Mario Vella
The state and the bedroom
On Tuesday, June 1, Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo, in his capacity as chairman of the House Social Affairs Committee, is reported to have said that what happens in the bedroom is the state's business. This newspaper, in its report of Thursday, June 3, of the proceedings of this parliamentary committee paraphrased the Nationalist member as follows: "What happens in the bedroom is, up to a point, the government's business because it often had to resolve problems caused there".
Later in the same report, the same gentleman's own actual words are quoted: "What we're learning in this committee is that what happens in the bedroom often ends up before the state to do something about it". Helpfully putting his words in context, the reporting journalist notes that "Mr Vassallo made his comments in reaction to Labour MP Anthony Zammit's reiteration of Labour leader Joseph Muscat's statement that it was not for the state to care what happened in the bedroom".
This exchange of views took place during a sitting of the Committee where the Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM) presented the findings of a report on the problems faced by gay people in Malta. Mr Vassallo cited "single parents and teenage pregnancies" as "examples" of the sort of problems arising from "what happens in the bedroom". Presumably, Mr Vassallo cited them to justify the state's interest and concern with what citizens do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
In a later clarification, he said that the government "can never and should never interfere" in one's private life, however, it had a role to inform people of the consequences of their private decisions" (The Times, June 4, p.3).
The Times (June 3) reported that the other Nationalist MP on the Committee, Beppe Fenech Adami, showed a keen interest in the existence or otherwise of stereotypical gender roles in the case of same-sex parenting.
According to the report, he "asked the MGRM representatives whether in homosexual couples there were 'mother and father roles'. In his and his wife's experience, Dr Fenech Adami said, when they tried filling each other's role the results weren't that good".
I will comment on this myself next time we meet on this page. Today, I will only refer to a few comments to the said report on this newspaper's online edition. I recommend you read them all. My own reading of these comments led me to two conclusions.
Firstly, that the House of those that are meant to represent us is not above our society. From this point of view, the House of Representatives is indeed representative. It reflects the state of our culture and the contradictions that characterise it. Bigotry, prejudice, intolerance and sheer ignorance tangle and intertwine with enlightened humaneness, progressive moderation and educated opinion in a confused and confusing mass. Moreover, the political tango itself reflects this tangle.
Secondly, that the House of Representatives is less representative of enlightened opinion in our society than society itself.
Joe Zammit, who manages to bring abortion into his picture of the issue, tells us that homosexuality is a great evil. M. Cassar calls upon the European Commission to come to our aid... no, not to remind us about human and civil rights but to compel us to accept "the normality of being raised by a couple made up of a male and a female" and to save us from Mintoffian notions about the privacy of the bedroom. Tommy Lee throws the bible at those that disagree with him and, understandably, provokes the indignation of readers Mark Grech, M. Brincat, Joseph Camilleri and Ramon Casha who regrets our society's "primitiveness".
Colette Farrugia Bennet agrees with the latter and complains that we "are stuck in archaic times". Mario Sammut writes that it is "sad that in the year 2010 we are still discussing gay rights". Maria Fenech says that "at the end it comes all down to the fact that we are still discriminating and haven't learned our lesson". J. Grima describes it all as the "theatre of the abysmally absurd". M. Fenech thinks that "we are still very far from (...) a true, democratic, European country".
James Dimech suspects that all this will lead to a Labour government accepting to pay out more social benefits but Eric Gahn assures him that it will cost him nothing.
Some readers, such as A. Taliana, suspect that the present government is resorting to provocations of our intelligence to distract us from other burning issues. D. Attard suggests that Mr Vassallo was "perhaps thinking in terms of boardrooms rather than bedrooms". What troubles Dominic Chircop "is the thought that Edwin Vassallo is turning his grey cells to such matters". Aleksandar Dimitrijevic advises the chairman of the Committee to peruse work by the American Psychological Association on the issues he raises.
Dr Beppe Fenech Adami gets his share. "Gender stereotyping at its vilest", says M. Jones. D. Vella writes that as "for Mr Fenech Adami's comment about role reversal... that comment says more about him than anything else. The problem is with him". G. Portelli asks him whether he would "care to enlighten us which bits of 'mothering' he found impossible to deliver". Would he also "care to draw up a sanitised list of 'Mothering' and 'Fathering' duties according to his philosophy"?
More next time.
Dr Vella blogs at watersbroken.wordpress.com.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
24 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Gravina
Jun 8th 2010, 19:40
Thinking aloud it is easy to come to the conclusion that whilst our formal engagements in life (especially as narrated by media, official reports, legislative enactments etc) tend to change because outwardly we have to run with the times, our lived in culture languishes in pools or dregs of the past. In this way we are happy, safe and feel secure because we can always say we have seen it all before. And that is enough to say, I know what it takes to get on (when in fact you are stuck).
By the way, the State will always have an impact on families, homosexuals, single parents, etc just as much as anything else that falls within its reach. The Catholic Church competes pretty much with the State (I will exert myself to consider them separate in Malta). Civil rights are there, amongst others, to set up boundaries. Unfortunately, to get them respected, you need to have a strong political will and an autonomous judicial body kept on their toes by an active civil society, According to Dr. Vella's article, it does not look so bright on the home front. Some pruning may be needed. Our 'culture' ... ?!
Keith Pisani
Jun 8th 2010, 17:10
@ Andrew Farrugia
Rather than pose as a latter-day somewhat Don Quixottesque Cold War samurai, why doesn't Andrew Farrugia deal with the issue itself? Does he share Edwin Vassallo's and Beppe Fenech Adami's prejudices or not? Does he agree that the world view of these two gentlemen is not quite the spirit of 21st century Europe? Incidentally, as someone who is evidently well versed in philosophy (otherwise how could he distinguish it from pseudo-philosophy?), does he know why arguments based on attacking the individual who holds an opinion rather than tackling the opinion itself are not given much weight in philosophy? Finally, had he bothered to do some homework he would have found out that the teacher who almost certainly left the strongest formative imprint on the author of this article is none other than Professor Peter Serracino Inglott.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 7th 2010, 22:17
Guess from which pulpit this kind of liberal attitude springs from: have people forgotten? Already? My, my, my, the mental faculties of some people! Do you know that this pseudo philospher studied in what was once known as East Germany where he could be inspired by the notorious Stasi? The state out of our bedrooms? You must be joking - your body and soul would belong to the state. People may fool ..... oh heck, i have quite forgotten how the saying goes. Hee hee.
Joe Zammit
Jun 7th 2010, 21:46
Par. 2384 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
"Divorce is a grave offence against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign.
Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself."
Raymond Camilleri
Jun 7th 2010, 19:36
Tell us Joe Zammit, did you meet God recently? You are so obsessed with other people's lifes...
Joe Zammit
Jun 8th 2010, 10:15
All people are my brothers and sisters and I do my utmost to help them deny themselves here on earth to please God and lead a life of close friendship with God. I can't tell anything about the spiritual results I'm having. It's enough to say that I shall continue with my fertile and fruitful apostolate for ever, on earth till death and in heaven for eternity.
laurence schembri
Jun 7th 2010, 17:26
@Joe Zammit
I this is the case , hell awaits.
Joe Zammit
Jun 7th 2010, 16:31
Evil can never be a right.
Homosexuality is evil.
Therefore, homosexuality can never be a right.
So any gay (or gray) rights movement is groundless: just smoke!
Joe gravina
Jun 7th 2010, 15:33
Mr. Vassallo and a female PL member debating abortion. One problem was how the state could acompany or stop girls going abroad when they gave indications they were going for an abortion.
If chasing people around the world is considered worthy of state attention, than it is no surprise that one can start considering bedroom activities similarly worthy of attention. The bed is for most of us the beginning and end of life. The state as a bedfellow however reminds me of the Cana movement speaker who told us at a pre-marriage course that we will be three in the bedroom. Mario Vella's suggested reference starts making the bedroom rather crowded.
The really serious concern is that one starts to know what homosexuals and single parent girls, etc, have to face to when they communicate not only with people but also their representatives and their fanciful associations.
Besides, do I see a smoke-screen somewhere?
Emanuel Cilia Debono
Jun 7th 2010, 13:50
The Hon Edwin Vassallo is right, What happens in the bedroom often has an impact on public administration.
Having said this,however, the State cannot ignore the plight of many subjects of failed marriages and particularly their offspring, It is expected to provide means for such persons to lead a reasonable way of life, at no disadvantage and without loss of personal dignity .
It is also recognized that some persons have a tendency toward homosexuality. They deserve respect and dignity as human persons.
Irrespective of moral considerations; however , discrimination on grounds of family , sex or sexual orientation is unacceptable and often abhorrent.
At the same time, one expects the State to observe reasonable limits to what is deemed to be acceptable social behavior in our own social context. One cannot expect our society, which has been accustomed to a way of life - which includes the option of lifelong marriage between man and woman - to discard or reverse its own set of values built over the years.
Furthermore too much laxity in public administration often translates into a heavy cost for the tax payer.
v zammit
Jun 7th 2010, 13:17
Incidentally I heard about what Mr E. Vassallo said in Committee on TV One News summary of 3rd (or 4th inst.) No context - a bit of a longish 'sound-bite'. From the staged 'vox pop' of J. Suda, J. Bundy and N. Calamatta, I thought it was all in jest, especially the latter's, in his usual formidable mode. As was the coy amusement of the lady newscaster. I thought the 'story' was meant to be that way, for its news value, if any.
g.portelli
Jun 7th 2010, 12:44
@ Joe Zammit
Why should God want to shun his own creation? Some interpretations of 'God' also used to assume that women were 'evil' and that men were sole procreators hence morally superior too. That myth persisted in western Europe for centuries till civil society evolved enough to repudiate such an unjust characterisation of the feminine. God's 'word' was also quoted to justify a host of other injustices including segregation by race. What one can surely say is that God's 'word' has been abused in misinterpretation to the callous detriment of certain sections of society. I am sure that God is much more inclusive than that.
Jonathan McBee
Jun 9th 2010, 00:48
Thank you, g.portelli, for having found a calm, civilized and intelligent way of answering Mr Zammit's preposterous comments. You are a bigger person than I, because he simply makes my blood boil. Again, thank you, and well done!
Joe Gravina
Jun 7th 2010, 12:04
Dear Mr. Zammit, can you please make clear which God you have in mind so that we do not make any incorrect assumptions. Then secondly, if you do not mind, please tell us on which written authority you are assuming that your God is against homosexuality. I am myself assuming that this god you claim has not spoken to or in any other way directly contacted you and therefore you are referring to either your own reading of written sources or to that of an external authority This is important because then, without any pregjudice, we have to decide who has the right to interpret.
Will try to come back to the main issue later. It reminds me of the Cana Movement pre-marriage assertion that (quoting from personal experience) 'remember you are always three in the bedroom'. I always thought they were referring to Mr. Zammit's preoccupation as the third figure and not to the state. However, I should have been more careful since a reading of 1984 could have set me going.
Mario Vella
Jun 7th 2010, 11:56
@ Joe Zammit
Dear Joe, No regular reader of this column can claim that the writer has ever shown anything but the greatest respect for the views of readers' religious beliefs. The point here is another one and has to do with the state's role in a society that claims to respect human rights and not to tolerate any form of discrimination. Irrespective of what worldview you and I might hold, we have no right to expect a (secular) state in such a society to discriminate against those with different worldviews. The author.
victor rodenas
Jun 7th 2010, 11:21
Yes, many times what happens in the bed room finishes up the govt. lap............also what happens in a bar(alcohol)......at parties(drugs).......sex(aids,etc).......sigarettes(cancer).....pollution(cancer..azzma)...........eventually these all finish on the govt. lap and these are paid by our taxes...(those who pay).........What Mr. Vasallo said is not a novity,it`s been there all the time.
John Azzopardi
Jun 7th 2010, 11:14
Are we living in an EU country or in some radical moslem country. Seriously people. Maltese citizens today are EU citizens and the type of comments I see below is nothing more than petty nonsense. As maltese citizesn of the EU, your individual right is now protected by the EU, not Malta. Just remember that and don't let anyone else fool you. My motto is that yu only have one live to live. Live it anyway you want as long as you don't hurt other people.
Joe Borg
Jun 7th 2010, 13:29
Yes Mr Azzopardi, single mothers and their children, disease through gay practices, etc do hurt other people because they have an impact on the taxes that they pay to support just the two examples that I have given apart from many others.
Lina Caruana
Jun 7th 2010, 10:52
Somehow conjecturing on things as one wishes them to be is always hypothetical for the consequences are practically unknown. There are many instances ,also studied ,more than anything else lived, that many governments are now grappling with in the case of broken families. To mention but a few of the issues ,poverty, housing, violence, abbondened children and the impact on societies, mental health, overlapping families and maintenance of children, emotional and mental stress.These cost money to the government in health and social welfare. Who bears the costs ? Not the taxpayer? The general trend is to raise consciousness about responsibility. Should not we be interested what is the nature of expenses we are paying for? What a person does is his business but should we be expected to pay for his results on the forced concept that one has a right to misdemeanour at government and the taxpayers' expense?
Joe Zammit
Jun 7th 2010, 10:40
Mario, you are wrong. Not Joe Zammit tells you that homosexuality is a great evil. God tells you that homosexuality, and for that matter any sexual act outside marriage, is a grave sin and so a great evil.
Of course, homosexuality is a great evil. It separates homosexuals from God. You can't have a greater evil than this: separation from God.
ftheuma
Jun 7th 2010, 12:41
Religious crackpot hogwash I am afraid.
victor caruana
Jun 7th 2010, 15:37
It is wonderful to learn that God talks to Joe Zammit.
ftheuma
Jun 7th 2010, 16:28
Hogwash!
Ramon Casha
Jun 8th 2010, 05:45
If you're referring to the Old Testament, you should agree that eating octopus or oysters is similarly a "great evil", as is working on Saturday, wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics and so on - a total of 613 laws and commandments to fulfil.