġġ qiegħda ttajjar il-ban­diera tal-gay pride fid-daħla prinċipali ta' Dar l-Ewropa, fil-Belt Valletta.

Min-naħa tiegħu, l-Ambax xatur Olandiż Gabrièlse esprima l-appoġġ u s-solidarjetà sħiħa tiegħu lejn il-komunità leżbjana, gay, bisesswali u transesswali fil-gżejjer Maltin.

Hu faħħar lill-Malta Gay Rights Movement u lill-awtoritajiet Maltin li kkoperaw miegħu biex setgħet tkun or ga nizzata b'suċċess it-13-il Kon ferenza Annwali tal-Fergħa Ew ropea tal-Assoċjazzjoni Internazzjonali tal-Persuni Leż bjani u Gay (ILGA - Europe) f'Ottubru tas-sena l-oħra, waqt li fakkar fid-diskors tal-ftuħ eċċellenti li kien għamel l-Avukat Louis Galea, dak iż-żmien Speaker tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti.

L-attivitajiet mill-MGRM għall-Pride Week 2010 jilħqu l-qofol tagħhom għada, is-Sibt, meta fit-toroq tal-Belt Valletta jsir il-Pride March. Din tibda fl-10.30 a.m. minn Bieb il-Belt u se tkun tinkludi spettaklu mużikali minn espo nenti lokali u barranin, fost hom DJ Chunky, Chiara u Muxu, kif ukoll il-mistieden speċjali l-kantant magħruf Ame rikan bl-isem ta' Michael Ashanti.

Bħas-soltu ssir ukoll il-mixja tradizzjonali ta' solidarjetà ma' dawk il-persuni kollha LGBT li minkejja kollox għadhom qegħdin ibatu inġustizz ji u diskriminazzjoni bbażata fuq id-dehra fiżika jew l-orjentazzjoni sesswali tagħhom. F'din il-mixja se jieħdu sehem rappreżentanti mill-partiti po litiċi diversi kif ukoll għaqdiet ċivili oħrajn.

Jitwasslu wkoll messaġġi qosra tal-okkażjoni matul l-avveniment, li din is-sena jinkludu wieħed mill-EwroParlamentari mill-Grupp ALDE, Holger Krahmer.

Kelliem għall-Malta Gay Rights Movement, Bernard Muscat qal li dawk kollha ta' rieda tajba huma mistednin biex jattendu u jieħdu sehem f'dawn l-attivitajiet biex b'mod paċifiku u kkulurit jaffermaw l-identità leżbjana, gay, bisesswali u transesswali, waqt li jiċċelebraw id-diversità li teżisti fis-soċjetà tagħna.