Thursday, 12th February 2009
Shipwrecked: the irony of two incidents
February 10. By mere co-incidence or a great sense of irony two incidents were reported and/or commemorated.
- A group of criminals and accused people guarded by a number of Roman soldiers were shipwrecked. The Maltese welcomed them. They made a large bonfire to keep them warm.
- In Safi a small number of persons guilty only of accidentally landing in Malta escaped from the place where they were being kept. No warmth was offered,
Thousands celebrated in Valletta to commemorate the arrival of the criminals of yesteryear. What irony!
On the other hand the Safi escape was met by the anger and prejudice which dirtied the cyberspace occupied by some bloggers.
Welcoming the foreigners
The openness to the foreigner two thousand years ago changed our history. It was a great encounter. Those who had lost everything except their lives were met on the shore by the Maltese who seemed to have everything – security, shelter, food.
It transpired that those who prima facie had nothing in fact had a lot.
Was there anyone, 2000 years ago, who argued that those who were ship wrecked would be a burden on the population. Was there anyone who asked: What good would come from welcoming them? What could they give in return? They were criminals, after all. People should beware. Would those responsible for peace and order be able to cope with the arrival of such a large number of do-gooders?
The risk was taken. Doors were opened. Hearts were welcoming. It turned out that the favour was returned; and how! One of the illegal visitors had a gift which he shared; and we still treasure. His name was Paul.
Demonising the foreigner
Two thousand years later a totally different reaction was registered when it was announced that a dozen and half humans, like you and me, panicked when they heard that they would be returned to the country they run away from. Their hope for a better future had turned out to be a tent city. But even that was better that what they had before. Hearing that they would be repatriated they escaped.
The reaction of many was very different from the reaction of the Maltese towards illegal visitors 2000 years ago. The following are some of the comments that were posted under the timesofmalta.com story which announced the news.
Read and feel the shudder of utter shame.
P Debono: Malta is no longer a safe place for tourists. Many English people that I know told me they would not be visiting Malta for their annual trip next year mainly because they’ve been reading about this news.
Louise Vella: Do Maltese citizens feel as secure as they should in their own country?
Carmel Dimech: Malta is not the safe country it used to be.
E Psaila: What if we have a national emergency, say earthquake and we need our soldiers to help? Who will guard the people in detention?
Lgalea: Gonzipn YOU ar guilty of every crime these have committed and are committing in Malta. Get rid of ALL the illegal immigrants the moment they set foot in Malta.
WE DO NOT WANT THEM HERE. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY NOT THEIRS. PERIOD.
Johann Zammit: In my opinion we should get Armed Forces from EU countries to help us in this situation. We need more and more soldiers to control detention centres.
Stephen vella: the country is rapidly turning into an anarchy.
Malcolm Farrugia: Let’s hit the streets and demonstrate.
Joseph Abdilla: why not turn Filfla into a detention centre.
The seed of destruction
Such comments leave me speechless. The pettiness of such comments is evidence of persons with pea sized brains. This panic is just a sign of frightened and terrified people.
Such comments breed racism. And racism breeds hate and human tragedies. The history of the world is stained by the scourge of racism: from the genocide of Rwanda to the man created hell called the Holocaust; from the obscenity of apartheid to the injustice of segregation in the USA of few decades ago. All these and so many other examples show the nadir that humans can fall into and can drag so many others with them.
A few weeks ago the anniversary of the mother of all racist crimes i.e. the Holocaust was commemorated. But it seems that some people never learn. In fact we have just gone through a controversy seeing a bishop who is a member of a ultra-conservative society deny the existence of this grave sin against God and humanity. All hell broke loose. And it was very good that there was such a reaction. We should react strongly when such incidents happed. We should remember that the Holocaust was possible because many people were imbued with a racist spirit and did nothing to stop those so evilly inclined.
Let us not repeat history. Let us fight these racist trends that are plaguing our country.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
PS It is awful to deny the existence of the Holocaust. But it is diabolical to publicise a character that says that he can get sexual pleasure looking at pictures of the victims of the Holocaust. The rubbish which does this is a play called Stitching. But liberal pseudo intellectuals call such rubbish art.
RSS
Comments
I'm sorry if my reply was a tad too blunt. However, it drives me mad when people who are in no way affected by the illegals try to stand up for them. Reporting to the police is futile, because it is extremely hard to identify the individual who committed the crime, so no charges can be pressed against him. It is not a one-time occurance; it has happened at least three times - now I always get home before a certain time and keep my mobile in my hand while walking home. My friends all have a story of their own as well. It has become very difficult to live here these past few years; especially in the last months, when violence has escalated. I have nothing against the illegal immigrants, and can understand that they want a better life for themselves; but not at the detriment of mine. A girl have been followed home by one of them after getting off the bus, and yelled at with his face 5 inches away from hers when she did not give him her mobile number. Also, they insert their hands between the cracks in the seats on buses.
Oh, I see that you're speaking from personal experience. Have you reported them to the police? Did the police take any action?
I must admit that I've never been robbed or otherwise disturbed by any immigrants. On the otherhand, I know of certain areas where it is unsafe to walk alone at certain times because the areas are known to be the hangouts of Maltese drug-dealers, pimps and other violent types.
Of course, if I have to go there, and am assaulted, I don't "stop and wonder why the person is behaving as such; think what it is that makes him more prone to commit murder and rape; on whether it his race that makes him genetically more prone to this; or whether it is his economic status or culture or something else". I simply flee, if I have the chance.
But then, I do not say that people from (insert the Maltese village of your choice) are more prone to commit violence, unless I can prove a direct correlation between a trait in that group, and the action, and can subsequently prove that it is that trait that causes the action.
Am I insulting anyone?
Have the teenagers who have been harassed made a report to the police? They should.
Yes, that's exactly what I do whenever I'm about to get assaulted. I stop and wonder why the person is behaving as such; I think what is it that makes him more prone to commit murder and rape? Is it his race that makes him genetically more prone to this? Is it his economic status? Is it his culture? Is it something else? You're absolutely right. I thank you for enlightenment; I have finally opened my eyes. I will be forever grateful to you for your words of wisdom.
Kenneth Cassar, whether you like it or not, come down to Birzebbugia or Marsa and ask every teenage girl living there if they have ever been sexually harrassed or if even attempts to steal from them have occured to them. Chances are that yes, they have. It is no longer safe here in Birzebbugia. I have been picked on by the illegals more times than I can count on one hand. Now you may have their best interests at heart; but how dare you try to insult those who really care about this country and its citizens. Spare me; go preach somewhere else!
To say that one group is more prone to commit murder and rape, you have to show a correlation between an attribute and the action, showing that it is that attribute which causes the person to do the action. Statistics cannot provide this information. Only science can.
Now ask yourself this question: What is it that makes one more prone to commit murder and rape? Is it one's race that makes one genetically more prone to this? Is it one's economic status? Is it one's culture? Is it something else?
If you claim that some groups are more prone to commit violent acts, then you must answer the above questions. Of course I will not hold my breath in wait for your reply.
When dealing justice to individual human beings, statistics are meaningless.
_______________________________
@ T Pace:
"The genuine refugees are very very few" - and we must do all we can to protect them. If they are only a few, so much the easier our task will be.
"As regards crime, any crime committed by immigrants is one too many" - actually, any crime committed by anyone is one too many.
However this is not the case.
About 30 years ago several thousand Ugandans of Asian origin had been expelled by Idi Amin. No crimes were committed by them and their was a general feeling of sympathy for them. So much so that one of them used to write every year in this paper thanking the Maltese for their hospitality.
These Ugandans were real refugees not economic ones.
The present situation is however different and the illegal immigrants cannot be said to be either destitute or in fear of their life.
They paid for their journey in cash and not on some "cruise now and pay later scheme", on arrival are in good shape (except from some crampiness due to sitting in their boat), clothed in suitable protective clothing and complete with mobile phones not to mention the expensive satellite ones.
Others, on being offered a golden handshake, forget their alleged fears for their life in their home country and accept to fly back.
The genuine refugees are very very few.
As regards crime, any crime committed by immigrants is one too many.
I agree that everyone is innocent until proved guilty. However when you have a group which has show that it is more prone to commit murder and rape you do not invite them in. Not a single one, especially when you know (if you didn't you do now) that the crime rate against your fellow Maltese is going to increase greatly, the more that come.
Knowing the statistics, at night which dark street would you prefer walking through if you had a choice, street A or street B where the crime rate is 6 times higher. (There are innocent people too living in street B). I know which street I would choose as will most Maltese.
Re the 137 murders . You didn't understand a thing. The Maltese committed 21 murderers. Had the immigrants had the same amount of population and commited murder at their current rate there would have been 137 murders.
Unlike yours these are actual statistics not invented ones. They are based on internationally recognised statistics not PC thinking.
One last attempt.
It is an indisputable fact that, speaking only of Maltese nationals here, some areas in Malta are more prone to violence, theft and drug abuse. So by your logic, should we erect a fence around these areas and deny access to the rest of Malta to all the locals living in the problem areas...just to safeguard the rest of us? Would that be fair to peaceful people who just happen to live there (either out of choice or because they have to)?
Ponder on this for a little while, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get what I'm trying to say.
By the way, the fact that from the "statistics" you deduce that "one expects 137 murders (by immigrants) but only 21 occurred, proves my point - that such percentages and statistics are meaningless and irrelevant when dealing with individual human beings.
My point is that percentages are irrelevant where justice to individuals is concerned. How did I get the 80%? I invented it, as I did the 70% and 60% (see my reply to T Pace). You can make it .000001% if you like. It doesn't change a thing.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, as are the three Maltese people who allegedly stabbed a Libyan 7 times (see http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090304/local/three-deny-stabbing-libyan-seven-times ). What if they are found guilty? What does this say about me and you? I'll tell you what...absolutely nothing. The same applies to individual foreign immigrants.
If you can't get this simple fact, I give up.
My reply was not featured . Apart from the Tunisian case there was also a murder at Selmun of a Syrian. A Syrian was arraigned in court. Unsure if he was illegal.
How have you decided that with one murder they would leave the Maltese far behind? How did you get 80%?
Since 2002-2008 there were 23 murders. At most, 21 by Maltese.(there was the Balluta case but lets leave it at 21)
http://www.pq.gov.mt/PQWeb.nsf/10491c99ee75af51c12568730034d5ee/c1256e7b003e1c2dc12574ab00309bc3?OpenDocument
Immigrants -average 3000 from 2002-2008
Maltese-412,000
Ratio 1 immigrant : 137 Maltese.
Therefore 1 crime by immigrant equivalent to 137 by Maltese.
I would expect 137 murders carried out between 2002 and 2008 for things to be equal. In all there were 23. At least two were foreigners so 21 in all.
Which means that one expects 137 murders but only 21 occurred. So the rate is the other way round.
Murder is 6.5 times (137/21) more likely to be carried out by an immigrant than a Maltese.
Thanks, Shylene. Your post is evidence of a rational and serene mind.
Just in case you misunderstand me yet again, my point is that percentages are useless in matters of justice. So changing percentages of probability still leaves the fact that to judge people on the basis of their nationality, religion, the colour of their skin, their economic situation etc, is prejudice. All action based on prejudice is injustice.
Regarding my concluding part, sorry to disappoint you, but I am not implying that we can expect somebody to be murdered. I can only speak about present facts, so I leave open that possibility.
It's perfectly possible for you (or me) to murder someone, so I can say that you haven't killed anyone yet, although I certainly cannot say that you will definitely or probably kill someone. By saying that you haven't killed anyone yet, I wouldn't be implying that we can expect you to kill someone in the future.
Regarding there being at least one awaiting trial for the murder of another illegal immigrant, and another being charged (innocent until proven guilty...remember?), still, even if they are convicted, that would still leave immigrants far behind. So ok, let's change my 100% figure...would it be more accurate for me to say that Maltese people are 80% more likely to murder someone? Or 70% maybe? Or 60%?.
The point is that you cannot make such conclusions, since such conclusions would be highly unscientific. To make such inferences you should be able to prove a causal correlation between an attribute of a person (or type) and the crime committed.
Re your concluding part of your comment "not murdered anyone yet"
You are yourself implying that we can expect somebody to be murdered (apart from other crimes that illegal immigrants have already committed).
However even in respect of murder you have got your facts wrong. There is at least one awaiting trial for the murder of another illegal immigrant while several others have been charged with the attempted murder.
Prejudice:
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prejudice
"What about the rights of the Maltese not to be victims of crimes such as rape, muggings etc" - Prejudice.
"With your reasoning we should accept prisioners directly from jails in African , after all, there are the police and law courts to take care of things".
No we should not. These are already convicted criminals. No prejudice involved.
"Africans in 2008 were more than 5 times as likely to be arraigned in court for rape than Maltese. Yes, at least five times more. Any you want more immigrants?"
You cannot make that conclusion, since by the same reasoning, Maltese people are 100% more likely to murder other people than African immigrants in Malta are, since no African immigrant has murdered anyone yet.
Not prejudiced but plain common sense which may not be so common in some.
If you know that a target group is prone to commit more crimes than others why bring them here even if the majority may be peaceful? What about the rights of the Maltese not to be victims of crimes such as rape, muggings etc. Don't we have rights too. Why burden the courts with more problems? Our courts are already over extended. With your reasoning we should accept prisioners directly from jails in African , after all, there are the police and law courts to take care of things.
Deportation? We can't even deport those we have. Once here we're stuck with them. F-o-r-e-v-e-r.
Africans in 2008 were more than 5 times as likely to be arraigned in court for rape than Maltese. Yes, at least five times more. Any you want more immigrants?
http://www.pq.gov.mt/PQWeb.nsf/10491c99ee75af51c12568730034d5ee/c1256e7b003e1c2dc1257513004d49a5?OpenDocument
Why would you wish this to your fellow Maltese?
Be as PC and christian as you want but don't count me in.
Regarding your giving specific examples, you can give thousands. It still would say nothing about the immigrant I saw walking the street on my way to work. You can't judge anyone by the actions of others.
As for people who do not believe in democracy etc, every immigrant in Malta should adhere strictly to the rules and laws of our country. The law applies equally to everyone. If anyone breaks the law, there are law enforcement officers and the law courts. In the extreme, there is the option of deportation. I wonder what makes you think I would believe otherwise.
We're wasting each other's time. Good bye. I honestly wish you shed your prejudices, but that's not up to me. The irony in all this is that it seems some atheists (like me) are apparently more Christian than Christians. It's funny how I learned all about the evil of prejudice from a Catholic school. It seems like a lot of people weren't paying attention though.
It seems I'm not the only one not reading the posts carefully . As for generalising , I'm giving specific examples. Are you?
Call me what you want but I'm not too keen on having people here who do not believe in democracy and who believe that talking to non believers goes against their religion.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8066
'1/3 of UK Muslim students back jihad'
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331116813&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
That would be 333 potential troublemakers.
One in 10 Muslim students would not inform police if they learnt of a fellow Muslim planning a terrorist attack
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article569340.ece
It's not limited to the UK. I suggest you read some foreign newspapers to see what is really happening before taking a wishy washy, leftist ,PC stand which will only bring sorrow and great hardship to these islands.
I would have no problems with hindus, buddhists etc who are REFUGEES not economic migrants.
You reap what you sow. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. Yes I agree more debate will be futile.
Oh, and by the way, just in case you think I'm avoiding the Danish Village incident you mention. I hope you don't blame muslims for vandalising the trees at Ta' Qali, the Neolithic Temples, the recent vandalism at a cemetery, the French tunnels at Floriana, etc, etc.
There will always be vandals, but you don't judge a whole people by the actions of a few idiots.
By the way, I chose the number "1,000" purposefully. 1,000 is a relatively small number considering the millions of muslims around the world. Now what are the odds that out of a sample of just 1,000 random muslims, some of them will be terrorists or criminals. If you think the odds are high, that says a lot about how you see muslims. Also, 1,000 muslims wouldn't "swamp us".
I would suggest you read my posts more carefully before you reply.
You're still generalising. I guess you don't know what it means to be judged a criminal just because of your nationality, religion or the colour of your skin.
Any further debate is futile.
"If the answer to that question is no, then you probably are either racist, a religious fundamentalist, a xenophobe or politically far-right (or any combination from the four)."
...or plain streetwise . Do you know that the Lebanese civil war started because they were swamped by Palestinian refugees from Jordan? Most of the Lebanese christians are now in the USA or second class citizens. One has to be aware of consequences.
Did you know that the Homeland security has more than 50% of its assets in the UK because of fears that the next terrorist attack will come from there. Hardly a day passes in the uk without a trial or terrorist incident, be it the airplane liquid bombs, the attempted beheading of an army man, the hate speeches in mosques filmed by ITV. Do we really want these types of things here? Why risk it.? Remember when we had the Mohammed cartoons someone threw a petrol bomb at the danish village and vandalised a chapel at Mosta with paint. 95% may be model citizens it's the 5% that scare me. Once accepted it's to late to turn the clock back.
You're still generalising. What I am saying is yes, send those who are unworthy back (you first have to check, though). But protect the deserving. If they are only a few, so much the better.
"Why don't the immigrants take a stand in their own country then? If the situation is so bad they could overthrow the government".
Easier said than done. When you're armed with sticks and stones and your dicatror is armed with high-tech weapons bought from the US, the UK and Russia, what chance do you have?
"Furthermore, if you truly believe that all these immigrants landing in Malta do so because they are in danger of losing their life..."
I don't.
Now would you care to answer the question in my previous post? Enough said.
Why don't the immigrants take a stand in their own country then? If the situation is so bad they could overthrow the government. It's been done for centuries in different parts of the world. Furthermore, if you truly believe that all these immigrants landing in Malta do so because they are in danger of losing their life, you are seriously deluded. Enough said.
It's good to know what's really behind the person - saves a lot of waste of time. So just in case, I'll pose a simple question. But first, I'll anticipate a possible question that could be directed to me.
My question: If Malta managed to make an agreement to send all immigrants to other European countries, would I support this? My answer is clearly yes, since the immigrants would definitely live a better life elsewhere.
Now to your (whoever you are) question:
If it were agreed within the EU that Malta would keep, let's say, only 1,000 muslim immigrants, and the rest would be transferred elsewhere within the EU, would you be happy with that decision?
If the answer to that question is no, then you probably are either racist, a religious fundamentalist, a xenophobe or politically far-right (or any combination from the four). Debate between us would be futile since we could never agree or reach a compromise.
I worked for a brief time in Libya. I always felt safe even if it was run by a dictator. I never commented about their lack of democracy or about their leader because it is their business not mine. I behaved as a proper guest should.
'racist attacks and hate speech were on the rise'
'Conditions in migrant detention centres were harsh and insanitary,"
"high levels of mosquitoes and rat infestation, and appalling conditions in bathrooms"
"only two functioning toilets for more than 100 people"
Libya ? No Malta. Amnestyreport2007. We know Amnesty tend to exaggerate things. Most of the conditions above were brought about by the immigrants themselves.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/12/24/t5.html
As for why the immigrants are leaving Libya to come to Europe. It's obvoius, in Libya they have to work for a living , in Europe they can lead a good life living on benefits. As an example the terrorst who tried to blow up the London tube got Stg28000 in benefits in just 4 years in the UK. He was an immigrant.
"you were of African origin and your 8 year old son landed in Malta to escape torture and death, after being forcefully picked by the army and given the option of either being killed himself, or him killing an innocent just to prove he is "worthy" for the army? "
Are they forcing 8 year olds to join the army in Libya? No . Then they are not escaping torture and death in Libya. They have already escaped and are in a safe place.. By moving on they became pick-and-choose economic migrants. Remember most of them will have worked for years in Libya before coming here. International conventions recognise the right to refugee status only in the first safe country. In most cases the first safe country is not even Libya but Chad or Mali .
It is worth remembering that in 5 years we only had 204 bona fide refugees. Just 204 from 11,000. Shows how much the system is being abused.
Same reasoning applies for the example regarding the daughter.
"Gonzipn YOU are guilty of every crime these have committed and are committing in Malta" -Lgalea
Regarding Mr Galea's comment you asked me: "Not liebellous to our prime minister?"
Now, would you say the same thing regarding MP Marlene Pullicino's comment quoted below?
"Failure of our government to act strongly on the matter immediately is tantamount to being an accomplice in the business of perpetration of human misery" -MP M.P. (today 27 Feb)
I did not find your selected quotes particularly xenophobic, and definitely not racist, although I did read the whole letters/articles and did find a few exaggerations or points I did not agree with. I also did not find that either of them offered a workable and humane long-term solution.
"Do we react in xenophobic terms? Do we exagerate it beyond recognition and let fear overcome us?... We have to face the problem like civilised persons and CHRISTIANS. Those who try and create FEAR and PANIC are doing neither." Fr Joe Borg
"It's not too late but it SOON will be." "The situation is a time BOMB waiting to EXPLODE." "The consequences of inaction are TOO TERRIBLE to contemplate" -JPO MP
"The town tissue is fast eroding in places like Msida, where hundreds of foreigners live, as I find in my house visits, coupled with loitering and a sudden rise in petty theft. Foreigners knock on doors looking for food or something to steal." "The illegal immigration issue is fast becoming a MASSIVE problem." - Rober Arrigo MP
Dear Father Joe Borg, should we list the above 2 comments in your: "Read and feel the shudder of utter shame." list?
Cont...
Would you have the same attitude towards ALL immigrants if, for instance, you were of African origin and your 8 year old son landed in Malta to escape torture and death, after being forcefully picked by the army and given the option of either being killed himself, or him killing an innocent just to prove he is "worthy" for the army? Would you say "tough, many others are not deserving of protection, so Malta should send them all back"?
Or what would you say if it was your 8 year old daughter who somehow manages to escape after being raped and seeing the rest of her family murdered right before her eyes? Would you say: "Oh, but most of them are undeserving...send her back".
If you think these two examples are far-fetched, I would suggest you read Caroline Moorhead's "Human Cargo - A Journey Among Refugees" for more harrowing real-life stories. Maybe then you will understand me better.
What you say are only conjectures from my part are, to the contrary, only conjectures from your part. You are only accusing me of something that only you are guilty of.
I never said all immigrants deserve care and protection. I only said we shouldn't judge them as being all "bad". The first principle of justice is "innocent until proven guilty".
The fact that I don't know most of these immigrants (and neither do you) actually proves my point. Prejudice is when we judge negatively people whom we do not even know.
And again, when you say that "We don't even know exactly from which country they're coming because they lie even about their origins", you're obviously writing a prejudiced untruth. Not all of them lie about their origins. If all of them lied, we would not grant some of them refugee status.
And again, I never said that no immigrant is criminal or violent, but equally, I would expect you not to say that all of them are.
The only reason I use 'might' in every statement is because I prefer not to be prejudiced. Again, read the first principle of justice I mentioned above.
Cont...
Yours are only conjectures. Do you know these immigrants personally? Do you know their families? We don't even know exactly from which country they're coming because they lie even about their origins. Then how can you say they're not criminals or violent or whatever. You use the word 'might' in every statement you make about these immigrants, so you too are not sure. When there's a large number, as is the case, then that threatens the security and stability of the country.
Cont...
And I haven't even breached the topic of the IMF and World Bank, that put underdeveloped countries in bigger and bigger debts...but let's not go there...it is complicated enough as it is.
Let me explain myself better.
It's useless having the "largest, and richest, mineral deposits in the world", when the dictator that rules you uses the money to buy weapons from Europe and America to kill its own citizens.
Similarly, it is useless having a country full of resources when you personally are caught up in tribal warfare you want no part of, thus being constrained to flee the country.
Similarly, it is useless having a country full of resources when religious fanatics "make a hell because Miss world", but then feel no qualms about killing their own compatriots.
That the "number of illegal immigrant Christians that arrive in Malta is very low" (if that is the case) does not change the fact that they exist. Thus you cannot generalise and put all immigrants "in the same box". I never denied that genocide of Christians is a reality. In fact, the reality of this genocide proves my case that to be angry at all immigrants is unChristian.
I'm not looking for excuses. I'm trying to reason with a calm mind. Anger and panic never produced long-term good results.
Do you still feel angry towards ALL illegal immigrants now?
Some of the largest, and richest, mineral deposits in the world have been found in Africa. Does Nigeria lack resources ? Off course not, but they continue to fight each other, if its not some old fued between tribes, its religion as in the case of Nigeria. Muslims in Nigeria made a hell because Miss world was to be held there.
The number of illegal immigrant christians that arrive in Malta is very low, probably because most of them have been exterminated. Genocide of christians is a reality. Please, an inteligent person as you are should not find excuses of the sort - that it will take centuries to solve their problems. Its that mentality that will never given encourage them to solve their problems. After world war II Europe managed to recover not only economically but also to re-inforce democracy. How is it that no muslim state is a democracy, because their religion is against freedom of expression. Muslim and christian worlds can't live together no matter what, it has been proven that civil war is the result of trying to alter the demographics of these countries
Cont...
Also, the fault in your reasoning stems from the failure to see individuals as individuals.
Let's examine each example you give.
You mention the fighting between tribes. Perhaps you'll acknowledge that this is definitely not the fault of the people escaping from this tribal warfare and sometimes genocide.
You mention fundamentalist Islamists who impose Sharia on Christians. So is this the fault of the Christians escaping from persecution?
It seems to me that by blaming those escaping the persecution, you are blaming the victims. The victims are African, too.
"Most African states have been independent just as long as we have. Instead of making the advances we achieved, they have regressed".
And do you know why that is? In some cases it is because of lack of natural resources. In some other cases it is because European and US superpowers (mostly the US, UK and Russia) sold armaments to the African dictators (like they did to Saddam Hussein, if you still remember him). In yet other cases, the colonialists have left a complete mess that would take centuries to overcome. In yet other cases, the cause is climate change which was caused by the affluent nations' pollution. In other cases, it is because of religious extremism.
The issue is very complex. Don't try to oversimplify it, making it seem that it is all "their" fault.
Why should we Maltese as you said direct their anger
''towards superpowers that may have been the cause of the problem (colonialism and selling armaments to dictators) but are doing virtually nothing to solve it''
---Most African states have been independent just as long as we have. Instead of making the advances we achieved, they have regressed. Most of them fared better under their colonial master who gave them rules and order. Once the master was gone they returned to their ingrained infighting tribe against tribe. Malta had a similar path, only we have been capable to solve our own problems alone.
Further most of their problems results from their religion, look at Sudan the real reason is Islam which wants to impose sharia on half of the christian population of the country. Muslims look peaceful when they are small in numbers once they increase no goodwill will make them reason or desist. After all the Koran says that its their duty to kill the infidel. That's my friend the problem our country will be facing in the future if no action will be taken.
To be clearer, can you mention at least one immigrant by name and state the reasons why your anger towards him/her would be justified? Or better still, do you seriously believe that all the immigrants deserve your anger, even though you most probably do not know a single one of them (and definitely not all of them)?
Here we go again, bagging all kinds of people together, even though each person is unique.
Has it ever occurred to you that some of the immigrants are not violent or anti-social (and therefore do not threaten to breach our security)?
Or that many of them might be coming without any documents because they are either literally forced to throw them away, or do not have time to prepare them (because they might be fleeing torture or execution)?
Or that many of them do not "simulate SOS" but really need to be rescued (as the AFM can confirm)?
Or that illegal employment is the fault of the (Maltese) employer, and not just the employed?
Or is the only thing that matters (to bag together all these people who sometimes do not even share the same religion) their being immigrants or the colour of their skin?
I think I have given you enough reasons not to be so prejudiced.
Let me put it this way:
Person A says: "Del Piero plays with Juventus, which is the worst team in the world".
I, being a Juventus supporter, would say that Person A is speaking nonsense (even though Juve lost to Chelsea yesterday).
Person B says that "Juventus, in which Del Piero plays, are the least able team in the whole world".
Even though Person B uses a different sentence construction, and changes one or two words, it would be obvious to all that my response would be that Person B is also speaking nonsense.
On the otherhand, I wouldn't say that Person C, who says that "Juventus are a good team but are not the best team in the world", is also speaking nonsense, and his statement would be nowhere near that of Person A and B.
So if you accuse me of saying that all people who do not support Juventus speak nonsense, and I tell you that I am not, but that Person A surely is speaking nonsense, it would be implied that so is Person B, even if I fail to mention him the first time.
No U-Turn whatsoever.
Anyway, thanks for the welcome.
It's useless directing our anger against superpowers or whatever. It's these immigrants who are threatening the security and stability of our country. The fact that they come here without any documents, they enter the country illegally, they simulate SOS, they expect us to house them, feed them etc and ultimately they remain here eventually competing with us for jobs, health, funds etc. I think I have given you enough reasons!
Regarding the criminals with St. Paul possibly being Roman citizens, I won't argue with that, since, in any case, as you say, they were definitely not immigrants.
I also agree with you that Malta can't solve the problems of Africa. What really worries me, however, is all this misplaced anger directed towards all immigrants, instead of towards superpowers that may have been the cause of the problem (colonialism and selling armaments to dictators) but are doing virtually nothing to solve it.
What also worries me, like I said to James Zammit, is that many Maltese people assume that all black "illegal immigrants" must be of the same stock, even though they know nothing about any of these people. What if other Europeans judged all Maltese people to be pimps, human-traffickers, drug-dealers, rapists, murderers and thieves, just because a comparatively few of "us" are?
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that when [he] wrote about "pea sized brains", [he] were ONLY referring to the ones making the comments [he] quoted - NO MORE AND NO LESS." -KC
"So yes, he did not only insult those making the quoted comments, but obviously also those making similar ones." -KC
"In my book", this is called a U-turn! Hehehe, anyway, well come back Kenneth.
The criminals with St. Paul could have well been Roman citizens since they happened to be on a ship bound for Rome. Roman citizens had the privilege to request that their case to be heard by the Emperor who was the Supreme judge. It would have been rather stupid to have these criminals transfered to Rome without any reason in winter. Besides the fact that the mentioned criminals could have not been Roman citizens but always Roman subjects they remained. Therefore no illegal immigrants in any case. Roman had the habit to throw to the beasts those barbarians tribes that penetrated into the borders of their empire. To make it clear I am not stating that we should follow their example.
I agree with you that these illegal immigrants should not be exploited by anyone, however It must be made loud and clear, that Malta can't solve the problems of Africa we are too small to take even 1000 souls let alone this constant arrival. If this pattern continues I sincerely fear that the future of this country will be stained with blood. Either we act now or else we are guilty of what may happen.
Since you cared to mention that you are "unemployed and living with relatives, with no entitlement to any benefits whatsoever", would you kindly explain how this is so? I was led to believe that Maltese people who are unemployed are entitled to social benefits unless they refuse work. Perhaps I am mistaken...please explain.
As for some other comments, what bothers me is not that people say we have an immigration problem - we do, and unfortunately its not going away any time soon. My problem is with people who, just because they hear of some black immigrants causing riots and other damage, they assume that all black "illegal immigrants" must be of the same stock, even though they know nothing about any of these people. What irks me is the prejudice and the hatred towards people we know little if anything about.
Some of them come here because they want to come here. Some of them are forced by our own army to land in Malta (because the army is forced to do so through our international obligations) and are thus not allowed to continue their journey elsewhere. Some of them are forced to land here by their criminal traffickers (some of whom might be Maltese - we already had some Maltese human traffickers brought to justice). Some of them wish to be sent back immediately but are not allowed, since the Maltese authorities have to check whether the place they say they are coming from is really their country. Yet others come here to seek refuge from possible torture and/or death. Others come here just to make a better living....etc, etc.
But perhaps, since the issue is too complex for you to understand (and I'm being kind...the alternative would be that you prejudicially - or worse, intentionally - lump all kinds of people together as criminals), you simplify it by saying that "they come here illegally".
"In Safi a small number of persons guilty ONLY of accidentally landing in Malta escaped from the place where they were being kept. No warmth was offered"
SINCE WHEN ARE THESE PEOPLE COMING HERE ILLEGALLY guilty of coming here "ONLY" illegally? And since when is it "ONLY" illegal?
There are a lot of things I would like to do, but they are "ONLY" illegal and the reason I don't do them, even despite the dire situation I find myself in (unemployed and living with relatives, with no entitlement to any benefits whatsoever) is that I'll be tossed to jail in no time, and not given suspended sentences or shelter and everything else under the sun for free like the government is doing to these ONLY ILLEGAL immigrants.
GONZIpn - never again. You, your party and the likewise useless PL will pay for this in every vote from here forward. I swear on my blood I will fight this tooth and nail.
True, the analogy was not a good one, like I already said. I'm also not for "unrestricted acceptance of consciously illegal immigrants making use of a criminal trade version of modern slavery". I hope that much is clear.
The "criminality" of St Paul and his companions had no connection with deliberate landing here illegally and without documents. He was an unconvicted prisoner under guard of Roman soldiers being taken from one Roman territory to another and accidentally wrecked in yet another Roman territory. He was not a free agent and he proceeded with his journey as soon as weather permitted.
There is no comparison.
I would not make the analogy Fr Borg made (St Paul with "illegal immigrants"), but I am confident that his purpose was an honourable one. So I won't tell you that you are wrong on the point you made regarding St Paul (although you must note that the other prisoners with St Paul were not Roman citizens, but criminals).
I also do not think that Fr Joe wanted to imply that St Paul was an illegal immigrant. Analogies are never perfect - the best we can do when using them is to explain what we are implying.
Also, it does not do anyone any good to call others "do-gooders". What would the opposite be? Do-badders?
Regarding illegal immigrants, I do have "men in uniform" in my family (one actually works at the detention centre). If you would ask him, he would perhaps tell you that not all immigrants behave badly. In fact, he will also tell you that some of them who have been given refugee status actually live examplary lives.
Finally, no one is telling anyone we should "give up our country".
Thanks for the welcome back. Needed a break away from blogs...sometimes you risk "burn-out" if you don't. We all need to get away from heated debates every once in a while. Also, I was at Nadur (for the carnival), so I didn't have internet - therefore I took the opportunity to take the break there.
Cont...
Note 1. lgalea claims that the illegal immigrants are somehow Neil Falzon's. I wonder whether he can substantiate this serious accusation. He also says that he wants ALL (his emphasis) illegal immigrants out of Malta (Note that this includes even those - no matter how many these are - who genuinely needs protection. Note also that he will not even allow a few that Malta certainly could manage. It is clear that his problem is other than whether we can accomodate them, as will be shown).
Note 2. Again, he stresses that "the ONLY (his emphasis) solution is to expel ALL (again, his emphasis) illegal immigrats whatever anyone says". "No compromise", he stresses. And again, he says that "(we) shall never accept ONE (his emphasis) single illegal immigrant TO REMAIN HERE AND INTEGRATE WITHIN MALTESE SOCIETY (my emphasis)".
What shall we call him? Pea-brained? Xenophobe? Alarmist hatred inciter? Or just plain hateful? It's your call.
Would you call the following quotes from a certain lgalea (quoted previously by Fr Borg) to be coming from a "moderate"?
1. "To Neil Falzon. You do not represent a single Maltese citizens except YOURSELF.
WE ARE BEING INVADED by your ILLEGAL immigrants. We want ALL of them OUT of OUR country".
2. "Mario Bonnici The ONLY solution is to expel ALL illegal immigrats whatever anyone says. No compromise. C Calleja Whatever JPO is trying to do we are full up and shall never accept ONE single illegal immigrant to remain here and integrate within Maltese society".
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090225/local/were-full-up-pullicino-orlando
I shall not call him "pea-brained". You judge for yourself.
Cont...
Two thousand years later, in Safi and other areas the story is quite different. Beatings, rape, violence, no-go areas, drug pushing amongst the other numerous offences.
Have a look in Italy. Nearly every day we hear of some woman being brutally raped by some Rom (romanian illegal immigrants). Have a look in the UK, the list of criminal activity by the illegal immigrants is immense.
No Malta is not safe anymore and this is mostly attributed to the illegal immigrants. Yes people are threatened and terrified that Malta will end up like Italy and the UK.
Fr Borg just you condemn people for fearing illegal immigrants. And yes, the irony is that you are twisting reality and putting the blame on the Maltese people.
I have exposed the ballant distortion Fr.Joe did when implying that St. Paul was an illegal immigrant. THE TRUTH IS that He was a Roman who found refuge on Roman territory. TELL ME THAT I AM WRONG on this ? Another do gooders myth proved wrong
Regarding illegal immigrants - If you want confirmation about their behaviour ask our men in uniform and they will tell you what others hide from the public.
If our ancestors behaved like you, they should have given our country without a single struggle. When will you realize that this is an invasion a silent one but always an invasion.
Finally I am glad that you agree with Fr. Joe on something, although the wrong issue. Min jaf bil-kelma t-tajba ......
Welcome back Kenneth!
Quite invigorated I see :-)))
Yes, being against illegal immigration (not immigrants, as you say) does not necessarily mean that one is a racist. However, a claim such as "Illegal immigrants have got the 99% of the Maltese against because through their behaviour they have turned everyone against them" is clearly prejudiced. So do you really think that all illegal immigrants behave badly? If so, can you substantiate this serious claim?
As for the rest of your comment, I'll simply ignore it, since it is full of prejudice and the lumping of all people (whether criminal or peaceful, needy or unworthy) into one group. You can't have a rational debate which starts off on prejudice.
Cont...
As you can see, I have returned after my "break". I will however disappoint you, since I will certainly not admit that I was incorrect, because I wasn't. When I say that Fr Borg was only referring to the persons making the quoted comments, it doesn't take a university degree to take it implied that similar comments are by definition similar, and therefore warrant the same treatment, whether the treatment is positive or negative.
Regarding me calling you a liar, this referred (as I pointed out clearly) to your allegation that "According to Fr Joe Bog, commenting against illegal immigration, 'is evidence of persons with pea sized brains". Yes, in this case, you were lying. Fr Borg never said, or implied, any such thing. His "pea-sized brains" comment only referred to the comments quoted (and obviously to similar ones), and not all comments against illegal immigration. If you think otherwise, prove it.
"Such comments", "those comments", its basically the same thing. The point is that Fr Joe never said that all those worried about immigration are necessarily racists or have "pea-sized brains". You don't need to consult a dictionary to know that. Whether or not I agree with Fr Joe's name-calling is another issue. I wouldn't say to anyone that he has a "pea-sized brain" since in my opinion that would not be conductive to anything positive. But that was not the issue here.
So yes, he did not only insult those making the quoted comments, but obviously also those making similar ones. Not all those commenting against immigration make similar comments to those quoted. Some, while making comments I disagree with, nonetheless make intelligent, non-prejudiced and rational comments.
I also disagree with you that the comments quoted are from "moderates". Some are from people with far-right xenophobic views, while others simply display ignorance of the complex issues involved (which is not the same thing as calling them ignorant - just in case you think I am calling them so). People speaking on issues they know little about, putting others in danger, are not moderates in my book.
Cont...
I don't agree with Fr. Joe but you should have more respect for the spiritual father of the maltese islands, thanks to him we ALSO share a common identity, culture and tradition with Europe.
But you are right on one thing, the great apostle did stay here for a short time, left a great impression and did not abuse from the generosity of our ancestors.
Anyhow this Paul that is mentioned only stayed for a short time and left - a tourist.
No. You're confusing the 'effect' with the 'cause'. What might breed racism is endless illegal immigration (the cause). Such comments are the natural effect. Freedom of expression of opinion is one of the main pillars of DEMOCRACY. "We should remember that the Holocaust was possible because" freedom of expression of opinion, criticism and dissenting voices were suppressed. This resulted in unchecked mass brainwashings and eventually human tragedies. "Let us not repeat history. Let us fight these" subtle attempts to undermine our freedom to express our concerns. Let us fight the disseminated prejudice that being against illegal immigration is tantamount to being a racist.
Pestering the editor will not solve anything. Besides that we have certain people in the media that are very friendly towards immigrants.
We should force a referendum on the government in which we the PEOPLE abrogate the treaties that are tying our hands.
What makes me mad is people with all due respect like Fr. Joe who compares our attitude with illegal immigrants and that of our ancestors with St. Paul. Do you really believe that if St. Paul behaved in such ungrateful manner towards their kindness they would have listened to him and become christians.
What makes me mad is to disort history as Fr. Joe did in this case, St Paul was a roman who found refuge on roman land. He did not try to enter illegally. This comparison has been raised by many but they all fail to mention that he was not an illegal immigrant but just a fellow citizen. These people come up with all sort of justifications that we are africans or arabs descent when we are of phoenician origin, that as christians we should welcome them but on other issues they are not christians. This is betrayal of OUR COUNTRY
The Maltese Church is no Catholic organisation. If it were so, then it would house the illegal immigrants itself instead of continuing to cripple the spending power of the honest Maltese taxpayer.
While these illegal immigrants spend hours talking on their brand new mobile phones, I cannot even buy credit for my Nokia 3310.
EXPLAIN THIS TO US FR BORG.
Mr. Busuttil.
You have no idea how much I empathise with what you are saying and I rack my brains trying to see any way out of this predicament. I keep relying on the government to do something constructive about it but from my standpoint there is nothing I can do. Whatever you say makes perfect sense and maybe expressing it in writing in this blog might reach sources which are in a position to put pressure where it is needed.
I suggest that you write directly to the ‘Letters to the Editor’, or an article in the ‘Opinion’ page and if need be, pester them over and over again. Other than that, I am afraid I am as lost as you are.
Jessica
I don't agree with you that our government is doing its utmost to solve the problem, the only tangible result our politicians have done is to get some funds from the EU. Infact to add insult to injury they boast about it as if they have solved the problem. The Maltese do not want funds but for these invaders to be taken from OUR country. If the Gov. wants to be credible it has to stop being polite and educated with the EU, it should raise its voice and if necessary threaten to veto whatever the EU has in the pipeline. This is the only way the will take notice of our problems.
As I wrote before I am a Realist not a racist, We have the experience of other countries to open our eyes before the danger our children will face if this problem is not tackled once and for all. Our hands are tied by stupid treaties that we have signed in bona fide and now immigrants are abusing of this by asking for refugee status. It's always the same pattern the pregnant woman who once here will give birth and therefore qualify to remain here.
@C. Busuttil
Part 2.
What I like to harp on is, that we try not to create more problems and pressure on the government who I am sure is doing its utmost to solve this ever growing problem. This is a national issue and I feel sure that it is a mission that tops the list.
If it gets to the point that the Maltese are so much enraged and aroused, that they take to the streets, a stampede could easily happen. Do you ever think how easy it would be for some demonstrators to be trampled on and seriously hurt?
That is all we need!!!
WE are saying that we can hardly control the immigrants when their tempers flare up.
Can you imagine what it would be like to try and control a mob gone out of control? Are we ready to risk our own people rather than try to calm down these troubled waters and pray for a solution?
@C. Busuttil:
Part 1.
I do not think that I ever said that there is no cause for alarm for I do not read the future and there is no way of knowing what might happen. I hope and pray that a solution would be found as soon as possible. I am, as much as the next person, anxious to have these immigrants settled in some other country where they can have a proper life. But I am not an alarmist, and if anything, I try to pacify any tempers that are at breaking point. And that includes even members in my family.
As to your question “Do you really believe that the latest boat travelled for three days in the open sea ?” I can say that, like you, I very much doubt it, for they did not look too much for wear. But still we are obliged to receive them.
continued...
The barbarians whom the romans let settle in their empire looked and acted peacefully, they weren't that stupid, Later on when they grew in numbers they turned on them bringing down a civilized a world.
Iam no extremist I am no racist who wants to harm them. I am Just a REALIST, if this trends continue the future of this country is a bloody one, the future of our children will be to fight for their survival. It is proven, look at Lebanon and Sudan that christians and muslims in large numbers can't live in peace, civil war will be inevitable. Muslims live peacefully with christians only when they are small in numbers. We have no go areas in this country, rapes and theft committed by illegal immigrants.
Ms. Debattista I ask you a question, Do you really believe that the latest boat travelled for three days in the open sea ? BEFORE ANSWERING Please keep in mind that that the sea was very rough and that just a movement from one of the immigrants aboard the boat was going to capsize it, as it entered the Birzebbuga bay.
You have written as follows:
Quote:
"A few weeks ago the anniversary of the mother of all racist crimes i.e. the Holocaust was commemorated. But it seems that some people never learn. In fact we have just gone through a controversy seeing a bishop who is a member of a ultra-conservative society deny the existence of this grave sin against God and humanity. All hell broke loose. And it was very good that there was such a reaction. We should react strongly when such incidents happe[ne]d." :Unquote.
You are clearly referring to bishop Richard Williamson, head of the Roman Catholic seminary in Argentina and whose excommunication was lifted by pope Benedict in January, 2009.
If you are true in what you are saying, namely, that we should react strongly when such incidents happen, then kindly show us at least one quotation from what you have written in January on your blog or elsewhere that can clearly demonstrate how you have "reacted strongly" to the lifting of this excommunication.
Until you show us your quotation, please kindly retract your claim to racism in reference to the names you have quoted.
"Correct me if I'm wrong... no more and no less"
I am curious to see if this time you'll admit that you were INCORRECT in thinking that Mr Joe Borg was only referring to the persons "making the comments" he quoted. He was referring to EVERYONE that comments in a similar way. He said "The pettiness of SUCH comments is evidence of persons with pea sized brains". "such comments" means 'kummenti bhal dawn'. You know that 99% of the people's comments against illegal immigration (including mine) are similar to the ones he quoted in his article. Don't forget Kenneth that you called me a liar. I think you owe me something.
Part 2
And how can you compare them to the barbarians who waged war on Rome when they come unarmed?
If clashes ensue, does not necessarily mean that they want to take us over. They are flesh and blood, and tempers flare under stress.
It is true that I have no way of knowing through what disgraceful behaviour our men in uniform have to go through and I truly sympathise with them, for they are flesh and blood too. But will it make it any better if we retaliate and escalate matters?
Just like any one else in Malta, my heart misses a beat when I hear of fresh arrivals for I recognize the difficulty they are imposing on us, but arousing hysteria does not help matters. We need to be rational and not let our emotions run away with us. Only in this way can we hope to find a solution to this grave problem
Part 1
Of course I know that the Maltese who had emigrated to other countries had always had their papers in order but my analogy was just to prove that people, when in dire straits, search their salvation elsewhere - beyond their shores if need be.
I have no way of knowing whether these desperate people, fleeing from who knows what hardship, were even in a position to acquire the proper permit to leave their country. We have heard of so many of them risking their lives, in the hope of a better world, only to lose them in the depths of the ocean - and still they keep coming. They are people just like us with families whom they love as much as we love ours.
continued...
Fifty-five years ago, to the day, the Nea Hellas was about to enter the Atlantic, laden with about 500 migrants bound for North America. I was one of the 200 Maltese emigrants on board, seeking a better life in Canada. We, all, were legal migrants, having been selectively recruited by the Canadian government of that time. We, all, were promised a job in the city of our choice!
We arrived in Halifax, and it soon became apparent that the promise was nothing more than sweet talk. No one knew we were coming. A kindly trainmaster delivered us to an immigration hostel in St. Paul L'Eremite, some 50Kms outside the city of Montreal, where we were housed and fed. I had £2 in my pocket.
To the man on the street, we were nothing more than "DP's out to get 'our' jobs." You see, we were Economic Migrants, "invading" Canada at a time when jobs were scarce.
Whenever jobs are scarce, and the number of job-seekers is high, it matters not one iota how large the country is.
Rather than bashing the miniscule number of die-hard racists, I'd much prefer to seek a solution, such as:
1) Recognize all that people have the same basic human rights. Seeking a better future is not a crime. Therefore, extend to all these immigrants Malta's finest form of hospitality: grant them Citizenship. Then they will be able to move on to seek their destiny.
2) Recognize that the only crime, in migration schemes, is that committed by the Captain of the ship/boat who takes advantage of people's dire circumstances. Confiscate and scuttle his vessel, and fine and imprison him according to Maltese law. That way, it would discourage others from committing the same crime.
You are correct the Maltese have immigrated to Canada, USA, Australia but NEVER ILLEGALLY.
We cannot put ourselves in their place because only few have genuine reasons, the rest are just economic immigrants that don't want to integrate in the European countries but only impose. They are trojan horses.
Centuries ago, the Roman Empire faced the same crisis with immense pressure at its borders by people(Barbarians) who wanted to seek a new life within the Empire. At first the romans resisted them, later they relented and allow them to settle within their vast empire. Slowly they increased and when strong enough in numbers they turned on their hosts and brought down the Roman Empire. The Result of this collapse was the dark ages. The people/immigrants who brought Rome down have various similarities with our time ILLEGALS IMMIGRANTS such as they did not want to integrate within the society they came to live in.
I advice you to speak with members of the armed forces and the police and your opinion will soon change about them. Just today I was told a disgusting story these INNOCENTS do and which our men in uniform have to witness.
Being against illegal immigrants does not mean that one is a racist, the colour of the skin has nothing to do. Illegal Immigrants have got the 99% of the Maltese against because through their behaviour they have turned everyone against them.
People like you avoid the REAL problem, that is what is behind the influx of such proportions. Please respect our intelligence and avoid telling us that they are persecuted fellows. The latest immigrants to land ashore incredibly after 3 days in a rough sea looked fresh as a rose and still had food to eat.
These starving fellows you would like us to believe, have the luxury of mobiles from they call their bedfellows at our open centres who give them directions and what to do once ashore. You think that we can inhabit peacefully this tiny rock with people that in appearance look like poor sheep in reality they are wolves disguised as sheep. Very soon they would start demanding this and that as they have done in other countries. They belong to culture which is very different then ours. Just look at the way they behave towards homosexuals !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But that does not mean that we have to enrage ourselves. We could channel our energy into trying to find solutions and to be more compassionate to these immigrants. We might think all we want, that they are opportunists or leeches feeding on our meagre resources, we are all morally obliged for humanitarian reasons to tolerate them in our Country until such time as a solution is found.
We have to allow the authorities involved the peace of mind to think in a relaxed way and not to create for them more panic which could impair their objective judgement.
The modern means of transport and communication has made of the world a single “country”. And it is almost pertinent to say that man should start thinking on those lines and try to see the peoples from any nationality and of any colour as one big whole family. It is a pity that so much bureaucracy comes in the way and people tend to create problems even where they do not exist.
“Is immigration a huge problem? Of course it is, but we won't solve anything by lumping all immigrants in the category of "criminal ingrates". Kenneth Cassar @ C. Busuttil.
It is such a pity that we have to look upon these new arrivals with such rancour. If only we could put ourselves in their shoes.
We seem to forget that in Malta, soon after the war, the Dockyard, which used to employ about 11,000 was gradually wound down, and the huge baby boom of the post-war period made Malta an overpopulated country with not enough jobs to sustain growing families. Many men had to migrate to other countries to seek their fortunes and their families followed soon after.
Australia and Canada were the main places to take migrants. But Australia and Canada are enormous countries that could absorb easily the influx of emigrants from all over Europe, a luxury which unfortunately we do not enjoy.
continued...
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that when you wrote about "pea sized brains", you were only referring to the ones making the comments you quoted - no more and no less."
Fr Joe Borg DID NOT say 'THOSE comments' but said "such comments". 'such' means: 'of that kind', 'resembling, similar'. http://ardictionary.com/Such/18204. So he not only insulted the persons that said the quoted comments, but also ALL those that comment similarly to the ones quoted. Some of the quoted comments are pretty much moderate. Some of those moderate comments represent almost all the people that comment against illegal immigration (87% of the Maltese according to a recent survey). Hence, it's quite obvious, that by attacking those that comment moderatly, he is attacking almost everyone that comments against illgeal immigration. But I don't expect the subjugated subordinates to understand this. For much as I care, they may writhe in their own prejudice.
One last comment before my short break from this blog. You'll be interested to know that David Seychell is lying about you here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090218/local/more-immigrants-landing-in-malta
He says that "According to Fr Joe Bog, commenting against illegal immigration, 'is evidence of persons with pea sized brains'".
Did you say such a thing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that when you wrote about "pea sized brains", you were only referring to the ones making the comments you quoted - no more and no less.
I already explained this to Mr Seychell in this same blog, but I guess people will understand what they want to understand.
Now time for my break...Good bye and good luck ;)
This is becoming impossible. Did I call you a xenophobe? Please read my post once again. I'll ignore your suggestion that I "might" be blind to what is happening around me, making me a "blundering idiot". Apology accepted.
I also did not call YOU alarmist.
When I criticise posts under a news item on which you have not even commented (at least until I posted my own comments here), I assume that it would be obvious that I am not writing about you.
I do not need to ask anyone whether you are a xenophobe or not, since I did not say you are.
I know that when you defended immigrants, you did so and still do because they are human beings. I also know that the situation is getting worse. But once again, as I already said, I would not say that all the posts expressing worry about immigration are necessarily racist or xenophobic, but some of them clearly are. And once again, just in case you misunderstand me again, I'm not speaking about you here.
Anyway...time for a break...be back in about 4 days.
I am not alarmist, because facts are speaking for themselves. There is frequent unrest at Safi, and this will get worse, especially as numbers increase. So, the alarms are being set by themselves, not by me or anyone else.
You call me a xenophobe - go ahead. As I said: people who know me can vouch for me. As you can see, I care not one iota what you think I am.
When I defended immigrants, I did so and I still do because they are human beings. However, we have reached a desperate state, now.
I would suggest that you keep your female relatives and friends safely locked at home, since there are plenty more Maltese rapists around.
"but someone who is tired to be nice, we are rewarded with ingratitude and criminality for the hospitality we gave them".
Have you ever considered the possibility that not all "illegal immigrants" reward us with ingratitude and criminality? Have you considered that it is highly likely that the ingrate criminals are perhaps a minority? Have you ever considered the high probability that some of those who arrive are really persecuted in their own country?
I may not be Christian, but I do know that it is part of the Christian spirit to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, to treat individuals individually, and to presume innocence until proven guilt.
I'm sure you'll agree with the above. Is immigration a huge problem? Of course it is, but we won't solve anything by lumping all immigrants in the category of "criminal ingrates".
To my knowledge St. Paul was a Roman citizen who was travelling on a Roman ship and found safety on Roman territory since these islands happened to fall under the rule of the Caesars. He did not try to sneak in illegally, abusing from the hospitality of the islanders, had he tried this approach the maltese will be still adoring Melqart the ancient deity the maltese believed in.
Make us a favour and stop trying to co relate the historical shipwreck of the apostle with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. This is no panicked or a terrified person who is writing but someone who is tired to be nice, we are rewarded with ingratitude and criminality for the hospitality we gave them. I do not believe that this or that race is superior but I am convinced that these arrivals are nothing less than a co-ordinated plan to slowly infiltrate Europe. The story of the trojan horse repeats itself.
Fr. Joe wake before it will be to late to profess your religion and your duties as a priest because you might offend the religious sentiments of these ECONOMIC IMMIGRANTS DISGUISED as persecuted chaps.
You ignored my reply the first time. Perhaps you'll take notice of this one.
Fr Borg NEVER called any of those comments racist. What he said is that "this panic is just a sign of frightened and terrified people. Such comments breed racism".
I assume that you are an intelligent man, and would know the difference.
If I recollect well, I never called you a racist. However, it would certainly help if you made up your mind. Sometimes you defend asylum seekers, and sometimes (like in this case) you seem to be defending the alarmist xenophobes.
So, keep them coming!
By the way, take a note of what is happening in Lampedusa.
Also take a note at the rising frequency of incidents and unrest taking place at Safi.
Is the country ready for every eventuality?
Call me a racist, if you like. Much I care. People who know me, can vouch for me.
"Get rid of ALL the illegal immigrants the moment they set foot in Malta." "Not racist?"
Not at all. To be racist you must either say that one race is superior to the other OR discriminate on the basis of their race. Mr Galea was clearly refering to "ALL" illegal immigrants; the word 'ALL' means anyone independent of their skin colour. But I don't expect you to understand my reasoning. Not all can see THROUGH the fog of PREJUDICE. Mr Borg, on the contrary, is an intelligent man and hence should know perfectly well that not even one of the quoted comments is racist.
The comments beneath the news item, once again, prove Fr Borg right.
Just one thing...don't expect to find any incontrovertible proof (regarding genetical/neurological/environmental causes of homosexuality) in the articles I linked to.
The most you will find is evidence that points one way more than another. It is such a complex topic that it would be irresponsible for any scientist to proclaim absolute certainty unless he/she can provide absolute proof.
It could also be the case that more than one factor plays a part. But since homosexuality has been found to be not unique to humans, at the minimum it can't be reduced to just a cultural (learned behaviour) thing.
Thanks again for stimulating the debate.
@Robert Attart;
Hope you do not stop posting.
@ Patrik Larsson:
Enjoyed the web page you sent - quite interesting and easy reading.
@Kenneth Cassar:
Thanks for the information you sent me but I shall have to take it in small doses. (Too scientific) I could hardly focus last night for it was too late. This morning I shall be out. So probably later on this afternoon.
@Fr. Joe: Thanks for the mental stimulation you engender.
For me the search for truth may have had its painful moments.
"Is there a particular reason why you choose to pair your comment to me, with another to Fr. Joe? Is it significant? "
No reason whatsoever. It was intended to be my last comment for the time being and I thought I would show my appreciation to a corner that really gets us all passionate about many subjects.
@Fr Borg
I am curious. Do you any idea which was your most commented topic?
Ok, not scientific, but still...
Hi Robert,
Sounds like a warning!
And I am no fool who rushes in where angels fear to thread. I will let this topic pass. After all I am not that inquisitive about the subject.
Is there a particular reason why you choose to pair your comment to me, with another to Fr. Joe? Is it significant?
Jessica
Congratulations for your openmindedness. But beware that openmindedness can take you far off from where you start (which is a good thing if you are ready to question everything for the sake of coming closer to any truth).
@Fr Borg
Although I feel anatgonistic with many of your ideas I still feel compelled to thank you for bringing people together in one healthy debate.
Just a quick link to some general information on the homosexual gene/environment scientific debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
(lots of reference links at the bottom of the page)
I think that although Fr Borg surely won't mind (it puts this blog in the Most Commented section), I think I have personally gone off-topic long enough. But if you feel you want or need to ask questions or provide your own information and links, feel free to do so.
Thanks for being open-minded and understanding. Despite some obvious differences, we are evidence enough that Christians and atheists need not be sworn enemies ;)
No problem...and thanks for your approach. If only everyone debated like you, despite differences of opinion.
Regarding scientific websites on the topic, I'll have to look later, since I have to go out soon. But I think that you might find some information in the links I gave (see also the references at the bottom of the websites).
Of course, some of the links are of organisations with an agenda (eg the Rainbow Alliance one), but even that site gives references which lead you to websites that are not biased or have any agenda except scientific truth.
I also apologise for not being able to give you suggestions for further reading at the moment. This is because the books I read (and the websites I visit) are usually not specifically on homosexuality, so if for instance I read something on homosexuality in any of my books, it would be just a chapter or two (sometimes even less). The rest would be about general zoology, evolutionary biology, behavioural psychology, etc.
And don't get the wrong impression that I'm some kind of expert. The books I read are mostly popular science books that don't require expertice to understand.
Hi Keneth!
Once again I find myself in a position to step back and let the experts talk, as regards homosexuality. I would be very happy to have an unbiased website address, which I am sure you can furnish me with. I am always open to research topics I am ignorant about, and any help would be appreciated. But please make sure that the website you will be suggesting is truly unbiased. (we do not need to repeat the mistake). As for the deductions I would be making out of it, and the opinions I might be airing, if need be, will have to be filtered through my beliefs.
Jessica
It is more of A Blessing to give than to receive ........
Love your neighbors as yourselves .......
Some more information on Paul Cameron and his institute:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/RRR/cameron.html
http://www.ralliance.org/Cameron.html
So I take back what I said earlier. I DO dispute the study you quote from, since it is fraudelent, has an obvious gay-bashing agenda, and is discredited by all reputable scientists.
The Family Research Institute is a homophobic hate group that presents itself as a Think Tank and chaired by Paul Cameron, a former psychologist who has been kicked out of and censored by professional associations for his misrepresentations of scientific data to advance his homophobic views.
Information on who funds the institute is conspicously absent from the organizations web site.
Paul Cameron, the chairman of the Family Research Institute, is a discredited Psychologist who has been kicked out of the American Psychological Association and condemed by the Nebraska Psychological Association and the American Socialogical Association. He has campaigned against the civil rights of homosexuals based on misrepresentations of science.
In the past, he has advocated facial tattoes for AIDS victims and the castration, deportation to a former leper colony, and even extermination of homosexuals.
More at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Research_Institute
I did not only read the article you linked. I also visited the homepage of the organisation (Family Research Institute). It is clearly an organisation that has an anti-homosexuality agenda and is very unscientific, which is evidenced (to say the least) in the following:
"The New York Times is touting the existence of ‘gay penguins,' while yet another book is out ‘documenting' homosexuality in animals. Both the Times and the American Psychiatric Association [APA] feel that animals have a lot to teach us about sexuality. Are we serious? Animals teaching humans about sex?"
The last question shows that they clearly have no idea.
And here is some information about the FRI:
The FRI is part of a movement of small, often faith-based organizations (sometimes called the Christian Right) which seek to influence the political debate in the United States. They seek "...to restore a world...where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level."
Considerable controversy surrounds Dr.Cameron (who runs the institute) and his research.
The American Psychological Association (APA) dropped Cameron from its membership on December 2, 1983 for lack of cooperation in an inquiry into his research methods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute
Roman Inquisition
www.answers.com/topic/roman-inquisition+The+Inquisition%27s+days+in+malta&hl=mt&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=mt&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:y9Oghq6tVNoJ:www.answers.com/topic/roman-inquisition+The+Inquisition%27s+days+in+malta&hl=mt&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=mt&client=firefox-a
"He states that commenting against illegal immigration, "is evidence of persons with pea sized brains"".
No he does not. Here's what he actually says:
"Such comments leave me speechless. The pettiness of such comments is evidence of persons with pea sized brains. This panic is just a sign of frightened and terrified people. Such comments breed racism. And racism breeds hate and human tragedies".
So in actual fact, what Fr Borg says is:
1. It is the comments he quotes, and not all comments on immigration, that evidence persons with pea-sized brains. You may disagree, but you certainly cannot say that Fr Borg said that all comments on or against immigration are from pea-sized brains.
2. Although some of the comments clearly are racist, Fr Borg does not even call them so. What he actually says is that they "breed racism". There is a difference.
And what about the comments:
“Do Maltese citizens feel secure as they should in their own country?”
“Malta is not the safe country it used to be.”
Isn’t this inciting fear of people who had the misfortune of being born in pitiful surroundings and only want to make a better living for themselves?
Why should we be the privileged ones, who notwithstanding our endemic complaints against our leaders have always managed to have a decent life with the occasional luxury that they can only dream of?
Fr. Joe , Like Patrik Larsson, I’m behind you all the way.
Had they been blonde though, i think we'd love to keep them.
I suspected that when you wrote "send them all back" you wrote it in the heat of the moment, and that when you would think about it calmly, you would show yourself to be the reasonable person you most probably are.
Regarding criminality, I believe the same laws should apply. Yes, they should be expected to obey all the laws as a common citizen of this country.
"If we keep on doing what we are doing, immigrants will keep and keep on coming".
Yes, it is a dilemma, and a long-term solution will have to take decades to implement and start showing some effect. But we still have to keep in mind the people who would lose their lives if we do not do what we are doing. The world's superpowers will have to come to their senses and think long-term, but that won't happen anytime soon, since politicians are elected for the short-term, and they only need short-term results to justify their position, even though the short-term results will fail in the long-term.
Animals are not just cats, and you should not get your information from Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel, both of which are more interested in either pets or prey vs predator situations. There are plenty of specialised books on evolutionary biology and zoology. But just to get a general idea, here's a link to an article with some references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
I'm not disputing the study you quote from. But there is a difference between saying that adult homosexuals approach younger ones (whether homosexual or not) and saying that the older ones make the younger ones homosexual. Even if the young succumb and perform homosexual acts, that in itself does not make them homosexual. In all probability, if they are not already homosexual, they will not repeat it after the experience is over. Of course, if they already have homosexual tendencies, they would remain so.
"Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one's first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females".
Of course...that is to be expected. But it does not follow that it is the first sexual experience that determines the sexual orientation. Its the other way round. It stands to reason that if one is gay, the first voluntary sexual experience would be with a same-sex partner.
Did you even read Fr. Joe's post? Lets repeat just three of the comments he quoted shall we.
"Gonzipn YOU are guilty of every crime these have committed and are committing in Malta. Get rid of ALL the illegal immigrants the moment they set foot in Malta."
Not racist? Not liebellous to our prime minister?
"WE DO NOT WANT THEM HERE. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY NOT THEIRS. PERIOD."
Not racist?
"why not turn Filfla into a detention centre."
Wanting to put refugee seekers on an uninhabitable island. Not racist?
He did not once say that they are like the ones responsible for the holocaust, he merely said these xenophobic attitudes can lead to such atrocities, if we don't stand up to them.
The only one owing an apology, sir, is you.
This is CLEARLY a WICKED attempt by Fr Borg to BRAINWASH people into believing that anyone who says ANYTHING against illegal immigration is an evil RACIST like the ones responsible for the holocaust. He states that commenting against illegal immigration, "is evidence of persons with pea sized brains", as if these people form an inferior race with a much smaller brains "that are plaguing our country".
Fr Joe Borg, no matter what evasive tactic you try, for you, there is only one honorable way out of this COMPLETE mess; to apologise publicly and convincingly. Otherwise, what else can I say:
Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. (To err is human, to persevere in the error is diabolic)
I agree with your first point regarding "world's superpowers (including the EU) should devote more time and money on the source of the problem" But if this help doesn't arrive? Or if this help arrives let's say in a number of years? What will happen in the meantime?
Regarding the second point, Morals are subject to debate, and Law could be changed. If we keep on doing what we are doing, immigrants will keep and keep on coming. The voluntary repatriation thing is just a BIGGER INCENTIVE for more immigrants to come to Malta. They come illegally, with nothing, and leave with 5000euros, which for most of them is a lot of money.
Hmmm... maybe you are right.. my statement to deport all the illegal immigrants back could be arranged. True, unfortunately, are truly bound to torture and other things I would not wish to my worst enemy.
So let me rephrase it.
We should make tougher rules, for example, if any illegal immigrant who is given the refugee status, takes part in a criminal offence, such as working without permit, drug dealing or worse, their refugee status should be revoked, and sent back immediately. If they are getting help and refugee status, with all the rights it entails, then they should be expected to obey all the laws as a common citizen of this country.
These measures could be seen as discriminatory yes, but if you take a close look at the new laws implemented in Italy by the Berlusconi government, there are quite a lot, and they where put due to a great increase in criminal offences by extra communitarians. This in Malta has not QUITE YET been the case, but IT IS SLOWLY DEVELOPING.
to be continued...
Hi Robert,
I have already excused myself about the wrong interpretation that I gave of the term “contagious”.
In no way was I inferring that homosexuality is a disease that spreads through sexual contact. What I meant was that once experienced, the initiated could acquire a liking for it,
I would advise you to read the comment I posted to Kenneth Cassar where I quoted excerpts from a webpage which you might like to consult.
By the way I have friends who are homosexual and there is reciprocal respect amongst us.
Part 3
4) Early homosexual experiences influence adult patterns of behavior
In the 1980s, scholars examined the early Kinsey data to determine whether or not childhood sexual experiences predicted adult behavior. The results were significant: Homosexual experience in the early year, particularly if it was one's first sexual experience - was a strong predictor of adult homosexual behavior, both for males and females. A similar pattern appeared in the 1970 Kinsey Institute study: there was a strong relationship between those whose first experience was homosexual and those who practiced homosexuality in later life. In the FRI study two-thirds of the boys whose first experience was homosexual engaged in homosexual behavior as adults; 95% of those whose first experience was heterosexual were likewise heterosexual in their adult behavior. A similarly progressive pattern of sexual behavior was reported for females.
It is remarkable that the three largest empirical studies of the question showed essentially the same pattern. A child's first sexual experiences were strongly associated with his or her adult behavior.
@Kenneth Cassar and others:
Part 2
How this happens is suggested by a nationwide random study from Britain: 35% of boys and 9% of girl said they were approached for sex by adult homosexuals. Whether for attention, curiosity, or by force, 2% of the boys and 1% of the girls succumbed. In the US, 37% of males and 9% of females reported having been approached for homosexual sex (65% of those doing the inviting were older). Likewise, a study of over 400 London teenagers reported that "for the boys, their first homosexual experience was very likely with someone older: half the boys' first partner were 20 or older; for girls it was 43 percent." A quarter of homosexuals have admitted to sex with children and underage teens, suggesting the homosexuality is introduced to youngsters the same way other behaviors are learned - by experience.
Part 1
Dear Kenneth,
I find these discussions to be very mentally stimulating and that is why I persist in writing and trying to inform myself.
I have been browsing the internet and I came across a web page that whetted my appetite to learn more. Who knows? I might end up quite an expert on the subject. (Just joking)
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html
The following is taken verbatim for your perusal.
3) Older homosexuals often approach the young
There is evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is "handed down" from older individuals. The first homosexual encounter is usually initiated by an older person. In separate studies 60%, 64%, and 61% of the respondents claimed that their first partner was someone older who initiated the sexual experience.
Likewise. Truth can only be reached or approached through the evaluation (through rational debate) of conflicting views and opinions. Censorship denies us this opportunity. Hence, all lovers of truth, in my opinion, should oppose censorship (except in the case of libel).
What happened when Dawkins' book The God Delusion was published? Was the book banned? No (you can still buy it from local bookstores). The Catholic Church produced it's own books to counter the arguments in Dawkins' one. That's the right spirit. Why should this not be applied to Stitching as well?
Social darwinism is bull crap.
Evolution through natural selection have given us the ability to interact in a complex social way. The innate predisposition to care for a community and for our kin has led way to our survival.
Your humble opinion is highly valued but unfortunately hugely misinformed. A quick search on the web would give you some understanding about the fact homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom, so you dont really need to be an expert to get that. I just asked you to explain how homosexuality is contagious in these animals when it is obvious that they dont undergo the type of abuse that you have cared to mention. A disease is generally contagious so by following this logic one can easily conclude that for you homosexuality is a disease. You've just asked 6-10% of the population to go seek immediate help and the rest of us to keep away from them.
@Kenneth Cassar
It is so refreshing to read your intelligent comments.
Cont...
It is also true that some children at puberty stage tend to experiment at sex (either alone or with friends). But homosexuality is not something you "acquire a liking for". I would guess that most children who experiment with sex with other same-sex children tend to do so in the absence of an available member of the opposite sex. Hence the not uncommon "boarding school" incidents you refer to.
Such children will seek out members of the opposite sex when they grow up and have the opportunity. The ones who will seek same-sex relationships when they grow up, would have already been homosexual in the first place, with or without the childhood experimentation with sex.
"However, I know of homosexuals who had been abused at puberty stage when hormones are known to go berserk and any sexual contact can easily unbalance a child at that very critical age. (To me that justifies the assertion that “homosexuality is contagious”.)".
Dear Jessica, I get the impression, from reading a few of your posts, that you are not the kind of person who would consciously go about offending people. I strongly believe that your claim (above) is more the result of being misinformed. Hence I would like you to take my replies as a friendly explanation, and nothing else.
It is true that sexual abuse at a very young age could unbalance a child. However, it is very likely that child abuse (especially the violent type) would actually create a revulsion to sex altogether in the abused child. That the person you know, who has been abused as a child, is homosexual, is a coincidence. There are plenty more heterosexuals who have been abused as children. So one cannot deduce that because a homosexual had been abused as a child, that is the reason he "turned out" homosexual.
Cont...
It's true that Darwinism has been distorted (by Nazis and the like) to justify racism and eugenics, but anyone claiming that modern racism owes its origin to secular Darwinism is speaking as much nonsense as anyone claiming that it owes its origin to Christianity (which WAS racist in the past, going as far as justifying slavery and quoting scripture in support of it).
The true origin of racism is found in ignorance and prejudice.
The real way how to "heal the wound" of racism is to recognize it. You can't cure an illness unless you diagnose it.
As for those taking umbrage at Fr Borg's "attack" on racism, I believe that Fr Borg never said that all those who are worried about the influx of immigrants are necessarily racist. But a lot of Maltese people clearly are, and they show it amply through their comments whenever there is a news report on the arrival of immigrants.
@S. Vella and others
"How does a rational person even comment this ludicrous quote. Homosexuality is not a disease that spreads via contact - it's a a sexual orientation, nothing more, nothing less.”
To save you the hassle of going through the whole list of comments, I am here reproducing my earlier commentary verbatim:
‘However, I know of homosexuals who had been abused at puberty stage when hormones are known to go berserk and any sexual contact can easily unbalance a child at that very critical age. (To me that justifies the assertion that “homosexuality is contagious”.)’
If I have in any way offended anybody by the phrase “homosexuality is contagious”, I beg forgiveness. I might have misinterpreted the phrase that appeared in “The Times” on Saturday 14th February.
In no way was I inferring that homosexuality is a disease that spreads through contact. What I meant was that once experienced, the initiated could acquire a liking for it.
It was not uncommon in boarding schools even here in Malta.
If we are not careful, it is becoming almost an IN thing even for heterosexuals to try different excitements and they are not excluding a homosexual/lesbian experience.
Hi Robert!
I have never advertised myself as an expert on the subject of homosexuality, (I only offered my humble opinion). I would be very grateful however if you would enlighten me about the homosexual behaviour of Penguins because somehow you infer that you know a lot about the subject.
Part 2
I would definitely like to get hold of the book if only to inform myself, but I believe that by the time I read it and form an opinion, the whole hullabaloo would have blown over.
“Well, why not wait till Fr Joe Borg informs you what to think about that book; and then, start screaming in its favour yourself?” You say.
Dear Franco, I hope you have not formed an opinion of me of one who is likely to be heard ‘screaming’ for I can tell you that I am not the type; too unladylike!
I shall perhaps refrain from commenting on it. Though, to tell you the truth, I shall try to get some information from available sources. I shall browse through the internet, starting from tomorrow because it is much too late now, and I need my sleep.
Good night!
Part 1
Dear Franco,
It is true that I did not read ‘Stitches’ and any comments regarding it were prompted from the quotes Fr. Joe presented for mature discussion, which were enough to give one the general feeling of ethnic hate, misplaced fantasies and lurid murderous tendencies. Now it remains to be seen, (if the play will ever be staged), whether any good will result from it and whether we will be better persons from having come in contact with such “elevated, avant-garde art” as the liberal pseudo intellectuals will have us believe.
Now another controversy has cropped up: ‘The homosexual question’
.
Since I have not read the book, you cannot expect me to comment upon it for that would be very irresponsible of me. (Though I did remark about some experiences related to me by some homosexual friends, of which I have a few.)
"Today's racism owes its origin to a post-Christian secularized society spellbound by evolutionary Darwinism applied wrongly to the human species."
What on earth are you on about? What does today's racism have to do with a scientific theory? Please explain yourself. I suppose you are talking about social darwinism and it's impact, which any thinking person will understand have nothing to do with Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Jessica Debattista:
I do know you are a person of intelligence and high moral values, so please be careful with statements such as "homosexuality is contagious". I do get the feeling you mean it's contagious in the same way as laughter is contagious (something I do not share a belief in, but would at least not be as offensive), but to call it contagious somehow implies that it is a disease or infection.
The way this religious representative has publicly "crucified" the persons he listed in his article "guilty" of being modern day heretics (i.e. racists), on the basis of no proofs except his abundant blatant PREJUDICE, reminds me of the bad old times of grand inquisitors and public barbeques with toasted heretics flesh. No wonder that when he came to prove his allegations he was "speechless", cause apart the PREJUDICE there is no proof, the immigrants in question weren't even black. If Fr Borg think he's going to intimidate the Maltese from expressing their genuine concerns, in a way similar to how inquisitors used to terrify people into remaining silent for fear of being labeled 'heretics', he IS wrong. The Inquisition's days are over.
How does a rational person even comment this ludicrous quote. Homosexuality is not a disease that spreads via contact - it's a a sexual orientation, nothing more, nothing less.
"I will explain: I have in previous contributions said that homosexual tendencies could be evident at a very early age. However, I know of homosexuals who had been abused at puberty stage when hormones are known to go berserk and any sexual contact can easily unbalance a child at that very critical age. (To me that justifies the assertion that “homosexuality is contagious”.) "
So now that you explained [sic] homosexuality in humans please explain homosexuality in Penguins? Have they also been abused at puberty stage?
"ridiculing people of different beliefs from mine."
Ridicule stops people from saying nutty things. Infact I would absolutely give the right to someone to say that he denies the holocaust but I wouldn t stop the right for his peers to ridicule him.
Religion is open to ridicule as much as anything else. If your beliefs are based on hard evidence then you should not worry, it can stand up to any kind of ridicule!
I have just re-read your post to see it in its proper context. Here's what you wrote:
""Mal-hazin jehel it-tajjeb", so all the illegal immigrants must be transported back to their countries, immediately".
So what you meant is that because (according to you) most immigrants abuse the system, we should send "all illegal immigrants" back to their countries immediately. By all, I assume you mean even those escaping sure death through torture, war or hunger. Not very Christian.
I'm not writing this to ridicule or accuse you of anything. I am only hoping that my replies convince you to see things differently, and show more compassion to those who, instead of worrying how they will pay their next bill, are worrying that at this instant, some of their co-patriots are probably being shot or tortured. Send them all back? Never.
Your comparison of St Paul's Shipwreck to the immigrants landing here and the idea this story imbued in Maltese Christians a sense of hospitality towards foreigners is very laudable. However your analysis of the genesis of present day racism in the Maltese mind-set is highly deficient and thus your anti-racist exhortations sound pathetic.
Today's racism owes its origin to a post-Christian secularized society spellbound by evolutionary Darwinism applied wrongly to the human species. Such society creates thus its news idols that may be the nation race or mother earth or both. Thus a group of Ethiopians who land in Christian Malta would still be rejected on the base of their race even though they are Christians. It is was the same story with Edith Stein who died in Auschwitz despite speaking perfect German, having a white complexion & was Catholic. She had to die because she had Jewish ancestry.
So exhortations like "fighting racism" are slogans lacking substance. The real way how to heal this wound is a return to Catholic values, something that you Fr Borg hardly do here and anywhere.
That homosexual tendencies could be evident at a very early age is to be expected, considering that the basis of homosexuality is genetic or embryonic.
That homosexuality is "contagious" only makes sense in the context of dormant "homosexual genes" being transferred from parents to embryo. Otherwise, homosexuality cannot be transferred from person to person.
Homosexuality cannot be learned. It is ingrained. That giving dolls to boys makes them gay (and giving them toy soldiers makes them tough) is a discredited myth.
Even the Church knows this nowadays. That is why the Church claims it accepts homosexuals (without demanding mental or physical treatment) as long as they stay celibate.
If the Church did not believe that homosexuality has a genetic/embryonic basis, it would not claim to accept homosexuals without the condition that they would allow themselves to be "re-programmed" through psychological training or other kinds of learning.
Is homosexuality contagious? Not in the sense we generally use the word "contagious".
"My reference of the Maltese say "mal-hazin jehel it tajjeb" is not there to state that we should in any way do any harm to them, least of all kill them".
Ok, fine, so it was just a bad choice of words.
"The illegal immigrants are a burden which we Maltese alone cannot take, and due to the enormous lack of help from others ( EU, other countries, UN etc)..."
Of course...I agree.
"Instead of sarcasm, what are your proposals in order to try and solve this problem?".
My post was not at all sarcastic. I was very serious. A reasoning such as "mal-hazin jehel it-tajjeb" is a non-starter in my sense of justice. But perhaps that is not what you really meant.
My proposals to solve this problem? First off, we cannot solve this problem on our own. Here's what I believe should be done:
1. The world's superpowers (including the EU) should devote more time and money on the source of the problem (the countries from which immigrants are fleeing).
2. In the meantime, we go on doing what we are doing (and legally and morally bound to do), of course getting help if possible.
Cont...
"I wouldn’t say I would ban either. Every country has its own culture which is much too ingrained to do much about it".
So would you ban Stiching? Remember that Christianity started with a few dozen people. It was certainly not a culture or an ingrained tradition then. Would you say that the Roman government had a right to eradicate Christianity just because it was a minority religion back then? I think not.
"As to your next question I would like to make it clear that I would never ban anything only for the fact that it is rubbish. But if it were up to me, I would seriously consider banning something that is offensive..."
So again, would the Roman emperor have been justified in banning Christianity if he found it offensive (which he actually did)? And don't you think the Bible would sound a little offensive to a non-believer? Try to read the parts in support of slavery and genocide, for instance.
"First of all I thing that such a government would find it next to impossible to eradicate a tradition that for years had given the nation its flavour, colour and pageantry which had made it uniquely Maltese".
In a similar vein, I find it next to impossible to eradicate a free-thinking mentality that has been building up for centuries, and through which all modern progress (including, but not limited to, science and technology) has been built. Not even censorship could revert that. But in any case, that was not the point. The point is that even if a government tries to eradicate Christianity, it would only go underground, and not be abolished. Furthermore, such a policy would be resisted.
"Some people would feel bad taste at the “exhibit of gore” of a Good Friday procession; others might find bad taste in the quasi-naked revelers on the Carnival floats at Rio de Janeiro".
Exactly...you're proving my point.
Cont...
"Your whole article is based on the PREJUDICE that those worried about illegal immigration are racists."
I perfectly agree!
Well, why not wait till Fr Joe Borg informs you what to think about that book; and then, start screaming in its favour yourself?
I rest my case.
Hi Franco!
Are you the same Franco who four days ago had some sweet words to say to me?
If you are the one, how come those sweet words have gone sour on St. Valentine’s day?
Can we still remain civil in this discussion you are bent to drag me into?
I have read the article in today’s “Times” and I must say I was taken aback but since I have not read the book, I am in total ignorance of its content so I am in no position to have an opinion one way or the other. I am sure there are informed persons who can very well defend the assertions listed in the article.
Allow me one humble opinion however, and that is that “homosexuality is contagious”.
I will explain: I have in previous contributions said that homosexual tendencies could be evident at a very early age. However, I know of homosexuals who had been abused at puberty stage when hormones are known to go berserk and any sexual contact can easily unbalance a child at that very critical age. (To me that justifies the assertion that “homosexuality is contagious”.)
My reference of the Maltese say "mal-hazin jehel it tajjeb" is not there to state that we should in any way do any harm to them, least of all kill them. The illegal immigrants are a burden which we Maltese alone cannot take, and due to the enormous lack of help from others ( EU, other countries, UN etc) some of whom had also criticized the way they are put in detention centres, instead of offering ways and means how to tackle this problem.
Instead of sarcasm, what are your proposals in order to try and solve this problem?
Now, let me tell you that Your whole article is based on the PREJUDICE that those worried about illegal immigration are racists. Your article "breed" hate and PREJUDICE towards the majority of the Maltese who are genuinely worried about this crisis:
"When asked to rank the most important issues facing Malta, 48 percent ranked immigration, an increase of eight percent over last year's survey. The cost of living came second at 41 percent followed by energy issues, the economic situation and unemployment." -http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090212/local/eurostat-malta-survey-shows-growing-pessimism
Not even Dr ABC have ever written such a non-ethical and disrespectful article. I hope you didn't intentionally tried to be controversial to provoke numerous public responses so that your article is listed in most-commented table.
In my opinion you should first, apologize to the persons you listed above, and secondly, be ashamed of yourself.
@Kenneth Cassar: “imagine that somehow we have a non-Christian government (it doesn't have to be atheist), that decides to ban Good Friday processions and plays for reasons of "good taste". What would Christians think?”
First of all I thing that such a government would find it next to impossible to eradicate a tradition that for years had given the nation its flavour, colour and pageantry which had made it uniquely Maltese. (I am aware of other countries which share our practices, but which are adapted according to the temperament of its people)
Some people would feel bad taste at the “exhibit of gore” of a Good Friday procession; others might find bad taste in the quasi-naked revelers on the Carnival floats at Rio de Janeiro.
I wouldn’t say I would ban either. Every country has its own culture which is much too ingrained to do much about it.
As to your next question I would like to make it clear that I would never ban anything only for the fact that it is rubbish. But if it were up to me, I would seriously consider banning something that is offensive, inciting racism or ridiculing people of different beliefs from mine.
It seems that our power and our zest for censoring things are only in relation to some drama group who want to produce a play such as Stitching. But hey, when it comes to yet another gay-bashing move by the Catholic Church, in the form of this disgusting book, we tend to keep quiet and ignore what is happening around us.
Or shall we know have another diatribe, which I personally feel is dishonest, by Joe Borg trying to tell us that this was not said and the other was said like this and that and not in the way as it was reported by this and that, etc ...?
Shall we have an apologetic Joe Borg trying to tell us what is in the book and trying to change the context?
What a hypocrisy we are living!
Most immigrants coming here are Islamic.
The earlier conflict between Nazi Socialism & Judaism...a cataclysmic clash of a ‘God’s’ chosen Race and ‘Blessed’ anti-Communists diehards & Super Arian Race. The Middle East’sscenario is a warning :with their fanatical Zionistic and Al Qaeda groups, Judaism & Islam are on a collision course engulfing whole regions.
Malta MUST act as a bridge-builder; and should embark WHOLEHEARTEDLY into any option that can unite
"The reenactment of Good Friday, if approached with the true spirit of Christianity, is an exercise in refreshing the memory of the sacred event –The crucified Christ was represented as the victim whose agony was the price paid for man’s redemption."
You prove my point. Only if one approaches the reenactment with some kind of context can we see some meaning beyond the brutality that it represents. The same can be said about the scene quoted from stitching. It is still distastful to me nonetheless. What if Christ was killed in Texas somewhere in the begining of this century. Would they reenact the killing by electric chair? would you carry golden chairs around your neck? a torture device as a symbol for religion!? The fact remains that the main thing distinguishing me from you is that I dont go arguing about how something should be censored just because it is distasteful to myself.
with regards to illegal immigration, I fully agree with you. May I also add that man is evolutionary predisposed to peck together and form communities. Communities without a distinction between what is 'inside' and 'outside' cease to be communities.
""Such comments leave me speechless" Yes, so speechless that you wrote a whole article about it".
It's a figure of speech. Also, those who say "I'm dying to watch that movie" or whatever, are not really dying.
Our committments in this problem should be capped at the same level, per capita, as the bigger and more prosperous EU nations who are the real destination for these illegal immigrants. If that is not done it would be preferable if we sent back the "white elephant" gift of our marine crafts, or even to scuttle them, so that rescuing vessels would transport these illegal immigrants to their intended destination or to the country of origin of the rescuing vessels.
This small nation has outperformed the welcome that our ancestors gave to St Paul in its magnanimity and duration and benefitting ungrateful illegal immigants compounding our problems.
"as they say in Maltese, "Mal-hazin jehel it-tajjeb", so all the illegal immigrants must be transported back to their countries, immediately".
Interesting logic. You're not a Christian by any chance, are you? In that case, you surely must believe in someone who died just so that "mal-hazin ma jehilx it-tajjeb".
What Robert Attard meant is that to those who are not Christians, the Good Friday processions are nothing but an exhibit of gore. Of course it is difficult for most Christians to understand this. Try to imagine this - imagine that somehow we have a non-Christian government (it doesn't have to be atheist), that decides to ban Good Friday processions and plays for reasons of "good taste". What would Christians think?
You also tell Mr Attard: "I dare say that 'liberal pseudo-intellectuals would call this kind of religion rubbish'" in response to his "conservative pseudo-intellectuals would call this kind of rubbish religion!". But that's hardly the point. The point is: have we the right to ban anything just because we think or believe its rubbish? If non-believers are expected to respect believers who follow tradition and religious enactments (even the gory ones), shouldnt Christians return the compliment?
I hope you understand, and I hope that despite my being an atheist, you understand that I have tried to be as non-offensive as the topic allows me to be.
"As for our rascism the Father k nows that the Maltese send huge sums of money to the missions even though the recepients are black".
Oh yes, as long as they stay away from our shores. Now that's what I call empathy and kindness!
"Such comments leave me speechless" Yes, so speechless that you wrote a whole article about it.
A solution needs to be found but we have to have an open mind and try to think positive. I am sure that these refugees have their own merits which if they were given the opportunity they could share with us. After all life is all about cross fertilization.
But are we prepared to give them a chance? We only want them out of the way.
part2
Our little country is overpopulated and the government lacks the adequate funds to sustain the regular arrivals. But that is not the main reason why we are so averse to
accepting these refugees. Whether we admit it or not, it is the colour of their skin. We forget that all of us Maltese cannot boast to being pure breed for we are a cosmopolitan lot.
We are going through the same antagonism that for long years the Americans had, and in certain states, are still going through. Yet now the Americans have elected a coloured president and with the help of God he could be the catalyst to draw all the people together.
Part 1
Dear Fr. Joe,
I have been trying to find the courage to speak my mind, for any comment, pro or con, is likely to be misinterpreted.
There are analogies between the two events you mentioned, but the time distance is so remote, the culture so radically changed, the mental attitude so individualistic that no comparison can be drawn to arrive at a probable change of mentality from what is so blatantly obvious as things stand now.
Our little country is overpopulated and the government lacks the adequate funds to sustain the regular arrivals. But that is not the main reason why we are so averse to
accepting these refugees. Whether we admit it or not, it is the colour of their skin. We forget that all of us Maltese cannot boast to being pure breed for we are a cosmopolitan lot.
Unfortunately, there are those who feel that they can do without religion and ridicule those who still hold with the tradition.
The reenactment of Good Friday, if approached with the true spirit of Christianity, is an exercise in refreshing the memory of the sacred event –The crucified Christ was represented as the victim whose agony was the price paid for man’s redemption.
Man relates to the image and it is through such images that the spirit is transported to a higher level of consciousness.
You (Robert Attard) say that “conservative pseudo-intellectuals would call this kind of rubbish religion!”
I dare say that 'liberal pseudo-intellectuals would call this kind of religion rubbish'.
Hope you see the distinction!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090213/local/nine-immigrants-return-home-voluntarily
I am speechless and ashamed too. I am a teacher and i hear hundreds of students shout racist venom at school - a lesson on tolerance and empathy with people who suffer injustice ends up a nasty show of intolerance and wrath. The students in question range from 12 to 16 years. The racism, the hatred is embedded in their psyche. I've almost given up doing projects to change the way my students think.
All of those who are given refugee status (and whom you would welcome) have to be "illegal immigrants" before they get refugee status. All refugees have to break the law.
To use the example you gave, if you had to travel furtively to the UK without documents (assuming you are not an EU member), and you are found out, you would have two options:
1. Admit and be sent back to your country.
2. Apply for refugee (or other protective) status, after which you will be held in detention while your case will be studied. After this, you will either be transferred to an open-centre or be sent back.
"Malta was not racist up to a couple years ago" - here's where you're very wrong. Racists wouldn't complain about black people when there are no black people around. Now that there are plenty, racists have come out of the closet.
If I had to travel furtively to the Uk with no travelling documents do you think I would be welcome?
Gaining refugee status would change this of course and I would wholeheartedly welcome a refugee.
I cannot believe how you faithfully gulped down the mass media news about the Roman Catholic bishop that "deny the existence" of the holocaust.
All he said was that not millions of Jews died under Hitler but thousands. Also he does not agree that the Jews were gassed.
See these sites for your satisfaction. I hope that they are revealing.
http://100777.com/node/855
http://100777.com/node/1067
The media says "denying Holocaust" when in fact the Jewry establishment wants Holocaust to mean ONLY what they want to mean.
This means no questions asked, and please switch off your brains. If you dont switch off your brains on ANY matter connected to the holocaust then you are guilty, before taken to a court of justice!
St Paul, at the time of the shipwreck, WAS a criminal by the laws of that day and age and the powers that were. Most of these immigrants are NOT criminals.
The whole point about hospitality stands. The majority of western powers show a great deal of hospitality to immigrants, providing them with decent living, money, food, chance of education and in often integration to a society they could only dream of. Malta does support some of those things, but people are still angry about it. My question is always why YOU think you have the right to those things, but they don't. You just happened to be born in a country where these things are supplied to you, while these people are born under extreme circumstances.
Also, I so foten hear that most of them are just economic migrants. Where are the statics for that? How do you come to that conclusion? As far as I know the majority of immigrants arriving are from Somalia, second largest group from Eritrea. You try visiting those countries and then say the same thing, or at least provide some statistics supporting what you are saying.
Shameful
Rest assured that I know that you did not have me in mind when you referred to "liberal pseudo intellectuals". I also can safely assume that neither did Fr Borg. I'm not that important after all - I'm just a regular guy speaking his mind.
Regarding some "artists", I can perfectly relate to what you say, which is not surprising considering I do not even like Picasso - Give me an "old-style" painting anytime. Nowadays it seems that anything qualifies as art - and why stop at paintings and plays - modern pop music is mostly rubbish - but perhaps it is a question of personal taste (or, as I rather think, a matter of mass marketing of little talent for a quick buck ).
Regarding the movies, particularly Saw, I watched the first two out of curiosity, but couldn't stomach more. Mind you, they're more psychologically frustrating (leaving you on the edge of your seat) than gory, although gore is in abundance too.
So if you cannot stomach such films, I wouldn't recommend them to you. But why should others be denied the choice? Why should I ban Britney Spears just because I think she's rubbish?
It might be that the author had not any noble sentiments. Perhaps it is true that he was only after sensationalism. If so, apparently it worked. Everyone here, including Fr Joe, is giving the play publicity. Humankind is a curious species, and some people would even watch the play to see what all the fuss was about. The adage that "no publicity is bad publicity" is sometimes true.
In any case, I guess many times, one gets from a play/movie/book what one seeks to get. Let me give two examples:
1. Schindler's List (the movie). Normally people would watch the movie either to see a good film or to learn what Jews went through in WWII. Anti-semites might watch the movie to gain pleasure from watching Jews suffer. Some others might not watch the movie at all, since they see it as Spielberg making money out of others' misery.
2. Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Some people read it out of curiosity. Some people read it to confirm their atheistic non-belief. Some other people read it to learn what the atheists are saying so that they will rebut their arguments. And that's just one book.
Cont...
@Kenneth Cassar
I agree with you. Should they not also censor the good friday procession with all its reanactments? I am pretty sure it is one type of shocking theatre. The idea of having somebody covered in blood and walking the street with a cross on his back is definitely not a defining moment in good taste. But conservative pseudo-intellectuals would call this kind of rubbish religion!
speaking of anti-semitism. lets take a look at what St Paul has to say .
"the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. "
1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
Part 2
As to my comment on Fr. Joe’s closing sentence - “But liberal pseudo intellectuals call such rubbish art.” You can rest assured that I did not for a moment have you in mind.
I interpreted his comment as a collective description of some ‘menefreghisti’ (so called artists, art critics or, art connoisseurs who thumb their noses at academic training and who declare that everybody is an artist and that in art everything goes.) Unfortunately these last are budding much too profusely these days.
As to the movies you mentioned, you can be sure that I shall never watch them for my constitution cannot take them.
Part 1
Dear Kenneth,
Since apparently most of us, who have been commenting about ‘Stitching’, have not read the script and are only going on hearsay, I can understand how you could be presuming that part of the play is intended to get a reaction of revulsion from the audience. If that is the case, it could be described as artistic, and perhaps also laudable, for the fact that it raises awareness about something so blatantly heartless. However, in the case of ‘Stitching’, judging from the comments I listed in my previous post, it is unlikely that the author had any noble sentiments in that regard. I dare presume that he was simply after sensationalism. I doubt that context comes into it at all.
What's your point exactly? Don't you think you're confusing matters in a way a person like you should never do?
So you're comparing the memorial of the Shipwreck of St. Paul with the evasion of some illegal immigrants.
As far as I know, St. Paul was defined as a criminal only because he was supporting and promoting Christianity. However he had the guts to 'finish' his teachings here in Malta. The rest is history.
The illegal immigrants you're pitying so much are most probably nothing more than economic migrants who know perfectly well the loopholes that exist in the European Union and abuse them to stay living here at the tapayer's expense.
Malta was not racist up to a couple years ago, but when it kept being abused year after year after providing adequate support to these migrants such, the host cannot but feel angry.
However I don't think I need to enter in further details about this case. There are tens of articles on this website explaining it all.
Finally, I admit I expected better from a knowledgeable prominent person such as yourself. It seems that you're only interested in one face of the coin.
No problem at all...and regarding my posts, don't take them personally....we're only discussing things.
Just a short comment on your other post (regarding The Guardian's report).
If you've ever watched any of the Saw movies (there are at least three), you'll probably agree that most people would find them much more distasteful. If you ever watch them, prepare yourself for lost of scenes (the whole movie) of physical and mental torture. And what about the scene in The Exorcist when a possessed woman vomits on the cross?
And yet, you will find the DVDs in most local stores. But I guess its ok if its Hollywood.
Sorry, but at the moment I'm in a rush. I did not quite get what you meant.
But speak to you later.
ciao
Once again, I have not watched (or read) the play, and probably never will. My comments were mainly on the holocaust bit, and it is on that part that I said that it should be taken in its proper context.
As for the rest, for me, a turd is no more than a turd, but I wouldn't ban people from watching turds. If that makes me a "pseudo-intellectual liberal", so be it.
Part 2
.3. It is not my job to tell audiences a rose is beautiful. Everybody knows that. My job is to see if there is a way to make a turd beautiful."
4. Winnie Johnson, the mother of a child who disappeared at the hands of the Moors murderers, said: "I would like to stop the play, but I can't. The public should see it, and ask themselves: if people make plays about this, why can't they do it in a positive way? To refer to the Moors murders as exciting or stimulating is disgusting to me.
According to you Mr. Cassar, does the above, in any way, change your mind about your statement that “everything has to be taken in its proper context"?
I wholly agree with the sentence which closes the blog by Fr. Joe Borg: “But liberal pseudo intellectuals call such rubbish art.”
‘Pseudo’ is an adjective which means, not genuine; fake or insincere. (Oxford Dictionary)
Part 1
“From what I gather from comments about the play (I have not actually read it), the play does not actually glorify or put in a good light the person who gets sexual pleasure looking at pictures of the victims of the Holocaust. In fact, from what I gather, the part is intended to get a reaction of revulsion from the audience. "
“Everything should be taken in its proper context”. You say.
Permit me to list some excerpts from
Angelique Chrisafis, arts correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 August 2002 17.55 BST
Article history
1. Barely one day into the Edinburgh festival, audiences known for their cast-iron stomachs have staged their first walkouts on grounds of taste.
2. Neilson, 35, is best known for his 1997 play The Censor, which featured a woman defecating on stage to sexually liberate the man observing her.
Unfortunately you just had to add the bit about Stitching again to soil the read. I'm not sure why you didn't seek the appropriate method of commenting on that and kept it to the last blogpost, rather than sneaking in a final word in this one.
"But it is diabolical to publicise a character that says that he can get sexual pleasure looking at pictures of the victims of the Holocaust."
You mean like what you just did? Again you haven't described the context of the act. If the writers aim was to create disonnance from this act he is doing exactly what you are doing, right?
Regarding racism, there's no more to add...you've said it all. It's on Stiching where I might disagree.
From what I gather from comments about the play (I have not actually read it), the play does not actually glorify or put in a good light the person who gets sexual pleasure looking at pictures of the victims of the Holocaust. In fact, from what I gather, the part is intended to get a reaction of revulsion from the audience.
The "liberal pseudo intellectuals", I believe, are not arguing in favour of "anything goes", at least not in this case. One must see things in their proper context. There is art for beauty's sake, and there is art to provoke sentiments (like anger, love, fear, etc). Again, from what I gather out of the comments on this play, that particular scene is intended to provoke revulsion from the audience.
Everything should be taken in its proper context. After all, one would normally find images of prisoners being tortured to be repulsive. But when one particular prisoner is nailed to a cross, for Christians this signifies a God made man who dies for our sins. Context...its all about context.
To come to our shores, with all the hospitality that foreigners seem to invest us with, I see a lot of antagonism and racism particularly with the darker skinned people (because somehow fair skin and blonde hair does not rouse the same reaction, albeit they are intruders as well and as likely to take us over as the rest).
If we look back a few years we might be able to trace the origin. Inciting racism is a dangerous exercise. It is true, however, that we are not in a position to sustain the influx which is alarming, especially in view of the present situation.
A long time ago, I must have been in my late teens then, I was visiting a cousin in the United States. Her husband and she lived in a good neighbourhood for they were quite well off. We were cruising in their poshy car when suddenly her husband, startled by something, turned to his wife and in an agitated voice and blurted out, ‘Babe, a black in the neighbourhood! We must move.”
That evening they were discussing it over dinner and I, naïve as naïve can be, had to have my say and let them know that I find nothing wrong with having a coloured neighbour (if indeed he was a neighbour and not just somebody in passing).
The conversation did not stop there and in my naiveté I even said that I wouldn’t mind marrying one. The disgust I saw on their faces!!! – It was almost as if I had suddenly grown hairy moles all over my face.
I have somehow lost touch with my cousin since then but this blog has brought memories and I wonder now how they look upon Barak Obama as the first coloured President of the United States