Love her or hate her, in the last general election Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca won the highest number of Labour votes after Joseph Muscat. In addition, she’s been consistently elected to parliament since 1998. So why isn’t it crystal clear to our administration that, working (not just being) in parliament is where ‘the people’ want this woman to be?

It doesn’t matter that she’d probably make a good President, it doesn’t matter that she’d also be ticking the ‘female’ box on the check list, and it doesn’t matter how much she might want this, by kicking the most popular Minister upstairs, the Prime Minister will look like he doesn’t give a hoot about the public’s wishes. He’d be telling all those who voted for Coleiro Preca that he doesn’t really care about whom they want to represent them in Parliament, that he’s the big boss and, that he gets to decide for them.

Of course, I would love to see a female President and since I don’t trust Coleiro Preca to be as liberal as I’d like her to be (because of her position on divorce), I wouldn’t mind seeing her as Head of State, but in the spirit of democracy I cannot help thinking that this move is most likely a convenient way of justifying a reshuffle. But does a Prime Minister really need an excuse to move his people around? Or is there more than meets the eye? Is it perhaps more convenient to get rid of a thorn in one’s side than to deal with it?

Marriage – a detriment to society

After the last general election the Opposition suddenly had a change of heart about stopping discrimination based on sexual orientation, so just like we expected, during the final discussion of the Civil Unions Bill, they proposed some amendments which in their opinion would refrain "possible detriments to our society."

Now I’m not saying that the Opposition is wrong in suggesting these amendments because apart from the bit about adoption, it is not clear what the amendments that they proposed are, but, whatever it is that they proposed, whatever their amendments are, the Opposition is horrendously and disgustingly depraved for waiting so long to propose them now, solely and exclusively with regards to the Civil Unions Bill.

The Civil Unions Bill is entirely based on Malta’s Marriage Act, meaning that whatever allowances or restrictions apply to heterosexual couples will apply to same sex couples, but according to the Opposition, when the same allowances and restrictions are applied to same sex couples they could pose “possible detriments to our society,” whereas when availed of by heterosexual couples, they don’t.

How’s that for being totally committed to fight discrimination?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.