Antonio P. Briguglio (September 24) criticised those who are taken up with the trivia of altering established English words such as manhole or cameramen to substitute their prefixes and suffixes with the word "person". One could adopt a reductio ad absurdum approach to show how ridiculous this obsession is by changing many words containing the words man or men and inserting the word "person". For example "menu" could be "personu" and "manage" could be "personage" which is of course just as nonsensical. Mr Briguglio encapsulates it all by his use of the Latin maxim De minimis non curat lex.

However, there is a law which can cure this nonsensical trivia. It is contained in Chapter 456 of the Laws of Malta titled The Equality for Men and Women Act.

Article 11 appoints a Commissioner and six members of a Commission for the Promotion of Equality. Article 12 charges them with the responsibility to identify areas of discrimination against both sexes and to report and make recommendations to the Prime Minister who appointed them in the first place.

May I ask what reports and recommendations has this body made to the Prime Minister about my complaint that men are treated unfairly and discriminately under our tax laws. Might I refresh its memory that in a case where a married woman fails to pay her due tax and interest thereon that it is the male spouse who is responsible at law to make good her omission? Has this quango reported on this legal loophole that entitles a married woman to ignore her obligations and to leave her husband to carry the can?

I know of a case where a married woman did just that. She left her husband to cohabit with another man and is now involved in separation proceedings. Doubtless she will also be asking for maintenance from her husband who in his predicament can do nothing to correct this injustice and to make her pay her dues.

Has this Commission ever reported on the cases they are duty bound to investigate? If so, has it taken into account that many married women also have a profession and have separate jobs and separate incomes and are also separately assessed for taxation purposes and yet it is the husband who is responsible for payment of their tax unless they are on the PAYE system?

Have the commission not also taken into account that women are adequately protected under the community of acquests law? The law as it stands now is discriminatory against men and an unjust anachronism. I would advise any man who is affected by this law to question this vicarious liability unjustly imposed upon him in the Constitutional Court as being repugnant to all concepts of justice and against a law ostensibly designed to protect his interests. Can the commissioner respond and explain why this part of the tax laws is still in force given his terms of reference and what is he doing about it?