L-Orizzont: Il-Pulizijia u l-PN fil-Muta. - Alla ħalaq lil Adam u Eva u mhux lil Adam u stEve

http://www.orizzont.com.mt/oldarticles/article1734.html

13.9.2011

Sal-bieraħ filgħaxija l-Pulizija kienet għadha siekta dwar jekk hix qed tinvestiga u jekk hux se tieħu passi kontra membri fil-paġna estrema “DNA Nazzjonalist biss u sal-mewt” f’liema sit hemm mem­bri li qed ixerrdu mi­begħda kontra l-immigranti Afrikanti b’kum­ment li l-aktar li jispikka jkun dak li kien jgħid “xawer bil-petrol u nixgħalilhom sulfarina. Mill-ewwel wieħed sal-aħ­ħar wieħed li daħal”. l-orizzont staqsa lill-Korp Pulizija jekk hux qed tinvestiga l-mibegħda li nkitbet kontra l-immig­ranti f’din il-paġna, li mal-isem tiegħu hemm ritratt tal-Prim Ministru Gonzi. Il-Pulizija sal-bieraħ tard filgħaxija kienu għadhom ma taw l-ebda reazzjoni.
l-orizzont staqsa ukoll lis-Segretarju Ġenerali tal-Partit Nazzjonalista, Paul Borg Olivier, dwar x’inhi l-pożizzjoni tal-PN dwar dan is-sit u kif iħares lejn il-fatt li membri f’dan is-sit estrem hemm MPs, ministri u anke uffiċjali tal-PN. Sakemm mor­na għall-istampa ukoll konna għadna bla tweġiba.
Intant jidher li l-problema tal-kummenti iebsin f’dan is-sit kompliet ilbieraħ, hekk kif saru kummenti xejn pożittivi fuq il-’gays’. Jispikka dak li għamel l-amministratur tas-sit stess, fejn qal li “Alla ħalaq lil Adam u Eva u mhux lil Adam u Steve”.

Għalkemm s’issa ­ l-Pulizija ma ħadet l-ebda passi kontra dawn il-kummenti iebsin f’dan is-sit estrem, il-Kodiċi Kriminali ta’ pajjiżna tgħid li “kull min juża kliem jew imġieba ta’ theddid, abbużivi, jew insolenti, jew jesebixxi xi materjal miktub jew stampat li jkun ta’ theddid, abbużiv jew insolenti, jew xort oħra jġib ruħu b’dak il-mod, bil-ħsieb li b’hekk iqajjem vjolenza jew mibegħda razzjali jew b’hekk joħloq il-probabbiltà li, meta wieħed iqis iċ-ċirkostanzi kollha, titqajjem vjolenza jew mibegħda razzjali, jeħel, meta jinsab ħati, il-piena ta’ priġunerija minn sitt xhur sa tmintax-il xahar ħabs.”
Il-Kodiċi Kriminali jgħid li “vjolenza jew mibegħda razzjali tfisser vjolenza jew mibegħda kontra grupp ta’ persuni f’Malta definiti b’riferenza għall-kulur, razza, reliġjon, dixxendenza, nazzjonalità jew oriġini etnika jew nazzjonali jew kontra xi membru ta’ dak il-grupp”.
Intant f’dan is-sit estrem issib li hemm membri fih għadd ta’ membri parlamentari, ministri, segretarji parlamentari, uffiċjali tal-Partit Nazzjonalista u anke impjegati mlaħħqin f’dipartimenti tal-Gvern.
Fost il-persuni li jispikkaw għall-preżenza tagħhom f’dan il-grupp hemm Charmaine Gauci mid-Dipartiment għall-Promozzjoni tas-Saħħa u l-Prevenzjoni mill-Mard. Bħala membri hemm ukoll id-Deputat Nazzjonalista Charlo Bonniċi, is-Segretarju Parlamentari Clyde Puli, id-Deputat Nazzjonalista Franco Debono, is-Segretarju Parlamentari Jason Azzopardi, is-Segretarju Parlamentari Mario Galea, il-Ministru Joe Cassar, is-Segretarju Parlamentari Chris Said, id-Deputat Nazzjonalista Philip Mifsud, Louis Galea, id-deputat Nazzjonalista Censu Galea, id-deputat Michael Gonzi, id-Deputat Joseph Falzon u d-Deputat David Agius.
F’dan il-grupp estrem, intitolat “DNA Nazzjonalist biss u sal-mewt” hemm ukoll bħala membru Peppi Azzopardi, il-membri Parlamentari Ewropej Nazzjonalisti Simon Busuttil u David Casa, Paul Gonzi u t-tabib Frank Portelli”.

MaltaToday: Gay blood donations ban against EU law – Commissioner John Dalli

http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/world/gay-blood-donations-ban-against-eu-law-%E2%80%93-commissioner-john-dalli
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 09, 2011

European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli says that a blanket ban

European Commissioner John Dalli says that blanket ban on gay blood donations goes against EU law.

Answering to questions from Members of the European Parliament, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli said that – contrary to how some member states interpret a 2004 European Directive – EU law does not warrant a blanket ban on blood donations from gay or bisexual men.

Dalli said the EU law warranted the deferral of those “at high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases” due to their “sexual behaviour”, pointing out that sexual ‘behaviour’ is different to sexual ‘orientation’.

Dalli’s comments on the issue follows news that the UK government is expected to announce that it is lifting the lifetime ban on blood donation for men who had sex with men (MSM). According to news reports, the men would have to prove that they had abstained from sex for at least a year before donating.

The EC also highlighted the fact that Member States should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when implementing EU law. It made it clear that a blanket ban on all gay and bisexual men would be in breach of EU law.

In a press release, MEP Michael Cashman, Co-President of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT Rights, said the Commission’s answer “makes a lot of sense."

"Commissioner John Dalli reminds Member States that it is individuals who are at risk – not groups. Being gay or bisexual cannot automatically pose a threat to public health; but risky sexual behaviour in men or women, gay or straight, is a real risk. I hope the British government’s announcement later today will prefer scientific evidence to prejudice,” Cashman said.

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

European Commission: Banning gay men from donating blood is against EU law

http://www.lgbt-ep.eu/press-releases/european-commission-banning-gay-men-donating-blood-against-eu-law/

September 8th, 2011

The European Commission recently affirmed that EU law does not warrant widespread bans on blood donations from gay and bisexual men in several EU countries. National health authorities often cite a 2004 European Directive to justify such blanket bans.

Answering a written question from Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission explained that EU law does not warrant a blanket ban on blood donations from gay or bisexual men.

John Dalli, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, explained that EU law warranted the deferral of those “at high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases” due to their “sexual behaviour”. Mr Dalli underlined that “‘sexual behaviour’ is not identical with ‘sexual orientation’”.

The Commission also noted that when implementing EU law, Member States must not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This means a blanket ban on all gay and bisexual men would be illegal under EU law.

However, most countries ban any men who had sex with men from blood donation, de facto including gay and bisexual men.

Michael Cashman MEP, Co-President of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on LGBT Rights, said the Commission’s answer “makes a lot of sense. Commissioner John Dalli reminds Member States that it is individuals who are at risk—not groups. Being gay or bisexual cannot automatically pose a threat to public health; but risky sexual behaviour in men or women, gay or straight, is a real risk. I hope the British government’s announcement later today will prefer scientific evidence to prejudice.”

Further commenting the Commission’s answer, Sirpa Pietikäinen MEP, Vice-President of the LGBT Intergroup and Member of the Committee on Public Health added: “It is our highest priority to look after public health, and thus take care of the quality of donated blood. But health ministers must bear in mind that sexual orientation, ethnic background and other identity traits are fully irrelevant to a person’s health. Denying blood donation from these groups is discriminatory and goes fully against logic.”

Unrelated to the Commission’s answer, the British government is expected to announce later today that it will lift the lifetime ban on blood donation for men who had sex with men, replacing it with a one to ten-year deferral period.

Times: Italian TV accused of censoring gay marriage episode

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110909/world/Italian-TV-accused-of-censoring-gay-marriage-episode.383973

Friday, September 9, 2011, by AFP

Italy’s state broadcaster RaiUno was accused yesterday of censoring a German television series in which two men get married in a Catholic convent.

The channel’s director Mauro Mazza justified the decision not to air the marriage episode of Cyclone in the Convent, explaining that “the series is too long, we had to pull out one episode”.

The episode in question Romeo and Romeo, which was due to be aired on Wednesday morning, showed a gay wedding ceremony taking place in front of a Catholic altar.

Mr Mazza argued that had the marriage been shown in a town hall there would have been no problem.

The German production company NDF complained about the decision saying, in comments carried by the La Repubblica daily, that the decision was over the top, adding that “perhaps they haven’t watched the episode properly”.

Opposition deputy Paola Concia, who has herself taken part in a same-sex marriage, called on RaiUno to show the episode.

“It is clear, with this act, that the Rai management wants to censure the truth,” she said.

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

Times: Why I want to leave the Catholic Church

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110908/letters/Why-I-want-to-leave-the-Catholic-Church.383781
Thursday, September 8, 2011 , by Ingram Bondin, Luqa

I have read with interest the various reactions regarding the group Not In Our Name in the Maltese media. I plead guilty to being one of the 41 “noteworthies” caricatured by Kenneth Zammit Tabona in his article Outward Signs Of Inward Grace (August 23). My contribution to this debate will be to spell out, as concisely as possible, my reasons for wanting to leave the Catholic Church.

I do not consider myself a Catholic any longer. I did not choose to be baptised and was still too young to realise the full implications of receiving the sacrament of confirmation. Let it be clear that I harbour no ill feeling towards people endorsing the Catholic faith. My quarrel is with the institution of the Church itself. The Church is not simply a spiritual guide; it competes to affect public policy which in turn affects all citizens. Everyone knows that its reach is far and wide, and it is able to use both direct and indirect methods to influence key decisions.

I do not believe in theocracy and I do not believe the state should be run according to the teachings of a Holy Book and their subsequent interpretation by a religious institution.

But a cursory look at the events of 2010 and 2011 would convince anyone that many
important people in the highest reaches of the state would not agree with me. There were a substantial number of episodes in which appointed officials in positions of public trust spoke as if the entire population of these islands was Catholic. I am tired of feeling like a second-class citizen and of the state being used as a tool to impose Catholic morality on everyone.

Considering all this, is it so capricious that I should wish to send a message to the powers that be that there are baptised citizens who are no longer Catholic and who wish for their liberties to be respected?

Am I not free to leave an institution which I did not even choose to join in the first place? And why should I be subject to an interview by the Chancellor? If I were a member of a political party with whose ideas I no longer agreed, would I need the permission of its general secretary to leave it? Would I not have the right to ask them to stop keeping my records?

As a non-believer, I feel bound only by the laws of this republic. Mr Zammit Tabona claims that my baptism cannot be reversed and that I cannot stop being Catholic. Whether my baptism can be reversed or not is an idle question in a metaphysical framework in which I no longer believe. He also claims that we should militate for a change in the Constitution instead, to allow for a secular republic. This, I’m afraid to say, is naïve in the extreme. There is absolutely no political will for such a change; we’re at a stage in which the institutions barely recognise that you can be Maltese and non-Catholic. What Not In Our Name is doing is taking the first steps towards the latter goal. If we succeed, perhaps the idea of a secular state will start to sound like the only option which can ensure that all citizens are respected equally.


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

---

Times: BUT WHY?

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110908/blogs/but-why.383840
Thursday, September 8, 2011, 09:01, by Andrew Borg Cardona

On Thursday's Times, there was a lengthy letter, responding to a piece by Kenneth Zammit Tabona, in which the letter writer, whose name I forget but it's not important (I trust you see what I mean) made his case for wanting to leave the Catholic Church and for this to be given effect, something on the lines of when one de-registers for VAT, I imagine.

The letter, as already pointed out, was lengthy and it tended to flit from point to point, making it a less than snappy read, but my opening question stands: why? To which I could add a corollary, namely " and who cares?" As far as I am concerned, whether young what's his name is, was, doesn't want to be, no longer considers himself as, a Catholic (or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Seventh Day Adventist or whatever) is a matter of supreme indifference.

You might ask why, then, I am dedicating a few words this fine morning (it's a beautiful day with a North Westerly blowing) to asking this youth to keep his religious or non-religious activities to himself.

Well, it's simple really: religious or anti-religious activism impinges on our lives in so many ways if taken too far, and I'm thinking that the next step said youth is going to take will be to invoke the majesty of the Courts of Justice, which will cost me money (you think the Courts run themselves for free or something?)

Either that or he's going to whip a few like-minded souls up into a frenzy and march on the Curia (hopefully not to sack it, as Labour's shock-troops had done once, just minutes after Dr KMB had removed himself from the parade) requiring the deployment of Malta's finest to keep order (a feat they had not managed to carry out the other time) and generally messing around with traffic, all of which will cost me and you money and cause us inconvenience.

That's not to say, of course, that the chap didn't have a valid point buried within his epistle: it's about time religion, any religion and all religion, was taken off centre stage and made a matter of personal choice not to be imposed on anyone.
And by not imposing, I mean everything from removing references to religion from the Constitution, through letting people regulate their lives without reference to the Sacra Rota to conducting religious festivities with a tad more consideration for the rest of us than most parishes demonstrate. I'm not advocating the dry and totalitarian secularisation of the world, just a bit of liberalism which allows me to live my life without having to endure a re-enactment of the Blitz to celebrate a saint. Let off some fireworks, by all means, and process around the streets all you like, but do bear in mind that there are some of us for whose life would be complete without all that.

And if you want to leave your religion, be my guest, but please don't mess me or my taxes around while you're at it - just leave.

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

L-Orizzont: Persuni LGBT f’appartamenti tal-Gvern

http://www.orizzont.com.mt/oldarticles/article72601.html
4.8.2011 minn Socrate, Santa Luċija

Sur Editur;

Ċerta “Skrupluża”, fl-ittra tagħha ppubblikata fil-ġurnal l-orizzont tas-Sibt, 23 ta’ Lulju, esprimiet id-diżapprovazzjoni tagħha li koppji gay jew lesbjani jkollhom appartament tal-gvern fejn jgħixu. Skont hi, dawn jistgħu jkunu ta’ skandlu għal tfal li jkunu jgħixu f’dak il-blokk ta’ appartamenti.

Jiena ma naqbel assolutament xejn ma’ dak li kitbet. Dawn huma ċittadini daqs kulħadd u għandhom kull dritt li jkollhom għajnuniet soċjali kif wkoll post ta’ abitazzjoni. L-iskandli mhux dawn in-nies jagħtuhom sinjura “Skrupluża“, l-iskandli jagħtuhom nies li fil-parti l-kbira minnhom ikunu miħħewwġin bil-knisja u li tismahom jiġġieldu, jidgħu u jgħidu kliem oxxen quddiem uliedhom.

Kull fejn ikunu l-gays u l-lesbjani dejjem rajthom iżommu l-ordni. Nies indaf u jżommu madwarhom nadif. Ma nafx għaliex din id-diskriminazzjoni ma’ dawn in-nies. Jiena m’inhix hekk, imma nirrispetahom. Għalkemm m’hemm xejn ħażin li tkun hekk. Nagħlaq billi nħeġġeġ lill-Gvern biex lill-persuni LGBT jagħtihom l-għarfien li jixirqilhom.

---

Persuni LGBT għandhom dritt daqs ħaddieħor

9.8.2011 minn Charles Bayliss, Żurrieq.

Sur Editur,

Fil-ħarġa ta' l-orizzont tas-Sibt 23 ta' Lulju, 2011, dehret ittra miktuba mis-Sinjura “Kurjuża” (għaliex ma urietx isimha, għandha x'taħbi?) fejn talbet lill-awtoritajiet ma jikkunsidrawx koppji gay għal "social housing".

Din is-sinjura milli jidher għadha tgħix fis-snin 60 jew għamlet dan il-kumment bl-egoiżmu nisrani tagħha. Għall-grazzja ta' Alla jien u l-partner tiegħi m'ghandniex
bżonn ta' dan is-servizz imma hemm ħafna minn sħabna li jixtiequ jsibu post, imma minħabba ċirkostanzi finanzjarji ma jistgħux.

Jien u l-partner tiegħi ilna flimkien 7 snin u fiż-żewġ postijiet li kellna qatt ma tajna fastidju lil ħadd, anzi kienu l-ġirien li fittxew il-ħbiberija tagħna. Mhux biss rajna rispett kbira mingħand il-ġirien, imma talli kultant jiffittawna b'mod pożittiv biex jgħinuna. Ma naħsibx li aħna l-gays aħna xi nies minn wara l-muntanji. Aħna nħallu lil ħaddieħor jgħix ħajtu u ħaddieħor iħalli lilna ngħixu ħajjietna.

Imma fl-ittra taghħa, din il-korrispondenta ħarġet ċerta tonalità ta' omofobija. Sinjura aħna twelidna f'din Malta tagħna ċittadini daqsek bid-dmirijiet u nippretendi DRITTIJIET ugwali daqsek u daqs ħaddieħor. Hawn ħafna, inkluż il-gvern li lilna jarana ċittadini tat-tielet klassi, imma imbagħad fejn jidħlu dmirijiet, ħlas ta' taxxi u VAT per eżempju, aħna ċittadini tal-ewwel klassi; anzi aħna nħallsu taxxa aktar minnek għax m'aħniex rikonuxxuti bħala koppja.

Sinjura ‘Skrupluza’, parir tal-aħħar se nagħtik. Oqgħod attenta kif titkellem għax jista' jkun li xi ħadd minn uliedek jew ulied uliedek jista' jkun omosesswali u jkollu/jkollha tiffaċċja dak li egoistikament int u nies bħalek tridu ċċaħduna.

Times: LGBT rights and equality

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110902/opinion/LGBT-rights-and-equality.382914
Friday, September 2, 2011 , by Yvonne Arqueros Ebejer

In Maltese society, as in other societies, heterosexual and birth-sex gender conformity have long been established as the normal and sole socially accepted form of sexual and gender expression. Such a system of conformity is maintained in place through various forms of social discrimination, pejorative terms and name calling as well as social devaluation of those known to not fall neatly within the intended limits, that is, LGBT persons (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender). Additionally, this system of discrimination is inscribed in laws and social policy.

Inequality between heterosexual and non-heterosexuals (lesbian, gay and bisexual persons) as well as inequality between those who identify with the sex attributed to them at birth and those who do not (transsexual, transgender and genderqueer people) is real. An adequate redress of various difficulties and discriminations the Maltese LGBT community faces cannot wait any further. We also need to promote a positive image of this diverse community to ensure that changes inscribed in laws are followed by changes in society.

A case in point is the discrimination Joanne Cassar continues to be subjected to. Joanne, a woman who was identified as a man at birth, has undergone surgical gender reassignment and, subsequently, the gender on her birth certificate was changed. Yet, the state refuses to provide her with the right to marry her boyfriend irrespective of the fact that such a marriage is fully in conformity with heterosexual marriage permitted by law and, in a 2002 judgment, the European Court of Human Rights had decided that trans persons have the right to marry their different sex partner.

Lesbian, gay and bisexual persons too suffer discrimination. The state has dragged its feet in the implementation of the Employment Framework Directive, which provides protection from sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Unlike most EU member states, no protection against discrimination in access to and supply of goods and services and against violence and hate crimes yet apply.

Additionally, there is no form of recognition of same-sex partners and, hence, no rights and duties available to different-sex partners apply to them.

Putting things into perspective, one may argue that the Maltese situation is not as bad as that of various other countries, particularly those where homosexuality is still harshly punished. One may also say that the social situation is much improved next to what it was like a few years back. However, according to a recently-published ILGA-Europe study, within the EU only Cyprus has a worse track record on LGBT issues than that of Malta.

The government recently had to remove the clause in the law that discriminated against EU nationals in same-sex relationships with third country nationals with regard to freedom of movement. The next step is to ensure that LGBT persons in Malta have similar rights as those in other societies having progressive legislation.

In order to make this leap, the government can refer to the growing body of law and recommendations for LGBT equality coming out of international institutions. We simply cannot continue to agree to positive policy and legislative statements in international fora and ignore them domestically.

Alternattiva Demokratika fully supports the struggle of LGBT persons against discrimination and we are the only political party in Malta that officially supports the proposed EU anti-discrimination directive. The European Greens are also the most progressive party in the European Parliament when it comes to LGBT rights.

The LGBT community can rest assured of AD’s consistent and continued support. To us, civil unions should form part of Maltese law and social policy and we have appealed to Parliament to legislate in this regard, all of which has fallen on deaf ears, to date. Same-sex couples should enjoy equal legal rights and not be discriminated against in social and family policies. Therefore, they should have the right to enter into civil unions that entail equal mutual rights and responsibilities that married different-sex couples are entitled to.

Full sexual and gender equality should be achieved in Maltese society without fear of discrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. The government should be responsible enough to educate society, identify and prevent discrimination, provide support services and information in this regard. AD’s election in Parliament will ensure that LGBT rights are on the forefront of Malta’s social policy and civil rights agendas.

www.alternattiva.org.mt

The author is deputy chairman and spokesman for civil rights and culture of Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green party.

MaltaToday: Former minister hits out at fire and brimstone monsignor

http://maltatoday.com.mt/news/divorce/former-minister-hits-out-at-fire-and-brimstone-monsignor

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2011 By NESTOR LAIVIERA

Nationalist MP Censu Galea called on the Church to take a clear stance after Mgr Anton Gauci branded all pro-divorce Catholics as being “on the road to hell”

Nationalist MP Censu Galea is calling on the Church to refute statements made by a priest, Mgr Anton Gauci, who branded MPs who voted for divorce as “heretics” and “on the road tohell.”

In a letter published on Sunday, 21 August on the Nationalist Party’s newspaper il-mument, former minister Censu Galea took to task Gozitan priest Mgr Anton Gauci, over a fire-and-brimstone attack he penned those who criticised the Prime Minister for controversially voting against the divorce bill in parliament.

“Whomever supports the introduction of a law that goes against divine law, whether a member of parliament or simple faithful, is on the road to hell,” Mgr Gauci wrote.

He also maintained that anyone opposing the indissolubility of marriage had made themselves heretics and had excommunicated themselves, meaning they “placed themselves outside the church.”

“Why? Because the indissolubility of marriage is church dogma as defined by session XXIV of the Council of Trent and was defined as ex iure divino,” Mgr Gauci said.

“It is worthless that these even present themselves for Communion,” he said. “This is nothing short of a sacrilege.”

Mgr Gauci had prominently opposed Malta’s accession into the EU in the run-up to the 2003 referendum, slamming the EU’s leadership as “pagan” in left-leaning newspaper it-Torca over its stand on same-sex relationships, abortion, and its reluctance to recognise god in the European constitution.

Reacting to Gauci’s letter last Sunday, Nationalist MP Censu Galea - who voted in favour of the divorce bill in parliament - drew attention to the Curia’s silence in the face of Mgr Gauci’s fiery warning. “What is the Church’s position on this letter?” he asked.

“If they agree with it, they should be clear about it. If not, they should condemn it without reservation,” he said, adding that the Church is duty-bound to clarify its position on the matter.

Contacted by MaltaToday, Galea reiterated that he expects the Church make its position clear. “During the referendum campaign, the Church had said it would not be taking such a line. If that has changed, it should say so,” he said.

“If the church’s position is one that is in line with what Mgr Gauci wrote, it is a position I would find a big issue with,” Galea said, adding that he had made no secret of his No vote in the divorce referendum.

Questions sent to Curia PRO Kevin Papagiorcopulo remained unanswered by the time of going to print.

Galea was one of the few government MPs who voted in favour of the divorce bill during both parliamentary votes – during the second reading before the bill was submitted to review at committee stage, and during the third reading, when the bill was amended and subject to the final decisive vote.

“Society was changing,” Galea was reported as saying in early July, just days before the second reading vote. “One might like the change, but it could not be stopped. People whose marriage had failed should be helped to reintegrate in society.”

In his letter on 24 July, Mgr Gauci also dismissed the line of reasoning adopted by several MPs that “one is supporting the will of the people in the referendum” by voting in favour of divorce.

“We can never support a decision that goes against divine law such as the indissolubility of marriage,” Mgr Gauci said.

He also called on the church to “teach these truths” and said its leaders have no choice but to do so. “Church heads, bishops, parish heads and priests are not free to teach them or not. Even if this means sacrifice or odiousness on their part.”

“It is our duty and god will punish us if we shirk it,” Mgr Gauci said, adding that no excuse could stand in the way, “not even the myth that we would be accused of conducting ‘crusades’.”

“Whoever supports the introduction of a law that goes against divine law, be they members of parliament or simple faithful, are on the road to hell,” Mgr Gauci said.

Earlier this year, Mgr Gauci also vociferously supported the widely-criticised ‘ban’ of pro-divorce lobby chairperson and family lawyer Deborah Schembri from the Curia’s Ecclesiastic Tribunal.

Describing this as “common sense in practice”, Mgr Gauci said it is “unbelievable that we should see the chairman of a pro-divorce movement perorating exactly in marriage-dissolution cases of ecclesiastical tribunals.”

“Let us be frank and ask ourselves what Lord Jesus would have remarked on such happenings,” Mgr Gauci added, taking the chance to hit out at those members of the clergy who had expressed pro-divorce sentiments.

“It is really sad to see that, when God’s and Church’s laws are clear in their prohibitions, you can have some of God’s ministers not in unison with Catholic belief. It is precisely this that strikes you when you read of priests “supporting” pro-divorce movements (April 28),” he said.

In 2003, a handful of days before Malta’s European Union referendum on 8th March, Mgr Gauci had also soundly criticised the EU and the European Parliament for approving a resolution urging EU member states to recognise same-sex marriages.

“One would have to be completely blind to not see that the EU leadership is absolutely pagan and goes against the teachings of the Gospel,” Mgr Gauci wrote in the Torca, a weekly newspaper owned by the General Workers’ Union.

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

Pink News: Maltese LGBT community faces legal anomaly after discriminatory rule is revoked

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/08/25/maltese-lgbt-community-faces-legal-anomaly-after-discriminatory-rule-is-revoked/

25.8.11 by Stephen Gray

The rights of the gay community in Malta have been left in disarray after EU intervention saw a restriction on migration struck from the law books.

The central Mediterranean group of islands which makes up the country has a strong Catholic ethos, which means gay couples have little in the way of governmental recognition.

Until this year, non-recognition of gay relationships was applied equally to Maltese citizens and to foreign nationals: those in other member states of the EU and in non-EU, third countries across the world.

But in 2010, the EU passed a new directive concerning the free movement of EU citizens between states.

The directive instructed member states to allow entry into their country for an EU citizen and a third country national, so long as they are in a “durable” relationship, regardless of their genders.

Malta, which joined the EU in 2004, enacted legislation, but failed to properly execute the directive.

Where one member of a couple was a third country national in a same-sex union, Malta denied the right to freedom of movement by building in an exemption that applied to gays.

Following infringement proceedings by the European Commission, the Maltese government has been forced to strike the clause that said the country only recognised partners “in a durable relationship” if such relationships were not in “conflict with the public policy of Malta”. Malta has a public policy of non-recognition of same-sex unions.

But with the striking down of the clause comes a migrative anomaly: the same-sex partner of an EU citizen can move with that EU citizen to Malta, but the parter of a Maltese resident, who already lives in the country, cannot move to Malta.

An American and a British person in a civil partnership, or any durable relationship, could therefore freely move to the islands, but that American could not move directly to Malta if their partner was a native resident.

In effect, the same-sex partner of a British citizen has more legal right to live in Malta than the same-sex partner of a Maltese citizen.

Gabi Calleja, the coordinator for the Maltese Gay Rights Movement, said: “This amendment is welcome but it in no way replaces the necessity for the introduction of comprehensive legislation recognising same-sex couples. It is regrettable that a number of same-sex couples are forced to leave Malta in order to sustain their relationship each year.”

In 2009 the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) released its legal analysis of homophobia and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the 27 member states.

It concluded that Maltese people in same-sex relationships “are not treated in a like manner to heterosexual couples simply because of their sexual orientation.”

However, in a mark of progress, a transgender man who was born female and underwent surgery abroad, was allowed to update his official birth records to reflect the change.

A 2009 study found 49% of the students at the archipelago’s University supported gay marriage, compared with a national study three years earlier that put the number at 18% for the general populace.

Discuss this story: 21 COMMENTS

Independent: LGBT community faces legal anomaly after discriminatory rule is revoked

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=131140
Article published on 28 August 2011

The rights of the gay community in Malta have been left in disarray after an EU intervention saw a restriction on migration struck off the law books.

Until this year, non-recognition of gay relationships was applied equally to Maltese citizens and to foreign nationals: those in other member states of the EU and in non-EU third countries across the world.

But in 2010, the EU passed a new directive concerning the free movement of EU citizens between states.

The directive instructed member states to allow entry into their country for an EU citizen and a third country national, so long as they are in a “durable” relationship, regardless of their genders.

Malta then enacted legislation, but failed to properly execute the directive, it is being claimed.

The Malta Gay Rights Movement and human rights NGO Aditus have welcomed the government’s amendment but pointed out that it also creates an anomalous situation.
Previously, where one member of a couple was a third country national in a same-sex union, Malta denied the right to freedom of movement by building in an exemption that applied to gays.

Following infringement proceedings by the European Commission, the Maltese government has been forced to strike the clause that said the country only recognised partners “in a durable relationship” if such relationships were not in “conflict with the public policy of Malta”. Malta has a public policy of non-recognition of same-sex unions.

But with the striking down of the clause comes a migrative anomaly: the same-sex partner of an EU citizen can move with that EU citizen to Malta, but the partner of a Maltese resident who already lives in the country, cannot move to Malta.
In other words, an American and a British person in a civil partnership, or any durable relationship, could freely move to Malta, but that American could not move directly to Malta if the partner was a native resident.

A South African national in a relationship with a Belgian citizen would be allowed to enter, reside and work in Malta whereas the same person in a relationship with a Maltese citizen would not, the NGOs said

In effect, the same-sex partner of a British citizen has more legal right to live in Malta than the same-sex partner of a Maltese citizen.

Gabi Calleja, the coordinator of the Maltese Gay Rights Movement, was quoted by PinkNews as saying: “This amendment is welcome but it in no way replaces the necessity for the introduction of comprehensive legislation recognising same-sex couples. It is regrettable that a number of same-sex couples are forced to leave Malta in order to sustain their relationship each year.”

The NGOs added: “Being married or in a registered partnership should automatically qualify as a durable relationship duly attested for the purposes of the directive. Where no such formalization of the relationship exists, other proof might be requested by the local authorities.”

In 2009, the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency released its legal analysis of homophobia and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the 27 member states.

It concluded that Maltese people in same-sex relationships “are not treated in a like manner to heterosexual couples simply because of their sexual orientation.”
However, in a mark of progress, a transgender man who was born female and underwent surgery abroad was allowed to update his official birth records to reflect the change.

A 2009 study found 49 per cent of students at Malta’s university supported gay marriage, compared with a national study three years earlier that put the number at 18 per cent for the general populace.