Name-dropping of the pseudo-intellectual sort makes me break out in hives and the level indulged in by Michael Axiaq – him of the Ph.D in morality and the rigid morals to match – on yesterday’s edition of Times Talk reached a rather spectacular level.
Still, I have to say that I found the interview that was carried out with him highly educational. What I learnt, in no particular order:
1. People’s feelings and emotions should never be reduced to reports and statistics. No, Dr Axiaq, we do not refer to homosexual people as ‘different grades of homosexual’, or as a ‘Kinsey rating 6’ or a Kinsey rating whatever. We refer to them as people, people whose homo/hetero sexuality is none of our business.
2. No matter how lofty your pretensions, you just can’t get away with discussing other people’s sexuality on camera without giving off a very disturbing vibe. I don’t know about you, but Dr Axiaq’s smirk as he debated ‘l-att omosesswali’ (perhaps the learned gentleman also has a Ph.D in euphemisms?) kind of put me off my food. And not because of the topic, but because of his prurient interest in it.
Please note the way that he jumps in with ‘anke l-omosesswali’, even though his interviewer never solicited his opinion on the topic. What is it with people being way too interested in the sex lives of others? Creepy level: +100.
3. A qualification in morality can never beat the real thing. I would love to know how Dr Axiaq can see his way to justifying statements like “il-ħtija tal-omosesswali” (the guilt/blame of homosexuals) on a moral level. I was under the impression that calling down fire and brimstone on homosexuals – I beg your pardon, on Kinsey 1 or 2 homosexuals – is the opposite of morality. Then again, what would I know? I have no Ph.D in morality, after all.
I’m sure there are a couple more lessons lurking somewhere in that video, but I’m in no mood to watch it yet again and risk ruining lunch too. This man is chairman of our bioethics commission, if you please. The mere thought that he is in a position where he gets to decide on the fate of others gives me the shivers.
And this, perhaps, is the biggest lesson I learnt from yesterday’s Times Talk. How fitting is it that a hardcore conservative with a very particular bias is retained as chairman of the Bioethics Committee?
It seems to me that we make a point of appointing supremely unsuitable members to serve on this committee. I had already come under fire two years ago for daring to suggest, via this same blog, that having two men of the cloth on the committee was a glaring conflict of interest. Censure flowed in from all quarters: how dare I question the qualifications of the two gentlemen in question?
Read my lips: the highest academic qualifications do not necessarily make someone the ideal person for the job at hand, and no amount of shocked statements about undisputed qualifications is going to convince me otherwise.
You can read the entire post here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120409/blogs/the-bio-ethics-committee-a-declared-conflict-of-interest.414785.
Is it too much to ask that no person with such a defined and known bias be appointed to this pivotal role? Judging by the way it keeps happening, apparently it is.