Update 2: Politicians have no right to decide who is a family - Muscat
(Adds Justice, Health Ministries' replies)
The Prime Minister and the Health Minister will have to respond to the 'shocking' claim made by the former head of the Oncology Department that he used to be told what patients not to discharge and who to admit.
Speaking at Xewkija this morning, Dr Muscat also said that those who were responsibile for the delays in the building of the new Oncology Hospital near Mater Dei had to shoulder responsibility.
In a statement, the health ministry denied the allegations. It said that when there were empty beds at Sir Paul Boffa Hospital, the department had instructed for terminal patients at Mater Dei or within the community would be offered at bed at Sir Paul Boffa.
The ministry also said that during his tenure, Dr Brincat did not inform the department what he was now telling journalists but the department was still investigating the claims.
Dr Brincat claimed that cancer patients treated at the Gozo hospital have died from chemotherapy toxicity because treatment was carried out “without necessary expertise”.
Dr Muscat also spoke on gay relationships and criticised the Justice Minister’s statement that two people of the same sex in a relationship were not a family.
Politicians, he said, had no right to decide who was a family and who was not.
Dr Muscat said that back in the 1960s being a homosexual could send one to jail but people had had enough courage to stand up to this.
“Our duty to day is to ensure that there are no first and second class families - all families are first class.”
He said he was confident that in the next 10 to 15 years, the country would acknowledge that the movement was right.
In a reply, the Justice Ministry said that Dr Muscat was using a declaration out of context in a bid to gain votes. In doing so, he was also contradicting himself and declarations he made in the past.
Not only was Dr Muscat badly quoting and misinterpreting a statement made by the Justice Minister, he was also opting not to seriously take part in the debate on the cohabitation bill.
The Justice Minister, the minisry said, had declared that the personal relationships, even those between people of the same sex, were precious for those who lived them and that he also believed that such relationships were the family nucleus of those who were in such situations.
In contract, Dr Muscat and the PL tried to give the impression they were liberal and that they were in favour of homosexual couples.
Earlier, he said people were realising what a cowardly act the government was playing but Labour was confident the people would no longer allow it to hinder their will.
The government had lost its automatic majority with one of its MPs accusing it of trying to buy its vote but the Prime Minister insisted the government did not have any problems.
If the PM was willing to buy the vote of one of its MPs, one could just imagine what it was willing to do with permits and tax bills as the election became closer.
A PL government, he promised, would give the people five years of stability and confidence.
Dr Muscat also spoke on Labour’s plan for Gozo was to create employment in Gozo for Gozitans.
He said:
“Our economic plan for Gozo will be aimed at ensuring a sustainable economy on Gozo which would be based on internal and external tourism – the most direct way to revive the economy. It will also focus on manufacture, helping companies which have the will and courage to invest in Gozo, and agriculture and fisheries.”
Dr Muscat said that the government had completely lost direction. The Prime Minister told the people that problems were being invented by the Opposition but the Maltese and Gozitans knew that, for the past months and years, the country has had a prime minister who was more intent on staying in power rather than concentrate on the essential matters, in spite of a clear governability crisis.
The government, Dr Muscat charged, was incompetent in the economic and financial administration.
The Prime Minister was insisting that deficit targets will be met but this had till now only increased. Dr Muscat said that to meet targets, the Prime Minister would probably repeat what he did last year which was to reduce capital expenditure, which was necessary for the country to progress.
The government had reduced the education, health and social budgets last year and it had again done so this year, he said without specifying which were the budgets that had recently been reduced.. A Labour government would work differently - it would control waste, encourage investment and be a government of the many for the many and not of the few for the few.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
196 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:03
I see no point why all of you people are arguing since the church came after homosexuality!
Marco Farrugia
Sep 4th 2012, 12:01
My 2 cents:
Politically-wise - yes i agree that 2 people, should be treated equally (i.e. as a "family") be it M+F, M+M, F+F. For example, tax purposes, housing incentives, separation/divorce, etc...
Socially - i think this is tricky, because I doubt how much society has accepted reality - proof in the comments below.
The real problem seems to be how people are not inclusive and do not accept others' opinions and preferences...
Joe Xuereb
Sep 4th 2012, 11:10
@ Anthony Scicluna (Today, 17:40) and @ Daniel Frendo (Today, 18:46). Neither of you can understand what I am about; you could try a bit harder. Scicluna in particular has really got hold of the wrong end of the stick (and he has the sad cheek to tell me to read more to learn to better construct my comments when he does NOT understand what he reads and only selects the bits that suit - how very 'maltese'! - to throw barbs that boomerang something terrible). You sound like you are responding to someone with views totally opposite to mine (now if that is not a helpful hint for you to get my drift, I don't know what is; and that is YOUR problem to unravel, nothing to do with me). Has the rising waters addled your brains, both of you? An exercise in comprehension please! But see if I care.
And this takes the biscuit. Quote: 'Reading will work wonders on your sentence construction and opening your mind to the source of human morality. Prior to Christ, you may be surprised to learn that there was a strong morality and ethical character'. Unquote. What! what?!
Joe Xuereb - an atheist and a homosexual who feels no need to emulate a failed Institution to validate himself. Get it?! And Scicluna, is this really the first time you came across a comment of mine? You either don't read much on line other than rubbish or your capacity to remember (never mind understand) what you read is worryingly deficient. Frendo, this applies to you too in so many ways.
Scicluna, I may be homosexual but that does not mean I have to endorse everything that this often misguided Community says, or does, or clamours for. I don't buy victimhood, and Roman Catholicism I left behind through flight all of fifty years ago. So please don't (typically) bite the hand that feeds you (so ungratefully non-gay). And Frendo, if your idea of a family is strictly a mum and a dad and 2.4 children (or whatever, and you had better increase the averages because people with an agenda to take over your space and your sanctity through multiple births are at the door), I wish you luck! Now there's a threat and you get your knickers in a twist over gay people wanting to get married. Hardly a threat when the gay population in Malta is but 4% (not counting the ones who get married and have kids to hide the fact - but that is another issue). This should keep your mind occupied for a number of hours. And yes, try as it may, Malta can not be unique in any sphere. Especially not if Frendo says otherwise.
David Seychell
Sep 4th 2012, 19:01
@Joe X
"I will lay my cards on the table and say that any marriage leaves me indifferent. And I often wonder why gay people would want to get married when all around us are failed marriages."
Interestingly, in Holland, the first country to introduce same-sex marriage 11 years ago, 20 percent of Dutch homosexual couples are married compared with 80 percent of opposite sex couples. So for some reason, same-sex couples are 4X less desirous to get married. As for why this is the case, only homosexuals can tell.
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 21:59
@ David seychell
probably because they get judged by people like you!
Angelo Vassallo
Sep 3rd 2012, 23:31
@ Joseph Pavia & EDDIE privitera
Bizzejjed taraw u tisimghu x'qal ezatt "dear leader" joseph muscat f'zewg okkazzjonijiet f'perijodu ta' tlett snin fuq il-programm Xarabank u dak li qal dan l-ahhar.
Smajtuh x'qal "dear leader" joseph muscat, xi htiega ghadna bzonn ta' aktar provi?! Fhimt EDDIE
Joe Xuereb
Sep 3rd 2012, 21:01
@ Anthony Scicluna (Today, 17:40) and @ Daniel Frendo (Today, 18:46). Neither of you can understand what I am about you could try a bit harder. Scicluna in particular has really got hold of the wrong end of the stick. You sound like you are responding to someone with views totally opposite to mine (now if that is not a helpful hint for you to get my drift, I don't know what is; and that is YOUR problem to unravel, nothing to do with me). Has the rising waters addled your brains, both of you? An exercise in comprehension please! But see if I care.
And this takes the biscuit. Quote: 'Reading will work wonders on your sentence construction and opening your mind to the source of human morality. Prior to Christ, you may be surprised to learn that there was a strong morality and ethical character'. Unquote. What! what?!
Joe Xuereb - an atheist and a homosexual who feels no need to emulate a failed Institution to validate himself. Get it?! And Scicluna, is this really the first time you came across a comment of mine? You either don't read much on line other than rubbish or your capacity to remember (never mind understand) what you read is worryingly deficient. Frendo, this applies to you too in so many ways.
Scicluna, I may be homosexual but that does not mean I have to endorse everything that this often misguided Community says, or does, or clamours for. I don't buy victimhood, and Roman Catholicism I left behind through flight all of fifty years ago. So please don't (typically) bite the hand that feeds you (so ungratefully non-gay). And Frendo, if your idea of a family is strictly a mum and a dad and 2.4 children (or whatever, and you had better increase the averages because people with an agenda to take over your space and your sanctity through multiple births are at the door), I wish you luck! Now there's a threat and you get your knickers in a twist over gay people wanting to get married. Hardly a threat when the gay population in Malta is but 4% (not counting the ones who get married and have kids to hide the fact - but that is another issue). This should keep your mind occupied for a number of hours. And yes, try as it may, Malta can not be unique in any sphere. Especially not if Frendo says otherwise.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 3rd 2012, 15:44
@ Daniel Frendo (Today, 12:58). Mr. Frendo, thank you for caring enough about the issue for you to reply.
I agree with you. If Malta were to emulate most (if not all) other countries which are hell-bent on self-destructive by the way the treat, and mistreat such a noble sacrament as our very own RC models, then Malta too would self-destroy. So Malta must resist at all costs anything foreign that lacks our values. This will ensure Malta's survival, UNIQUELY. So we are back to square one, Mr. Frendo.
If only foreign countries adopted OUR model based on the Cana Movement. Some Maltese couples too could avail themselves of this counselling and avoid tragedies, among other things.
Unfortunately, many heterosexuals of both genders believe, or are made to believe, that being heterosexual is somehow enough. If you see what I mean. Of course I disagree and this because some of the best parenting I have encountered has been by gay parents. But that is by the by.
I will lay my cards on the table and say that any marriage leaves me indifferent. And I often wonder why gay people would want to get married when all around us are failed marriages. And claiming anything out of pique is so churlish, don't you think?
because of lack of Cana input, or in spite of it. I did say, did I not, that the best problem solving is by the 'default' approach.
Anthony Scicluna
Sep 3rd 2012, 17:40
What are you on about? Gays are people. All people have inalienable human rights. The fact that gays cannot marry (a right) or have a family (a right) is prejudiced. Roman Catholicism is based on empathy and love without prejudice. By its own definition, Catholicism is preaching two opposing things.
Second, who are you to assume that Roman Catholicism is the only true religion and anything outside it is corrupt and or self destructive. I know many outstanding members of the community who are atheists or non-Christian. Or do you deny them as being exemplars of good parenting simply because of your own belief that Catholicism is the only moral measure. RC is not a default approach - humane morals and morality are.
Reading will work wonders on your sentence construction and opening your mind to the source of human morality. Prior to Christ, you may be surprised to learn that there was a strong morality and ethical character.
Daniel Frendo
Sep 3rd 2012, 18:46
You still don't get it, Mr. Xuereb. I never talked politics or religion. Man is born free and thus must never be denied the right to choose. However let me repeat: MARRIAGE IS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. If a man wants to live with another man, that's his choice but that's not marriage... give it another name if you so wish! Likewise if a woman wants to live with a woman, and so on. To be honest, what politicians decide is up to them. Unfortunately democracy demands that RIGHT OR WRONG, the will of the people must be respected. If the choice has to be between democracy and choosing what is right, I will proudly choose the latter. What you choose is up to you but hopefully we can all be aware that there are consequences for our every choice.
E Schembri
Sep 3rd 2012, 13:44
"Politicians, he said, had no right to decide who was a family and who was not."
There goes my vote for Labour. It is true, there is absolutely no choice in this Mickey Mouse country!
Anthony Scicluna
Sep 3rd 2012, 13:27
This is absolute lunacy. Politicians decide what a family is based on their electoral mandate. If within one manifesto a party states that a family is man + woman then those in favour would vote in favour of that party. And, of course, vice versa.
Each party must make a clear stance on the family as a basic social unit.
From a personal perspective, I care less about how we define a family then how its members function for the future survival of the population and a general set of positive values. Based on that there is absolutely no difference between biological parenting and adoptive parenting, between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one. Politicians should grow up and stop wielding more and more division with useless rhetoric.
A note: millions of children die everyday at the hands of neglectful heterosexual parents. And I am not referring to stupid mistakes but rape, abuse, and so on. A homosexual couple is capable of the same love as any loving and exemplary family. Get a move on politicians
Joe Xuereb
Sep 3rd 2012, 11:41
I tend to prefer to resolve issues by default. It works like a charm. The advantage of a straight man over a gay one?! The straight guy has children (a big deal in an overpopulated planet?). In any case, the straight guy (and woman) do not have in mind a child as an end product surely! So what is the difference? What is the big deal?
I think people living together as a family ARE a family. Why split hairs over the obvious?! The default?! One needs only to look around one to see how successful 'natural' marriage is. It is but a social structure and, being man-made, can never be perfect. Nature's intent - and even nature is hardly perfect - is only concerned with providing the tools for Man to procreate. What is also instinctive - and therefore natural - is the protective instinct towards the young by the parents, and the mother in particular. This is seen in both humans and animals. Beyond this, and the rearing of children until they can 'fly the nest' is still within the bounds of Nature's scheme. We are expected to relate to each other as blood-relatives until the day we die. These expectations sometimes work and often don't. This is because the base is merely a man-made social structure. Instinctive up to a point, but very fragile nevertheless. Proof of this are the rifts between people, related or not, all around us. It has always been so and will never change because the whole set-up is not wired for it to do so. Sad?! Maybe! It also happens to be true.
@ P. Vincenti (Today, 18:00). P. Vincenti, I can think of many traditions, in Malta and elsewhere, that we would be better off without.
@ Joseph Dalli (Today, 17:57). Mr. Dalli, you say 'A married man and a woman provide the best social environment for the child - they generally compliment each other socially and naturally'. Yes, generally. You mean, hardly ever. Read more comments about this further down.
@ Daniel Frendo (Today, 17:39). Mr. Frendo, are you saying that the world will self-destruct but somehow, Malta will survive, forever etched in its soft stone?! If you believe that, you will believe anything. So may your Creator help you!
@ A Vella (Today, 17:34). You refer to PL supporters as fanatics. And then you go on to say that 'I also believe that we Maltese do not deserve any better'. We Maltese does not include your very good enlightened self, am I to presume?!
@ Maria Vassallo (Today, 16:53). Maria Vassallo, qatt għaddielek minn moħħok li seta' kien il-bniedem li ħoloq fi xbiha tiegħu il-'ħallieq'? It-tkattir ta' kollox, dak inħalluh f'idejn in-Natura, sew jekk ikunu bnedmin, kif ukoll sempliċiment biċċa ħaxixa ħażina tikber u tferrex ġo għalqa. Nafu wkoll li n-Natura m'hiex konsistenti u li kelli nagħtik eżempji jkolli nikteb - u int tisma' - sa' għada filgħaxija.
Nagħraf li din hi stqarrija pjuttost kontroversali imma l-possibilta' li tista' tkun fatt hi ta' lanqas ħamsin fil-mija. Biex ma ngħidx disgħa u disgħin, punt, u disgħa fil-mija.
@ Joe M Borg (Today, 17:27). Mr. Borg, has it ever occurred to you that marriage as we know it is a 'wonderful' necessity(at times made in heaven but certainly not always) that nevertheless, is nothing more nor less than a necessary social construct. Some would say a necessary evil. The frequent breakdown of marriage may be painful but there are perfectly understandable reasons for these failures. Among other things, they fail because anything that is invested in the unsubstantiated is bound to come apart. But please, do not expect me to come up with a quick fix-it. You make everything sound so simple, Borg, and frighteningly dictatorial. Not realising that such a mindset does as much harm to you and, at the end of the day, not so much harm to homosexuals, as in this case.
@ Anthony Mercieca (Today, 16:29). Mr. Mercieca, you sound like you have been told, and you believed, that emotional love between different polarities guarantees an emotional love projected forever into the future. Such love being solidified by any number of progeny. Now, I know that love, emotional or whatever, does not come with guarantees of long duration. I suspect you know this too but it does not suit your agenda to own up to the fact.
@ GL Calleja (Today, 16:18). GL Calleja, is the eating of the apple a metaphor for darker things? Or is it, as is likely, the Church's interpretation of God's creative (of humans) process. The interpretation being, 'god gave us the wherewithal to multiply so he'll have more and more people to adore him, made it pleasurable to ensure we do 'it' - the carrot at the end of a stick, sort of thing - and, simultaneously, forbidding us to do 'it', or else. The Church has been angry every since at this unfair(the giving with one hand and taking with the other) matter and has been neurotic about matters sexual ever since.
@ Joseph Aquilina (Today, 16:13). Mr. Aquilina, you are barking up the wrong tree. Malta may or may not end up like Spain or Greece. But man does not live by bread alone, as you well know. Malta could well end up, through sheer numbers, bowing to a different god. And an economy based on dutiful charity. Now there's something worth pondering!
Moderator, I should be most grateful if you would kindly deem this comment fit for inclusion. Thank You.
@ Joe M Borg (Today, 17:16). Mr. Borg, Nature is not perfect so a child's right to be happy with a mummy and a daddy is just pie in the sky. With very few and (dubious) exceptions, family life is ever smooth-running and why should it be (even to the casual observer). The ideal is one thing, the reality is another. Of course there are laws that can MAKE families appear happy at least (appear being the operative word). This can be done through strict medieval laws, both canon and constitutional. Not a happy thought! In case you have been slumbering, strict marriage laws (that are way wayward by current Maltese laws) are nearer than you think.
Daniel Frendo
Sep 3rd 2012, 12:58
No, I'm not saying that at all Mr. Xuereb; only an idiot would. Maybe you need to understand that I'm not talking politics or religion here as so many obviously seem to be doing... What I AM saying is that, unfortunately, following in the footsteps of most nations will only lead to the same road to destruction that's presently engulfing them (and of course, by extension, even us). This notwithstanding however, it's about time for more individuals to be big enough to rise above what has become the mainstream and move forward according to Divine Law (yes, there IS right and wrong!). I am fully aware that there have always been men living with men and women with women, But MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Look at recorded history and you will see where the former option has led to when it became mainstream and accepted as normal. Now, whether the majority of marriages work or not is another matter. Be assured that there is a cause for every effect... Unfortunately true education has been lacking in many ways and the real meaning of marriage in unknown by most. I will also add that many adults have only grown up physically... emotional immaturity prevails!
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 10:34
Min holoq il-kelma " Familia Kristjana ", allura ma kienx jaf x'qed jghid ?
Maria Borg
Sep 3rd 2012, 11:52
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16.
"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
Mr Privitera, what do you think that the "natural and fundamental group unit of society" is referring to? Please Eddy, grow up.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 16:06
Maria Borg: Who is saying that the "traditional family" should not be protected ??' Again you are repeating the same argument used during the divorce referendum campaign, It was then said that the introduction of divorce will destroy, or undermine, marriage and the family !
Indeed, Dr. Gonzi is on record saying, that if divorce is introduced ! ALL MARRIED COUPLES BECOME ENGAGED COUPLES " ! Do you know any married couple who are now feeling that they have become " engaged" rather than married ??
The reality is, just as happened on broken families, today there are other " forms of families" which the State cannot pretend as if they do not exist !!!
Maria Borg
Sep 3rd 2012, 18:41
Yes Eddy, there many other forms of families (including religious communities like you mentioned) but you cannot have one's cake and eat it too.
EITHER the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is correct in saying that the traditional/nuclear family is the "natural and fundamental group unit of society" OR Muscat is right in saying that there's nothing essential or special about it so much as to consider it equal to any other family form.
John L Galea
Sep 3rd 2012, 09:42
Many GonziPN apologists come in here to shoot their stupidity against the PL as they know that their party is in the abyss of evil and ridicule. Whenever Gonzi opens his mouth he utters sheer stupidity. To the contrary JM speaks out for minorities and speaks out what's wrong is wrong and what's right is right. So keep your sour grapes to yourself little elves.
A Smith
Sep 3rd 2012, 08:30
Since politicians set the laws, then yes, politicians have the right and duty to define what a family is, among other things
Matthew Tanti
Sep 3rd 2012, 08:25
Il-politici fid-dmir li jillegizlaw ghall-poplu kollu. Joseph u l-muviment li qed imexxi anka fuq din jideher li projjettat lejn il-futur , 10 snin qabel il-PN.
Mark. Galea
Sep 3rd 2012, 08:21
the more PL keeps silent, the more chances are that PL wins next elections. But, as usual, these people move in where angels fear to tread.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 10:30
Mark Galea. Dr. Muscat ma jridx jidhak bin-nies, kif ghamel Lawrence Gonzi. Dr.MUscat mill-ewwel kien qal x'jemmen dwar id-divorzju anki jekk kien hemm min beda jbezzghu biex ma jitkellimx, bhal ma qieghed taghmel int. IZ-ZMIEN TAH RAGUN ! L-istess ghad jigri dwar li qed jghid illum.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Sep 3rd 2012, 07:40
Judging by some of these contributions, hetersexism is alive and well in Malta. What is surprising is that it is heterosexism of a particular kind that is even disprespectful of a husband and wife without children. Keep up your contributions to show how truly European some of you are!
E. Vassallo
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:23
it would control waste, encourage investment and be a government of the many for the many and not of the few for the few. Very good sweet talk
Daniel Frendo
Sep 3rd 2012, 00:17
Reading some of the comments, my conclusion is that society has 'advanced' to the stage where it very sadly appears that many don't even know what a family is any more! Should we laugh or cry? I do understand that every individual is free to decide how to live his private life. A democratically elected government too has the responsibility to choose which way to go as it seeks to please those on whose vote it depends. What we must indeed fear to do is redefine terminology that has been extant for millennia. Why redefine 'marriage'? Why not opt instead for different terminologies, ones that would define different groupings? In making this suggestion, I must say that I'm amazed by the great strides forward that have been made by society... lol
Paul Azzopardi
Sep 2nd 2012, 23:40
If politicians have no right.........Then this proves my theory that a parliament with 69 members is a financial burden on the country. How about reducing it to say 35? After all we only hear the same members speaking Sunday after Sunday. And when the others speak they only cause havoc. When it comes to hot issues they start washing their hands. In the beginning GOD created a man and a woman.
Paul Bonello
Sep 2nd 2012, 23:15
Prof Brincat’s claim that he used to be told what patients not to discharge and who to admit, although truly shocking, comes as no surprise. As Minister of Health the Honourable Cassar is in an ideal position to grant privilages to buddies and do favours for his constituents. In his online comments made on 26th March to an article appearing in The Times, a highly trained consultant radiologist in Mater Dei Hospital has commented that the Chief Executive Officer at Mater Dei Hospital is under the Honourable Minister's thumb, toothless and useless. This consultant recommended that to avoid waiting unnecessarily for a simple procedure one should write to the Honourable Minister himself or his secretary because they seem to have magical powers within the hospital and will get the procedure done in no time at all. This same consultant radiologist later claimed that he was expelled from the hospital by the Honourable Minister and transferred to Gozo General Hospital where he cannot function properly due to lack of equipment, staff and space. This unfortunately reflects the real sad situation in Mater Dei Hospital and Gozo General Hospital.
Indeed, under the excuse of a restructuring exercise in the Public Health Sector.a small group of people enjoying the Minister’s backing have climbed up to the top positions of the Ministry's administrative hierarchical ladder and were given a central role in the administration of the health services and resources funded from the tax coffers. Others health officials who might not have shown the compliance expected of them were either made to leave politely under the same excuse of a restructuring exercice or else were bulldozed out of the way. A case in point is that of the highly experienced ex-General Director for Health Services who was moved to the position of Commissioner for Older Persons.
With its new team of top administrators the Ministry has been appointing diehard nationalists on different selection boards that have in turn given top placings to similary nationalist candidates so that they were able to get the promotion despite having the least experience and qualifications. Claims were also made in a filed lawsuit against the Honourable Minister that a health official was removed from his duties and transferred to a room alone doing absolutely nothing for months after he had pointed out breaches of the law in the employment of certain nurses and resisted regular pressure by the Honourable Cassar and members of his secretariat for preferential treatment to be given to particular employees with resulting grievous injustices to others.
Regarding the administration of chemotherapy for oncology cases in Gozo General Hospital I do not understand how the Health Ministry can expect to win the citizens' trust by insisting that this should be done over a one month period particularly when it had wasted three precious years and hundreds of thousands of euros simply to decide whether to transfer the Oncology Department to the Rehabilitation Hospital Karen Grech or Mater Dei Hospital. Is it possible that there is nobody from the Nursing Department or University to give some proper advice about this issue? Or has such advice been given and was ignored as usual?
As Prof Brincat has quite rightly stated, it takes time to train staff to work in an oncology unit. Medical oncology care requires a multi-disciplinary, academic setting with doctors, nurses and pharmacy staff who are competent in chemotherapy administration and who can help patients manage side effects of cancer treatments. The chemotherapy drugs used in cancer although designed to kill unhealthy cells can also damage healthy ones and therefore those health care professionals administering them must know how to avoid harm to themselves. They must also be capable of performing health assessments and physical examinations to determine whether a patient is fit to receive chemotherapy. If a patient is not fit the chances of death from chemotherapy toxicity becomes considerably higher. This may well have been a contributory cause of the deaths by chemo toxicity in Gozo General Hospital (that quite ironically falls under under Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono and not thr Health Ministry) although it is only a thorough investigation that can determine the actual causes.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Sep 2nd 2012, 23:12
In the 1970s, at many demonstrations, we have a popular refrain: Not the Church, not the state, gays will decide their fate! There are two definitions of the family - a prescriptive and a descriptive one. Conservatives fall back on a prescriptive definition of the family even if it does not reflect the reality that is around them. A descriptive definition of the family includes all varieties of the family. This is an ideological battle that conservatives have lost. We must make sure we shut the door on their tendency to impose their narrow-mindedness on the rest of us.
Henry S Pace
Sep 2nd 2012, 22:21
' Politicians have no right to decide who is a family - Muscat '
No politicians have no right to decide who is the family. However , logic dictates .
If a person have a pet at home , Can this be called a family?
LOGIC says NO
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:10
the dog will treat you as family, for sure. that is the problem with mankind. we think we know it all!
Brian Farrugia
Sep 2nd 2012, 22:19
all families are first class!
nice one.
Joseph Brincat
Sep 2nd 2012, 22:02
All I can say is that we are one big family , and that what makes as Maltese !!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkTSJfnkaIQ
Lina Caruana
Sep 2nd 2012, 21:09
the family has no international definition.internalization of the family has failed when attempted. Governments are worried because changes cannot be reversed and they are proving difficult to manage. Society in the modern sense has turned out to be a community of overlapping families which is said to be bound by solidarity where consanguinity does not necessarily characterize families. Whether the Maltese people want to change their ways is up to them but they should not vote for something they don't understand in such a serious matter.
Manuel Mangani
Sep 2nd 2012, 21:00
The more distant our concept of family from the traditional one, the more long-term social and individual confusion we create. We're sowing the wind....
Pablo Mallia
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family:
In human context, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity, or co-residence. In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children. Anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrilocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a wife, husband, and children, also called nuclear family); and consanguinal (also called an extended family) in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family.
The LGBT are not mentioned under "the family" description!
Maria Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:28
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, General Comments:
"Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Protection of the family and its members is also guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by other provisions of the Covenant....
The Committee notes that the concept of the family may differ in some respects from State to State, and even from region to region within a State, and that it is therefore not possible to give the concept a standard definition. However, the Committee emphasizes that, when a group of persons is regarded as a family under the legislation and practice of a State, it must be given the protection referred to in article 23. Consequently, States parties should report on how the concept and scope of the family is construed or defined in their own society and legal system. Where diverse concepts of the family, "nuclear" and "extended", exist within a State, this should be indicated with an explanation of the degree of protection afforded to each. In view of the existence of various forms of family, such as unmarried couples and their children or single parents and their children, States parties should also indicate whether and to what extent such types of family and their members are recognized and protected by domestic law and practice."
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6f97648603f69bcdc12563ed004c3881?Opendocument
"Politicians have no right to decide who is a family" - Muscat
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:11
would you have it?
Cesco Bonello
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:27
In other news, politicians say anything to gather votes...
Ms. P.M Graham
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:27
We are actually sitting here chuckling at all the sanctimonious comments below.
Get a grip for goodness sakes!!
I've got 3 potty training right now,
1 just about to go back to school
1 just about to start UNI
1 just about to return to his second year of UNI
1 just about to start a a new career
1 (married) just about to start her 5th year of kindergarten teaching whilst planning a family
and 1 (MARRIED) who has just given birth to her first child
But hey!! We aren't Family LOL we are, by all accounts not worthy of the title "Family."
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:18
In English we often hear about " a family business ". That business could have been inherited for decades.It doesn't mean that whoever is running the business are a married man and woman !
S. Camilleri
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:02
... but they have a right AND a duty to determine what is NOT a family!!
Political Opportunism at its best unfortunately...
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:07
S.CAMILLERI. WHO ARE YO OR EVEN LAWRENCE GONZI, TO DECIDE ? GONZIPN CAN'T EVEN DECIDE WHETHER FRANCO DEBONO IS PART OF THE GONZIPN " FAMILY" OR NOT !
A Spiteri PhD
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:30
... remember when white people knew they had the right and duty in dictating that blacks were not even human?
R Aquilina
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:51
Politicians are the people's chosen part-time adminsitrators of the country. Electoral programmes outline the party's selected agenda which they are responsible to implement for the elected term in office. Politicians in government are therefore delegated to implement what the electorate believed is best for its people and the country. The Labour Party views on what is in its opinion 'a family' have to be clearly included in it sforthcoming electoral programme. Just spell it out and the Maltese and Gozitan people will explain to you what in their opinion is 'a family'.
I think that the Labour Party is risking a lot on this issue. It is trying to dictate to the Maltese Society what in its opinion a Maltese family is. Sorry PL, on this you are wrong. I also do not believe that all PL canidates express the PL's new interpretation of a family. A mistake is being repeated by PL. Some past lessons are never learnt. The current government has proved to be a poor administrator, by if it's party protects the Maltese believe of what is a true family, it is bound to secure most of the backing of those traditional Maltese families. This is just everyone's worry on whether Dr Muscat is really capable of leading a new administration of our Country. God bless All.
Paul Azzopardi
Sep 2nd 2012, 23:43
Well said. Prosit
Mark Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:48
The sanctimonious GonziPN apologists never really learn do they? Remember the outcome of the Divorce Referendum? What happened then will be repeating itself on this matter. We may have to wait a bit longer... but outcome is written on the wall for all to see. Patience.
Matt Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:44
haha what so 2 guys and a kid is a family? you must be kidding me right?
Joseph Brincat
Sep 2nd 2012, 20:39
HA HA so a man and a woman without a kid is a family ?
or 2 guys and a kid is a family
A Spiteri PhD
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:28
no we are not kidding you... in fact there are many two-guys-and-a-kid, two-women-and-three-kids, three-men-and-five-kids, two-women-a-man-and-two-kid families out there and they are stable, healthy, well educated, making more money than the average rich family in malta, contributing and happy members of society. YES they are families too
dennis camilleri
Sep 3rd 2012, 09:00
I agree, no problem with 2 guys ,or 2 girls living together but
when they adopt children they will have a bad influence on them.
Children would think that that is the way to be.
Marriage is for men and women. One can call this something else
but not family.
John L Galea
Sep 3rd 2012, 09:16
@Matt Borg: I want to answer your comment. I prefer to have to stable guys raising a kid in a stable environment rather than two 'straight' people who can't even take care of themselves let a lone raise children.
John L Galea
Sep 3rd 2012, 09:31
@Dennis Camilleri:
"when they adopt children they will have a bad influence on them. Children would think that that is the way to be." - So heterosexual families have bad influence on their children who happen to be born gay. So with your reasoning. homosexuality should not exist if it is just an influential behaviour. I find comments like yours utterly exploding with ignorance.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 18:27
Dennis Camilleri: You are confusing the word " marriage" with the word " family". while "marriage" leads to a family, even if there are no children, "families" can mean other units, not necessarily married couples with/without children !
Joseph Sammut
Sep 4th 2012, 05:58
@ John L Galea: you seem to infer that two gays are always stable in their relationship as opposed to two heterosexuals, who you infer are always not stable .
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:40
Anki hbieb jghidu " ahna familja wahda " ! Ahseb u ara tnejn minn-nies li jhobbu lil xulxin, u jiehdu hsieb xulxin,u jkunu ilhom forsi snin jghixu flimkien, ghandhomx ukoll ikunu rikonoxxuti bhala " familja". Ma jfissirx li l-kelma "familja" tfisser li huma mizzewwgin !
Lucienne Dimech
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:18
We all seem to be heated up about what constitutes a family. What we should heat up about is why its alleged by a very respectful professional who is to live and get more cure and who should not. That is the. Very serious thing . Few would dare question the truth in prof brincat's words so I turn to the government and ask him to give us some long overdue explanations. Family matters are less serious than this in my opinion .
Richard Caruana
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:18
This guy, like the one before him, does not want to be PM. His is such a cushy job as it is now!
Criticise everything, promise everything to everyone, paint a rainbow in the sky
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:43
Richard Caruana: You have contradicted yourself ! Read again what you wrote. Usually GonziPN apologists keep repeating that Dr. Muscat is eager to become prime minister !
Robert Gatt
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:03
Eddie Privitera: Richard Caruana meant exactly what he meant, and he did not contradict himself. Read his comment again yourself!!!
Richard Caruana
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:20
I'm no GonziPN apologist, to begin with. So please do not lable people this way because they think differently from you.
It's just that the more time passes, the more the PL is showing that it has no plans, no policies and certainly no morals.
I've never said that JosephPL is eager to become prime minister; he said so. And since he so many times says one thing one time and the complete opposite the other, he's the one who continously contradicts himself.
Carmel Serracino-inglott
Sep 2nd 2012, 21:36
But Eddie , though i do not agree with you nearly on 99% of what you say, RC said exactly what Gonzi PN supporters say. Is it possible you understood the contrary? RC not only meant what he wrote but I do believe him just because to me it is the truth.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:15
Robert Gatt: r. Caruana wrote that Dr. Muscat " does not want to be PM". Then he said that " he criticizes everything (not true), promises everything to everyone,( a barefaced lie ) ". So surely, what R. Caruana meant is that Dr. Muscat is doing this to become prime minister, precisely the opposite to his " This guy ( Dr. Muscat), like the one before him (Dr. Sant) does not want to be PM " !! Didn't you too understand ????
Robert Gatt
Sep 3rd 2012, 10:49
Eddy Privitera - sorry but your last reply confirms that I took Richard Caruana's comment correctly. Carmel Serracino-Inglott by what he wrote also confirms that he took Caruana's comment precisely the way I took it. Unfortunately it is you who are failing to understand Caruana's comment. Because yes, if you take it this way, it really seems that, by committing one foul over another (with the latest one being an inconsitent stand on homosexual marriage in a four-year span) - especially through failing to be consistent through simple discourse - and by someone who is a Prime Minister-in-waiting, the only conclusion would be that he, like the one beore him, does not want to maintain a lot more cautiousness in what he says and does not bother whether such inconsistency in discourse helps or not in Labour's aim to be in government in less than a year's time. Exactly as Sant did in his time - giving political opponents very welcome brownie points! Get it now? I hope so!!
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 16:25
Robert Gatt: You continue to peddle the idea that Dr. Muscat should just keep quiet, and then, when elected, do things which he had never expressed his ideas about ! That is political deceit as Lawrence Gonzi had done to get elected , BY A WHISKER, in 2008 !
Even on Divorce, Dr. Muscat was honest enough to speak about his belief , even before he was elected leader of the PL !!! That is a sure sign of HONESTY, something the Maltese and Gozitan people need badly at this point in time !!!
Robert Gatt
Sep 3rd 2012, 21:10
Eddy...I said "maintaing a lot of cautiousness in what one say" - this is very different from keeping quiet. Furthermore I never said that Dr Muscat should do things he never spoke about in advance or do things on which he never previously expressed himself. I stick to my understanding of Richard Caruana's comment - quite rightly an understanding shared also by Carmel Seraccino Inglott. And by the way, what I wrote was in all honesty. If you do not want to understand a perspective that I do not have by myself, well, it's not my problem. Good luck!
Mario Farrugia
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:17
"Politicians, he said, had no right to decide who was a family and who was not"
Agreed, nature does, and a family is there to procreate, otherwise it's friendship in a different way.
A Dimech
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:33
Nature decides in many different ways....
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:14
Il-prokreazzjoni m'ghandhix x''taqsam. Kugini, zijiet ukoll u l-boghod minn xhuma parti minn "familja", anki meta jkunu jghixu l-boghod minn xulxin. Il-prokreazzjoni ssir anki meta mara u ragel. mhux mizzewwgin, jiddeciedu li jkollhom tarbija !
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:09
L-apologisti ta' GonziPN regghu qabdu l-kantaliena li kienu ghamlu fil-kampanja tar-referendum dwar id-divorzju. Iridu bilfors idahhlu r-religjon meta hemm fin-nofs drittijiet civili.
J Busuttil
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:47
@ Eddy Privitera
Le Eddy ssibx skuzi huwa Joseph li dahal f'kobba.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 20:17
j. bUSUTTIL- DR. mUSCAT MA DAHAL F'EBDA KOBBA.kULL MA JRID HU LI MA SSIRX DISKRIMINAZZJONI !
HALLI NFAKKREK FTIT. DR. GONZI, FIL-KAMPANJA TAR-REFERENDUM DWAR ID-DIVORZJU KIEN QAL, LI JEKK JIDHOL ID-DIVORZJU " IL-MIZZEWWGIN KOLLHA SE JSIRU GHARAJJES. GHAX IZ-ZWIEG MA JIBQAX DEJJIEMI " !!
X'GARA FILL-FATT WARA LI DAHAL ID-DIVORZJU ? QATT ERGAJT SMAJTU JGHID LI HU U MARTU STESS, BHAL KOPPJI KOLLHA MIZZEWWGIN, LI SARU GHARAJJES ???
GONZIPN DEJJEM JIPPROVA JDEFFES IL-VALURI "NSARA" - JIGIFIERI R-RELIGJON - F'KULL DRITT CIVILI LI JIGI PROPOST, META L-GVERN QIEGHED HEMM GHAL-KULLHADD.
J. Debono
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:02
As long as there are social services, the Govt. HAS to define a family.
The definition is up to the present Govt. however a definition must exist.
A Spiteri PhD
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:32
false
I Bugeja
Sep 3rd 2012, 08:23
Debono, with your reasoning whoever is gay does not need to contribute to social services. If so I would be happy to keep my whole wage for myself.
P. Vincenti
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:00
The traditional family is the only model that politicians should be concerned about. Changing the model by calling any format a family Is very dangerous. Re-defining the family is not going to happen without a very bitter struggle. The Maltese should resist an political force that seeks to weaken the traditional family model.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:49
P.Vincenti: Sa fejn naf jien f'Malta m'ghamdniex definizzjoni legati ta xi tkun " familja". Fill-fatt il-kelma " FAMILJA" nuzawha b'diversi modi, anki biex nuru kemm inkunu nirrispettaw lill-xulxin.Bl?Ingliz , per ezempju, ghandhom il-kelma " extended family".
Melissa Bagley
Sep 3rd 2012, 05:39
P.Vincenti, all families should be respected, 'traditional' model or not. Welcome to 2012.
Joseoh Dalli
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:57
What about a man with four women? - do they have a right? should the state intervene?
What about a woman with four man? - do they have a right? should the state intervene?
What about four men and a lovely child? - what about their rights? should the state intervene?
Strictly speaking, all of these can be defined as a 'family' - but someone has to do the defining - abdicating from that responsibility only leads to unhealthy libertanism.
A married man and a woman provide the best social environment for the child - they generally compliment each other socially and naturally.
Other forms of unions should not be seen as equals with a healthy, nuclear family.
I Bugeja
Sep 3rd 2012, 08:32
A woman who shares her man with another woman and both have children who are conveniently registered as unknown father get support from the state.
This support is paid by us as well. It is very convenient to recognise gay people as duty bound citizens and have them pay taxes but then not treat them at a par when the need arises.
Daniel Frendo
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:39
Yes, politicians surely have NO RIGHT to decide who is a family. However I hope we can agree that the Eternal Creator Who created Man male and female DOES have this right. So I humbly suggest that puny men and women should keep out of it. I hope and pray that Malta's leaders will forever shun the ways of a world that has been speedily going the way that will surely lead to destruction. Wake up Malta!
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:20
kumbaya my lord. go to Ethiopia to make the world better!
A Vella
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:34
I honestly think that trying to gain political mileage with minority rights issues and terminal illnesses like cancer is utterly disgusting, just propose what you think is ideal and get on with it, not pausing for lengthy applauses by party fanatics (no matter how normal you try to make them look) for these sensitive issues! If there is nothing to be said better be quite than going stopping so low. Having said that, I also believe that we Maltese do not deserve any better.
ANTHONY PAVIA
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:44
So you believe minority issues and terminal illnesses are irrelevant to Maltese citizens and should be sidetracked. That is the first step to commence ignoring far larger issues. Do you remember the phrase, "ten million here, ten million there", and just look at the national debt TODAY!
M. Zammit
Sep 2nd 2012, 20:44
Unfortunately it's not issues that get discussed properly for the greater good of society. Politics have become about scoring points using any topical issue.
If anyone has anything to say about a particular issue, the right place is putting it in writing to the Minister concerned, so that consideration is given to the proposal when the Bill comes up for discussion.
On the other hand, if the Minister doesn't have pressure, through the media and other methods, he wouldn't even think about proposing any changes!
May we all have wisdom to seek the best solutions.
Tommy Vella
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:32
If there is a Family Law the government or the law will have to define wha tand who is a family. Definitions of the terms used in a law form the introduction to every law.
Doesn't JM even know this? Elementary.
Joe Sammut
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:31
Joseph Muscat ma’ jitkellimx car, u qatt ma taf fejn qieghed mieghu . Niftakar tajjeb li hu “all out” kontra li koppja gay jaddottaw it-tfal.
Jaqaw gralu bhal tal-Ewropa u dar bhal pinnur?
Il-mistoqsija fuq fomm kullhadd hi “Il-PL favur jew kontra li koppja gay jaddottaw it-tfal?” U m’hemmx tidwir mal-lewza u hafna kliem meqjus... IVA jew LE. In-Nazzjonalisti qed jghidu LE , l-AD qalu IVA u l-MLP ghadu jdur mal-lewza, u ma’ jitkellimx car ghax jibza jirfes il-kallu ta’ xi hadd li qed jigbidlu l-ispaga tal-vot.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:57
joe SAMMUT. Fejn taaf li l-mistoqsija " fuq fomm kullhadd " ? Li zgur fuq fomm kullhadd hi l-mistoqsija, kemm se jdum igebbed biex jaghmel elezzjoni meta jaf li m'ghandux maggoranza fil-parlament. U qieghed jirredikola lill-partit tieghu stess meta biex iressaq kull ligi, irid imur jiehu l-permess u l-appogg ta' JPO !!!!
A Trapani
Sep 3rd 2012, 02:08
Eddy ir risposta jafa kulhadd wkoll hlief int mid dehra.... Il gvern dejjem kien u ghadu legittimu (anke jekk ma tridx tnizzila) u ha jdum kemm hemm bzonn u sa kemm hu possibli li jibqa jmexxi, sa l-ahhar tal legislatura u sakemm Franco Debono jiddeciedi jwaqqa il gvern. Issa irrispondi ftit lis sur Sammut jekk taf ghax hadd ma jaf.
George Sciberras
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:17
Muscat has put himself in a tight corner. He's against gay marriage, against gays adopting but he accuses anothers being homophobic.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:00
George sciberras: Issa naraw min " put himself in a tight corner ". Nahseb ghada filghaxija ikollna hjiel tajjeb, wara l-laqgha tal-Ezekuttiv ta' GonziPN !
Richard Caruana
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:39
Nithassrek sur Privitera, kif hallewk wahdek tirrispondi din ir-ruxxmata ta' kummenti kontra Joseph.
X'jaghmel il-PL minghajrek?
Robert Gatt
Sep 3rd 2012, 04:48
Interesting to note that on this point, highlighted by both George Sciberras (17:17) and Joe Sammut (17:31), Eddie Privitera answered with an irrelevant and out-of-context answer. I don't know whether Privitera ever realised that in both 2008 and in June 2012 Muscat had publicly stated that he was against gay marriage. In sharp contrast, of course, to what he is saying today. Can you enlighten us why this change in position? I am confused. Vide: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy0EmPphyOM&feature=youtu.be
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 18:38
Robert Gatt. Tista tghidli fejn smajt lil Dr. Muscat jitkellem dwar "Zwieg" ghal- gays ? Jien dejjem smajtu jghid " civil union".!
Robert Gatt
Sep 3rd 2012, 21:48
Eddy...please do not insult the intelligence of those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The clip I attached in my previous comment for your reference speaks for itself. As the clip reveals, what he said in two different instances - both on Xarabank - one in 2008 and the other in June 2012 earlier this year are one thing; what he is saying today is completely different.
Joe Xuereb
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:01
Quote (fourteenth paragraph: 'In contract, Dr Muscat and the PL tried to give the impression they were liberal and that they were in favour of homosexual couples'. '.....they were IN FAVOUR of homosexual couples' is using charged emotive language betraying bias. One does not have to have feelings either way about an issue such as the homosexual minority, particularly a mature individual in a position of power, to see that the Human Rights of such a minority need to be respected. The PM has shown that he is not up to this when he abdicated his responsibility over the divorce issue when he not so much burden-shared his responsibility but threw the onus entirely onto the people. Such a person is hardly likely to look benignly on a matter such as the homosexual minority and its rights. Truly abysmal!!
Antonio Pace
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:57
Muscat lives in his own bubble...he believes his claims and wants us to believe them too. Dr. Said's statement is just elementary.
A Spiteri PhD
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:36
and the current anti gay system is abstruse to anyone who is led by reason
Maria Vassallo
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:53
JM,
fejn ma tifhimx,
u meta ma tkunx infurmat tajjeb,
iskot u ghalaq halqek!
QUOTE:
Dr Muscat also spoke on gay relationships and criticised the Justice Minister’s statement that two people of the same sex in a relationship were not a family.
NO, JM, THEY ARE NOT!
"Ragel u mara halaqhom - il-Hallieq - xbieha tieghu"
Din il-verita'.
Issa tiehu vot!
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:21
Dear Maria, as I said earlier, homosexuals have the vote, children don't! So for politicians like JM, votes are more important that the rights of the child. If by being adopted by a homosexual couple, the child loses his divine right to have a mother and father, what the heck! By claiming that homosexuals can form a family, JM is sure to garner a couple of votes, BUT if he defends the right of the child, he will have to wait 18 years for their vote! Pure opportunism!
Well said, Maria.
Salvino Giusti
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:52
..."Ragel u mara halaqhom il Halliq - xbieha tieghu" good, accepted - but tell me how exactly do you know this? Have you seen "Il-Hallieq"? When did you? Can you sms me a photo of Him?
Salvino Giusti
Kenneth Grima
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:29
Homosexuals are normal people coming from every corner of society many very intelligent artistic and very capable in their work and lives able to bring up children much better than many other couples very caring and loving that have nothing less than what you describe the perfect family with a man and women all children need is love and many i must say live in stuations that you can call them whatever but not lo loved.
Kenneth Grima
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:34
"Ragel u mara halaqhom - il-Hallieq - xbieha tieghu" Din il-verita' "
Il verita ghalik mhux ghal haddiehor din hija il-verita li gejt imrobbija bija xejn aktar u xejn inqas. Bhal li kieku l-omosessuali mhux minn kopji straight gew imrobbija. l-omosessuali huma holqien ta alla ukoll u ghadhom jigu trattati daqs haddiehor bi drittijiet daqs u bhal haddiehor.
Donna Parnis
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:41
So can any of you anti gay people tell me, what happens if a woman and man are married, have children and then one of the adults leaves the other one because he or she realises they are gay, They then meet a person of the same sex and set up in a relationship. What happens to the children then, Are they to be taken away from the adults because being gay can not constitute a family can it in your opinions. Where do the children go. Can any of you answer. A lot of gay couples raise children far better than married couples of opposite sex. Malta is so way behind the times. Everybody has the right to a family life even if they are same sex. If your own child was gay would you disregard them if they set up in a family situation. I bet you wouldnt.
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:59
Salvino, please grow up! Nobody has ever seen the Creator, but HIS WORDS are there for all to see. At least, for those who WANT to see! But as our Lord said, 'the deafest person is the one WHO DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR, and the blindest is the one WHO DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR.' It is useless to have God's word in the Bible, if one does NOT WANT to hear. It is CONVENIENT to pretend not to know, and make fun of those who do! Start growing up.
Robert Gatt
Sep 3rd 2012, 00:11
Salvino Giusti - it would be an exercise in futility to have Maria Vassallo 1. explain to you how she knows that God created man and woman in similarity to His own self and 2. to send you an sms with His photo. Because you are not prepared, neither to listen to such explanation, nor to accept what He looks like!!
Eddy Privitera
Sep 3rd 2012, 18:57
MARIA VASSALLO: FEJN HEMM L-GHAQDA U L-IMHABBA HEMM "FAMILJA" ! KOPPJA MIZZEWGA LI MA THOBBX U MA TIRRESPETTAX LIL XULXIN , HIJA " FAMILJA TAPARSI" JEW " FAMILJA MKISSRA".
ISSA MA NAHSIBX LI INT, JEKK IKOLLOK MEJDA MKISSRA, TIBQA TGHID LI GHANDEK MEJDA, HUX HEKK ?
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:25
taf li skond il-knisja in-nisa ma setghux jikellmu. mela la temmen daqshekk, tghid xejn!
Peter Simpson
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:52
Divorce is a normality in Europe; under GonziPN no; IVF without 5 wise men is a normality in Europe; under GonziPN no; gays have equal rights in Europe; under GonziPN no!
We need to catch up with Europe not only in living standards but in European values as well !
With GonziPn we are stuck in the past.
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:27
Healthy marriage is NOT a normality in Europe; under GonziPN yes; dumping unwanted embrios like rubbish is a normality in Europe; under GonziPN no; gays have equal rights in Europe......BUT CHILDREN ADOPTED BY THEM DON'T! They are robbed the right to have a mother and father.
twanny borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:35
li nixtieq huwa li muscat jghid jaqbilx maz-zwieg bejn tnejn tal-istess sess u li jekk ikun fil-gvern jaghmilx ligi hekk. risposta iva jew le. forsi jaqbel li muntun u ziemel huma familja ghax skont huwa il-pn ma jindahalx min huma familja. x'livell ta' faqar!!
Anthony Mercieca
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:29
This is shunning off responsibility and the obligaton to seek the common good against some pribnciples which is becoming so relative that we start distorting vocabulary. There is a difference between cohabitation and family life especially when in the whole concept there is a unit called family that its aim is to procreate and with responsibility form our future citizens, emotional love that does not look so in the future because is of same polarity should not be mixed up with this primordial institution.
George Cutajar
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:27
Just looking at what is happening in France is enough to send shudders down one's spine. Prior to the ousting of Sarkozy the French Socilaists promised heaven on earth to the French claiming that Sarkozy was destroying the economy. Over the week-ned Hollande, JM's buddy, is now preparing the French for what is to come.
This will happen in Malta the moment Labour is trusted to run the country. Lots of cliches, promises to everybody and when push comes to shove they will find every excuse to renage on all promises and probably ask for a bail out..
LABOUR WILL DEFINITELY BOT WORK
GL Calleja
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:18
On the other hand according to the Bible Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and that left them with one son. Question: How did we multiply? Just curious.
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:27
IVF!
Joseph Aquilina
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:13
"Politicians have no right to decide who is a family"
There you have it from Joseph Muscat himself; lejber will not rest until the traditional family is completely destroyed and all values are eradicated from our country. This is the opposite of what other western countries are doing after the huge damage done by socialism in this field. Afterwards who cares if Malta will become like Spain and Greece ... two countries which Socialism has contributed to high unemployment and a crippled economy.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:27
The value(?) which should be eradicated from Malta is that of HYPOCRICY ! As regards Greece : Don't you know that it was a CONSERVATIVE government which got Greece into the present mess ??? What about Ireland ? Wasn't Spain also ruled by a conservative government, and is again governed by a conservative government ?
Tommy Vella
Sep 2nd 2012, 19:23
@ Eddy Privitera.
Read this about the how it was the socialist party that was running the country when disaster struck Greece.
Since the restoration of democracy, the Greek two-party system is dominated by the liberal-conservative New Democracy (ND) and the social-democratic Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK).[72] Other significant parties include the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) and the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS). In 2010, two new parties split off from ND and SYRIZA, the centrist-liberal Democratic Alliance (DS) and the moderate leftist Democratic Left (DA). George Papandreou, president of PASOK, won 4 October 2009, won with a majority in the Parliament of 160 out of 300 seats. A new government was sworn in on 20 June 2011, and received a marginal vote of confidence on 22 June, with 155 votes for, 143 against, and two MPs absent.[73] Since the beginning in 2010 of the government-debt crisis, the two major parties, New Democracy and PASOK, have seen a sharp decline in the share of votes in polls conducted, with recent polls showing support from 34% to 48% for the two major parties.[74][75][76][77][78] Polls show support for PASOK ranging from 8%[78] to 18%,[74] while New Democracy is in the 18% to 30% range.[74][76]
Paolo Bugeja
Sep 6th 2012, 22:28
kindly note that such values are also present in Germany. a country flourishing with money. so your point is?
Angelo Vassallo
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:53
@ J Busuttil
As regards to who is a family and who was not, on two different occasions (both on Xarabank), "dear leader" joseph muscat said that HE DOES NOT AGREE that gays form a family.
As always, promising everything to everyone nothing less than opportunism.
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:40
Yep. Unfortunately, since an election is coming, we have to please everyone, in order to garner as many votes as possible! That is the tactic JM is using. What is to be done AFTER the election,....well,....that's another matter. But now, we have to look nice in EVERYBODY'S eyes.
Another politician once said, if I remember correctly, that he would make friends with the devil, if need be!
On the other hand, he is promising so many things, (which I hope he will live up to!), that he is seriously giving the impression that he is positively sure that the economy of the country is VERY strong. If the econmy was in a shambles, as they sometimes tell us they are, how can one mention so many wonderful promises. If HIS promises CAN be achieved, it only means that the country is SO STRONG economically, that he can afford promising AND doing them. Now, if the country IS so strong, why do we need a change of government. JM is only being the oipportunist, as usual. I still remember the promise by MLP to get rid of VAT. They lived up to their promise, and removed VAT,.....but introduced CET, which was worse!
Joseph Pavia
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:57
Dear leader Joseph never said that. It is NET TV that is saying Joseph said that. What Joseph said was he did not agree that gay people married as in the sense that a man and a woman married. He never mention family. If you heard the clips correctly you'd had known. Have you loved somebody enough of whatever sex and called him family? It happens! Or perhaps il-lejburisti have a different notion of love that that of yours if you have any.
Eddy Privitera
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:29
Angelo Vassallo: Qieghed iddawwar kliem Dr.Muscat. ! gib il-prova ta' dak li ktibt !
GL Calleja
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:50
" A PL government, he promised, would give the people five years of stability and confidence." Hoss fl-ilma. All politicians, whether PL or PN promise the same thing. Honestly I wonder how Dr Muscat would feel, if one day his daughter comes home and tells him and his wife that she wants to marry another woman? This is all political talk and like I always said: " Believe none of what you hear and only believe half of what you see". And do not forget this is election time and most politicians will say anything to get your vote. Case in point the present government. Promises are very easy to make and just as easy to break. Politics as usual.
victor caruana
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:50
Keep the gates of Corradino wide open!!!!!
David Bezzina
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:44
JM is correct to say that politicians have no right defining what and what is not a family.
A child living with his grandparents...isn't that a family ?
A child living with his aunt or uncle...isn't that a family ?
A child living with homosexual partners....isn't that a family ?
No government has the right to define how a family.
AP Balzan
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:36
Mr. Bezzina - may I ask - who ultimately has the right to define what is or is not a family? Where does the buck stop? if it is not the politicians who is it then? I for one do not think that it should not be left to politicians but there is in my opinion an innate moral law that many seem intent on ignoring and trampling on which only results in complete chaos.
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:16
Dear David. "A child living with homosexuals partners....isn't that a family?" NO! Is there ONE politician who thinks about the child? Doesn't the CHILD have it's own RIGHTS? The right to have a father and a mother? When homosexuals adopt a child, they are ROBBING the child of that right. Where is the mother figure, and the father figure in a homosexual 'union'? But for politicians, that does not mean anything,....because children have no VOTE, but homosexuals DO!
Carmel Lino Vella Clark
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:43
May I remind Joseph Muscat what Madame Chiang, wife of Chiangai Xek, the founder of Taiwan, who was a dominant figure in the International arena in the fifties, whilst addressing the General Assemble of the United Nations, and I quote, "WHAT IS MORALLY WRONG, CANNOT BE POLITICALLY RIGHT!!!"
And if he forgot the meaning of FAMILY, let me quote you what the English Dictionary say: " The Legal Union of a Man & a Wowan". And this is the Law of Nature. Once man ignores the Law of Nature, he becomes worse than an animal, since even in animal life, a male seeks a female to procreate. They same that two cocks does not make a chicken!!!
Carmel Vella Clark, Msida
Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:39
Sounds like a strange "English Dictionary" because "The Legal Union of a Man & a Wowan" is known as "marriage" in the English Language.
As for "the Law of Nature" I'm afraid that you are not correct. A mutual commitment between two 'animals' - including 'humans' - has nothing to do with procreation but everything to do with loving, caring and compassion. I know many couples, both hetero and homo, where the love that unites them is very tangible, even if there are no children 'because of nature'. Are they not to be considered as 'family' simply because they cannot have children?
ben wood
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:29
My idea of family is inclusive: Family are people in your life who you may be related to by blood, marriage, or choice, often for a lifetime (yours or theirs), who you hold dear and would generally do anything to help them when needed including making personal sacrifices, and whom you generally agree to accept no matter what they do.
They may be someone you see daily or infrequently but the bond remains, and stands the test of time, distance, and overrides almost any challenges.
we can all find examples of 'family' on the internet to suit our own ideas. however 'family' is being used by some as a battering ram to subjugate minorities
m borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:21
Better have a healthy upbringing than in the eye of the nies as a couple will end up messing not just their relationship but their kids have to lump their stupid problems and end up in a sorry situation.
A. Mifsud
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:21
If politicians have no right to decide on what should a family be... then why the heck do we elect a parliament??!!
So what JM is suggesting is that if a male and a female united through marriage want to consider themselves a family they can do so. If two homosexual people want to define themselves a family they can do so. If an absurd wants to state that he and his dog should be defined a family he should be allowed to do so, because JM says no politician or authority has the right to decide what a family is.
Let's be serious here because if its a free for all the absurd will become the right. This is not an argument for or against cohabitation or homosexual. I have nothing against these individuals in this respect, but at least we need to know the legal definition of family because on this basic term we draw up laws.
Very immature for a prospective PM to issue such statements. In his attempt to be liked by every one he's going into extreme absurdities.
jonathan galea
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:16
No opposition, my vote and faith stays with Lawrence Gonzi, as the english say, BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW
Colin Camilleri
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:00
no worries. you will get enough time to know JM as Prime Minister. Much more than you can hope for!
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:33
Colin. That's what we were given the impression about Dr Sant and his 'Winning team', remember? How long did he last. Can you remember, because it was so long ago!
Donna Parnis
Sep 2nd 2012, 20:24
The English also say Better to remain silent and be thought a fool , than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. and in Gonzis case, an empty vessle makes most sound. So stick with Gonzi but I would rather not have a devil leading me.
Joseph Sammut
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:12
Dr. Muscat, "fl'istess nifs" that you are stating the politicians have no right to decide who is a family, you are a politician who by default is stating that you have decided what a family is!!! You are already showing signs of insulting our inteligence just like the PN have been doing for so long. Also you are on record as saying that you do not agree with same sex marriage. And please don't incite people by stating that you see all families as 1st class: I don't put a class on my family, but I cannot say that my family is the same as a same sex parents family and I cannot accept that you, as a politician, do that on my behalf. We have to decide in a few months time and we want to be sure of where you stand.
Lina Caruana
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:06
Sociologically the family is a proactive human agency as the basic cell of society, besides adapting to historical and political change. The family itself is a value and a power which is the envy of all politicians.That is why politicians and social reformers keep addressing the family. Families came before politics.Choosing a leadership was their decision.The way that families organize themselves is cultural according to beliefs and their rules are profound and shared. Changing these rules will change society.
Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:24
"Changing these rules will change society"
But Society is already continually changing and, therefore, so must its rules change in order to reflect reality instead of nostalgia for past norms.
Joe M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:35
Yes Wally, the rules must continue to change with society, BUT PREFERABLY FOR THE BETTER, NOT FOR THE WORST!
JOE INGUANEZ
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:55
"IF Politicians, he said, had no right to decide who was a family and who was not." THIS MIGHT BE ACCAPTABLE... BUT IN A CIVIL SOCIETY IF THE GOVERNMENT [read THE STATE], CANNOT DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES A FAMILY, THEN WHO CAN? OR WHO WILL DO SO?
REV JOE INGUANEZ
Michel Bencini
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:13
If you look at the hundreds of thousands of years of the history of the human species and its evolution, one will realize that human bonding was what created family nuclei not politicians in a civil society which came many eons later. So historically and technically Mr.Muscat is right. Anyway, one should not play with the words of a politician because that would be intellectually dishonest.
Joseph Pavia
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:03
Reverend it is up to us to choose who is family or not. Each one of us either belongs or not. Family is not marriage. Family is a house hold. I see a convent a family...
Paul Zammit
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:44
Just a tip mate (JM) ...
The more u clutch at straws, the more a weirdo you picture yourself ...I suggest u grab a real issue (such as energy and fuel prices) and explain to the public how you intend to solve the crisis...
Then you might gain some credibility ...
Joseph Pavia
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:04
50% believe different I assure you.
G Falzon
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:35
More about "family":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421619/nuclear-family
G Falzon
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:24
Meaning of family from Wikipedia:
"In human context, a family (from Latin: familia) is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity, affinity, or co-residence. In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children. Anthropologists most generally classify family organization as matrilocal (a mother and her children); conjugal (a wife, husband, and children, also called nuclear family); and consanguinal (also called an extended family) in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family.
There are also concepts of family that break with tradition within particular societies, or those that are transplanted via migration to flourish or else cease within their new societies.[clarification needed] As a unit of socialization the family is the object of analysis for sociologists of the family. Genealogy is a field which aims to trace family lineages through history. In science, the term "family" has come to be used as a means to classify groups of objects as being closely and exclusively related. In the study of animals it has been found that many species form groups that have similarities to human "family"—often called "packs." Sexual relations among family members are regulated by rules concerning incest such as the incest taboo.
Extended from the human "family unit" by affinity and consanguinity are concepts of family that are physical and metaphorical, or that grow increasingly inclusive extending to community, village, city, region, nationhood, global village and humanism."
_____
"Politicians had no right to decide who was a family and who was not." But neither do politicians have the right to juggle and play with established definitions of words!
Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:12
One wonders whether you have really understood what you copied and pasted from Wiki. Somehow, I don't think you have!
Drocan Lubstuit
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:33
Dear Mr Falzon,
Cutting & pasting from Wikipedia does not substantiate your argument. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia which is and can be edited by any Tom, Dick or Harry. Quoted a more respectible publisher of knowledge books, would have been more sound on your part.
Nonetheless, definitions are still a matter of opinion especially in cases where the subject of definition can project different viewpoints to a variety to people. In such instance, my opinion is that a family is a nucleus of people living in love and sharing responsibilities and intimacy. I am sure that many would share my "viewpoint", one which has not referred to the gender of the members of the nucleus.
In conclusion, I would say that the definition you have found (and agreed to so vehemently) on Wikipeadia is surely contributed by a conservative person who is not willing to live and let live.
G Schembri
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:57
Tomorrow you might find a different meaning of family on Wikipedia, since anyone can add their version on Wikipedia.
G Falzon
Sep 2nd 2012, 16:28
How did you come to conclusions about my viewpoint. I am aware of what consitutes Wikipedia. I just wanted to point to some quotes, whether they are in favour or against the subject. It is obvious you are blindly biased ......
Donald Mangion
Sep 2nd 2012, 18:07
Might be interesting to see what 117 US students and teachers (in 2011) have to say about the definition of family: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/how-do-you-define-family/
I agree 100% with Drocan, generations come and go, new generations re-define meanings to be able to adapt to change and new realities. It is the accepted lifecyle of evolution.
Joseph Cauchi Senior
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:09
“Politicians, he said, had no right to decide who was a family and who was not”.
So says Joseph Muscat!
Then who decides Ġuż?
Perhaps Ċetta ta’ Bubaqra?
What is the point of electing people like JM if he is not capable of taking such a decision?
As far as I know, we the electorate, vote for our political representatives to take the CORRECT decisions in our name; and therefore, if one has to go by JM’s reasoning, then we might as well throw all the politicians into the waste-bin of history!
Ġuż, is this your new way of doing politics?
JC.
Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:16
Perhaps you are having a "senior" moment but, having "no right to decide" does not mean that one is not capable of deciding. While I have no right to shy custard pies at your head does not mean that I cannot - or vice versa, if you prefer.
Joseph Sammut
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:37
Mr. Cauchi, in making such a statement, by default, JM is breaking his own statement as I understand it, he accepts same sex parents/families. These politicians carry on as if they are the only people capable of reason; history always proves them wrong.
David Bezzina
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:46
No,the government has the right to dictate what and what is not seen as a family.That is not his business.
Joseph Sammut
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:33
@ David Bezzina: sorry, I am either drunk or you statement is confusing me.
Karl Consiglio
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:06
Mela if he means what he says Muscat ought to be in favour of introducing having at least nine wives
M Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:26
Why stop at nine ? Why not 30 or 31 ?
One for each day of the month ! That way divorce will be out of fashion , all that money for the referendum down the drain !!
Alfred Grech
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:31
Karl, having nine wives means having nine mothers in law and that spells big problems.
G Schembri
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:41
No he never said that now did he. But then if a Muslim with nine wives and twenty children came to reside in Malta, are we going to tell them that they are not a family.
If a woman and a man are living together and have a child are they less of a family than a married couple with a child.
If a single mother is living with her children, whether she is a widow or unmarried, are we not gong to consider them a family.
If two persons love each other and are committed to live together for better or for worse, why shouldn't we consider them a family, whether they are married or not, whether they are related or not and whether they are of the same sex or not.
Why should a politician impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us?
Joseph Sammut
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:43
Karl, JM's statement does not make sense except for being a vote catching exercise. He, as a politician, has seemingly decided that same sex parents are canditates for a family - mela, he as politician, HAS decided what constitutes a family: he can count himself in his own statement!!! These politicians have the habit of thinking everyone being mentally deficient.
David Bezzina
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:47
Prosit,taf iddahhak !
E. Vassallo
Sep 3rd 2012, 06:25
@Karl Consiglio
Do you think Michelle will accept that!?!?!?!?!?
James Dimech
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:05
So is Muscat going to introduce same sex marriages ?
Karl Consiglio
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:54
No he will have his version of that which he is talking against
silvano vassallo
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:35
100% Dr Muscat. We are one family , man and woman. This is how politicians ie: ' the policy makers' control us , by pining us against each other through our differences. male/female, black/white , Muslim/Roman catholic, Gay/straight, This strategy has worked since time immemorial . It is called divide and conquer. Fellow Maltese if you really want change we must unite because this is our only weapon and the most feared one by our masters. Stop attacking each other politically. The more you fight against each other the more the politicians laugh behind your back. When their was a common foe both lp and pn worked together digilently to eliminate the enemy. love for all Maltese
JJ Agius
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:26
The only comment I dont agree is when saying 2 gays living to gether are a family. Ihave nothing against gays.They can live to gether & be happy etc.But one cannot call two gays living together a Family.
A family to me is "Husband wife & children".Again I have nothing against gays.
J.J.
Tony Zammit
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:19
So JJ... husband wife and children make a family OK.. but if the husband and wife, like me have no kids that does not make me family to you? I been married for over 30 years.
Luke Falzon
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:28
Yes, you have something against gays in that you do not even dignify their status as a family.
G Schembri
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:50
What if the husband and wife die, will the children stop being a family because there are no longer husband and wife?
What if the parents are not married, are they less of a family because they are not married, even if they are more faithful to each other than a married couple who have lovers at the side?
Why do you consider gay less than straight ? You do have something against gay, because you don't want them to be called a family just because they are of the same sex.
To say that only Husband and wife and children is a family, is even saying that a childless couple is not a family. That is very unChristian of you JJ.
JJ Agius
Sep 2nd 2012, 17:13
@Tony Zammit;Yes of course you are husband & wife & i think you married to have a family .Its the male & female who starts a Family.Two men or two woman cannot start a family.Even Bolt & nut are called male & female.
@ Luke Falzon if I say two gays are a family i am not saying the truth.Call them lovers etc.but no I have nothing against gays.
@ G schembri.When a father & mother dies we say we lost our parents,when parents are not married there is still a mother father & children.Un fortunate Child less couples on many occasions adopt & stil called Mum & Dad.
But how can a child have 2 mums or 2 Dads.Sorry I am not against gays but dont agree with gays marriage or gays adopting children.
J.J
Peter Agius
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:21
So, who has the right????? Joe Muscat as a layman? back in the 60's homos were illegal. And politicians made them legal if i am not mistaken. I think that under Muscat it will be a free for all. good luck.
Pule' Carmel
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:14
Nature itself decided what is a family sustained through generations.
Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:23
No, Mr Pule' what nature provides are conjugal couples. The term 'family' is a legal construct put forward by society in its quest for definitions that regulate the rights and obligations of its members so that there may be peaceful co-existence within a community.
A. Mifsud
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:14
Opportunist bla paraguni. X kuntrast mad diskors illi kien ghamel JM fuq il familja u persuni omosesswali fuq Xarabank meta lahaq kap. Ara vera ma tafx fejn qieghed ma dan il persuna!
David Bezzina
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:48
Times change and politicians have to adapt to new circumstances.
A. Mifsud
Sep 2nd 2012, 21:15
@ David Bezzina
Judging from your comments, I can start to understand why do politicians 'adapt' to circumstances. Times change but principles don't.
Joseph Cauchi Senior
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:09
“Dr Muscat said that back in the 1960s being a homosexual could send one to jail but people had had enough courage to stand up to this”.
Wrong, Guż!
People did not go to jail for being homosexual but for PERFORMING SODOMY!
Get your facts right, Guż!
JC.
G Schembri
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:55
So was it only the men who were sent to prison?
william staines
Sep 2nd 2012, 13:03
Why on earth isn't Dr Muscat in charge? He seems to be talking a lot of common sense and outing some facts. I'm afraid Malta isn't alone in having a government that's not dealing with the present crisis, all over there are mediocre people in charge, they are a bunch of light weights. We need a giant like Woodrow Wilson to show courage and grasp the nettle.
I Bugeja
Sep 2nd 2012, 12:47
Let's just hope that Labour together with JPO can bring some sense to this issue unless of course the PN decide to make equal rights, equal for everyone.
Political bickering leads to nowhere, let's hope in a discussion which is fruitful.
Peppi Borg
Sep 2nd 2012, 12:47
Well said Dr.Muscat! This is unaccaptable. One of the most respected oncologists in Malta and internationally claimed that there were individuals (one can guess who) who interfered in his judgement on who to admit t for cure or not! It's a mafia style reasoning. Unaccaptable also the budget cuts were education and health suffered cuts to the detriment of the taxpayers. It was a message for hope for the Gozitans this morning. They know that their island's economy needs a revamp by a new admininistration.
J Busuttil
Sep 2nd 2012, 12:36
" Dr Muscat also spoke on gay relationships and criticised the Justice Minister’s statement that two people of the same sex in a relationship were not a family."
" Politicians, he said, had no right to decide who was a family and who was not. "
Come on Joseph you are not honest on what the Justice Minister said you can kid the ones in front of you but not the ones who read all.
As regards to who is a family and who was not on two occasions and these are recorded you said that gays do not form a family between them
Joseph Joseph as time goes on you are showing your true colours. One day you say one thing and change it on another.
Very childish Joseph just votes votes votes as long as you become the youngest prime minister qumbad nara.
David Bezzina
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:51
And what is wrong with wanting to get more votes ?
All politicians strive to get more votes.If I am not mistaken,that is how democracy works.
Anthony Arpa
Sep 2nd 2012, 12:29
A Family is a couple living or married with one aim to have and raise their own family if God permit them this ... Same sex patrners must be yes regonizesed as partners living united togheter. But never as the family we know as christians ...
Luke Falzon
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:25
Christianity has nothing to do with state laws. Leave religion out of it.
Kenneth Grima
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:37
Malta is not only of you christians like it or not.You as a christioan form your family as you like and leave others form theirs as they like. You have your values as others have theirs. The state should be there for everyone not just your christian family.
John L Galea
Sep 3rd 2012, 09:19
@Anthony Arpa: We do not care what you Christians know and think. Yes 2 persons living together no matter the sex should have the same rights as traditional couples. They pay taxes too. You Christians distinguish yourself as you can marry in a church which for the rest of the people this is not important as the church means nothing.
Marco Galea
Sep 2nd 2012, 12:16
Dan mhux l-istess wiehed li ftit xhur ilu qal li ma jaqbilx ma zwieg tal-istes sess?
Karl Consiglio
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:55
Ezatt.
Karl Consiglio
Sep 2nd 2012, 14:55
Xeba tahwid il-PL
Wally Vella-Zarb
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:28
B’liema dritt, jekk ma taqbilx ma’ xi ħaga, iccaħad lil ħaddiehor minnha?
gustav privitelli
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:43
Naqbel ma s-sur Marco Galea , IVA dan Hu l-istess wiehed li ftit xhur ilu qal li ma jaqbilx ma zwieg ta' l-istess sess. Parole parole parole sur J.M
David Bezzina
Sep 2nd 2012, 15:52
Li tbiddel l-opinjoni tieghek mhuwiex xi sakrilegg !
Please choose the reason of your report below: