Pinkwashing Israel

Paper presented by Michael Schembri at the conference: Temperatures Rising! Australian civil society & Palestinian freedom: analyses, resistances, solidarities, activisms.

University of Technology, Sydney 14-15 May 2011

Initiated by the Coalition for Justice & Peace in Palestine (Sydney) and Cosmopolitan Civil Societies, University of Technology (Sydney)

__________________________________________________________  

In recent years Israel has had to go on the defensive. Its invasion of and defeat in Lebanon in 2006, its ongoing siege and bombing of Gaza, its attack on the Freedom Flotilla carrying aid to the people of Gaza – all these and more have increased worldwide support for the Palestinians, thereby also putting more pressure on Western governments who to date have continued to support Israel through thick and thin.  

While refusing to back down on its aggression and on its apartheid policies against the Palestinian people both within its expanding borders and in the rest of the Occupied Territories, it has had to aggressively sell Brand Israel.

Part of this campaign has been its claim to being the only democratic state in the Middle East. And part of this campaign has been to sell itself as the only gay and lesbian friendly state in the Middle East. A bit like Daffyd from Little Britain, who claims he is the only gay in the village.

This is what we refer to as Pinkwashing – Israel promoting its image world wide as a progressive country which has recognised gay rights; using the existence of a gay community in Israel as a selling point, to thereby attract support for itself among gay men and lesbians around the world, particularly in the West.

To prove its progressive credentials as the only safe haven for gay men and lesbians in the Middle East it points to its legislative record:

- Homosexuality in Israel was decriminalised in 1988.

- Anti-discrimination legislation was passed in 1992.

- Gay men and lesbians have the right to serve in the military.

- Common-law marriage is recognised, although official same-sex marriage is only recognised if the marriage was performed elsewhere.

- The age of consent for both heterosexuals and homosexuals is sixteen.

- A legal case has led to the ability by same-sex couples to adopt each other’s biological children and to adopt foster children.

These gains cannot be denied. At this point it might interest you to know – it certain caught my attention - that homosexuality in Palestine was decriminalised in 1956 under the Jordanian mandate.

The Brand Israel campaign seeks, in an explicitly racist manner, to contrast itself with the supposedly barbaric, uncivilised Palestinian Arabs and Arabs in general, all of whom are supposedly inherently and uniformly hostile to gay men , lesbians and transgendered people.

Israel could not try to get away with its pinkwashing if it did not have the support of the mainstream Israeli gay and lesbian communities and organisations. These have struck a Faustian deal with the Zionist State: they have given their allegiance to the Zionist State in return for the State’s progressive policies.

Amongst its activities to sell Israel – and Tel Aviv in particular - as gay and lesbian friendly, the state institutions and the LGBT communities in Israel have been very active indeed. Here are some examples of their activities:

Last February [2011], at the International Tourist Trade Show in Berlin, Israel launched its campaign to promote gay tourism to the city of Tel Aviv. The Israeli exhibition at this Show was entitled Tel Aviv Gay Vibe – Free; Fun; Fabulous. This exhibition was a joint project of Israel’s LGBT Association (Aguda) and Tel Aviv’s Tourism Association. Amongst those who spoke out against this pinkwashing campaign was the group Palestinian Queers for BDS.

The Israeli state helps fund international gay and lesbian film festivals overseas.

Last year [2010] a month-long festival entitled “Out In Israel” was launched in the Bay Area, California in the USA. This celebration of LGBT Israeli culture included a film series, literary readings, musical performances, dance, and panel discussions on LGBT culture in Israel from a Zionist perspective. The Palestinian queer organisations Al-Qaws and Aswat issued a statement of protest, pointing out that Israel’s oppression of Palestinians did not distinguish between straight and gay Palestinians.

Also in 2010 the US Social Forum (the USSF) allowed the Zionist anti-Arab propaganda organisation Stand With Us to participate. Israeli Queers for Palestine spoke out against Stand With Us. Their statement, headed Say NO to Pinkwashing at the USSF!, read:

“To remedy [the growing success of BDS and its increasing marginalisation] [Israel] has launched a massive PR campaign using organisations such as Stand with Us to convince the world that Israel is not a brutal settler-colony state, but rather a free democracy where human rights in general, and LGBT rights in particular, are respected and upheld. Stand with Us deceptively uses the language of LGBT and women’s rights to obscure the fact that institutionalised discrimination is enshrined within the state of Israel.”

A number of Arab queer organisations also spoke out against Pinkwashing at the USSF, They included Al-Qaws and Aswat from Palestine/Israel, Helem from Lebanon, Palestinian Queers fro BDS, and the Moroccan group Kifkif.

Late in 2010 MTV’s LGBT Network, Logo, published the results of two internet polls in which it nominated, among other cities, the city of Tel Aviv for gay ‘sexiest city’ and ‘year breakthrough.’ The Tel Aviv-based group Israelis Queers for Palestine issued a statement denouncing the nomination.

In 2009 the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association held a conference in Tel Aviv. As with the Berlin show a year later, this conference was organized in cooperation with the Israeli LGBT organisation Aguda. Protests against this conference were called for from all over the world; Sydney gay and lesbian activists were among those who sent their protests.

In 2006 World Pride was held in Jerusalem. Anti-Zionist gay men and lesbians world-wide were furious, pointing out the irony that the slogan for World Pride was “Love Without Borders” while the Separation Wall that Israel is building on Palestinian land, and given that no Palestinian who does not have Israeli citizenship would have been allowed into the country to attend World Pride.

Gay and lesbian activists from Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide added their protest in a letter to the Sydney Star Observer.

This June the Tel Aviv Municipality intends to have a stand at Europe’s gay pride parade and festival in Berlin. Proof of the efficacy of the anti-Israeli Apartheid campaign there will be no Israeli symbols or markers, not even the Israeli flag. Instead the emphasis will be on Tel Aviv as a global city – pluralistic and liberal.

Selling Israel is one side of the Pinkwashing coin. The other is to use gay and lesbian rights to attack critics of Israeli Apartheid. Again this is taking place in a number of countries around the world.

Selling Israel is one side of the Pinkwashing coin. The other is to use gay and lesbian rights to attack the critics of Apartheid Israel.

One of the most recent examples of this took place in Sydney. On the weekend of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade, in the lead up to the NSW state elections, posters were stuck to poles on Oxford Street. On of these asked:

“Do the NSW Greens oppose gay rights? By boycotting Israel, the NSW Greens are boycotting the only country in the middle east where homosexuality is not a capital offence, or even a crime. Choose Freedom. Don’t Vote Green on March 26.”

Also in March of this year gay and lesbian anti-Israeli Apartheid activists were targeted in New York. A “Party to End Apartheid”, organized by a group called Siege Busters, was scheduled to be held in New York’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Trans Community Center. It was to be part of a nation-wide series of events under the banner of Israel Awareness Week and was meant to be a fundraiser to raise money for another flotilla to Gaza.

Michael Lucas, a leading American producer of gay porn movies, a rabid anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racist and a strong supporter of Israel, called on donors to the centre to boycott if the centre did not cancel the party.

In response the LGBT Center stated cancelled the event and banned the group from ever using the centre. This decision was strongly criticised by a number of organisations, including the Palestinian queer organisations Al Qaws and Aswat, the queer academic Judith Butler, the Siegebusters Working Group, the organisation Existence is Resistance, and Sherry Wolf on behalf of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network.

A final example, this time in Toronto, Canada. Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, formed to work in solidarity with gay men, lesbians and trannies in Palestine as well as with the Palestinian resistance movements around the world, planned to participate in Toronto’s 2010 Pride Parade. Reacting to Zionist pressure, the City of Toronto staff warned Pride Toronto to ban the group or face the loss of its city funding. Thanks to a vigorous protests from the gay and lesbian community Pride Toronto refused ban the group.

At this point it is important to expose the truth behind the claim that Israel is a safe haven for gay men, lesbians and trannies.

To start with it is apt to point out that progressive legislation in and of itself does not mean that hatred of gay men and lesbians has been done away with. Nothing illustrated this better than the murder of two people and the injuring of many more when someone entered a youth group meting at a LGBT community centre in Tel Aviv.

More telling was the fact that the ceremony held to protest and commemorate the murders, Palestinian speakers were deliberately excluded, while Benjamin Netanyahu – hardly a champion of gay rights, spoke at the event. Israeli flags abounded. Needless to say, no one from the Zionist side made any link between this attack and the militarisation of Israel due to its ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people and the expanding occupation of Palestine.

As protesters against the 2006 World Pride in Jerusalem pointed out, Israeli oppression of Palestinians does not distinguish between Palestinian gays and straights. Palestinians who do not hold citizenship in Israel are not allowed into Israel. A tiny handful are, indeed, taken in, but only if they are willing to be paraded as victims of Palestinian society.

For those who are citizens of Israel the situation is not that much better. Racism abounds, not least within the Israeli gay and lesbian communities. The few Palestinian gay men who live in Tel Aviv and who wish to enter a gay club will try to make themselves look less Arab, will speak Hebrew, and still they are often refused entry.

If, on the other hand, one is gay or Palestinian in the West Bank one is submitted to the same oppression as all other Palestinians: checkpoints, harassments, home demolishments, pot shots from Israel settlers and so on.

And if one is in Gaza, one is subjected to the siege, to bombings and raids.

No, Israeli oppression does not distinguish between straight and gay Palestinians.

Zionism, through oppression and occupation, plays a direct role in encouraging homophobia among Palestinians. Here is what Samira Saraya – a Palestinian lesbian activist and founding member of Aswat – has to say:

‘Like every society, the Palestinian society is dynamic. The reality of occupation, oppression, financial hardships, etc., have a lot to do with the movement of the Palestinian society “backward” toward conservative, religious, and paranoid ways of being. This of course is not helpful for us LGBTQ. A society that experiences war on a daily basis and that fights for its survival cannot move ahead. It is by definition a “sick society” that needs to have freedom and autonomy from which it can begin to heal.’

Rima, a Palestinian feminist activist working with Aswat, adds:

‘My people have suffered and are still suffering from traumas of land expropriation, house demolishing, occupation, discrimination and threats of citizenship dismissal. For these reasons and others, the Palestinian society is very zealous about its traditions and culture. The majority of society rejects behaviours and changes that “threaten” its heterosexuality and patriarchy since it is perceived as a threat to the continuity of the uniqueness of our culture. They romanticise the past and sometime I feel they want to freeze everything that was in the past and reject any change.’

There is yet another factor that causes among Palestinians generally a suspicion of Palestinian homosexuals. There are many instances where Israeli police have blackmailed Palestinian homosexuals by threatening to out them to their families and their communities. The result of course, is that it is commonplace for Palestinian homosexuals to be suspected of being spies by their people.

Coming out is not necessarily possible or desirable. Palestinian queer activists are very clear that they will not slavishly imitate the Western model of activism. Their approach is that Palestinian queers are out through the public existence and the public presence of their organisations, which currently are Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society and Aswat – Palestinian Gay Women.

The checkpoints controlling the movement of Palestinians also inhibit the movement of Palestinian gay and lesbian activists from moving inside their own country. The checkpoints thereby impede the growth of the Palestinian gay and lesbian movement. It is not for nothing that Jason Ritchie, an anthropologist who worked closely with Al-Qaws and its director and co-founder Haneen Maikey, states that in the case of Palestinian gay men and lesbians one should talk refer not to the closet but to the checkpoint, which is the real and symbolic check on the development of their sexual identity, political activity and freedom.

Palestinian gay men and lesbians refuse to play the role of victim assigned to them by the Zionist gay and lesbian communities. They have been fighting back. In doing so they are asserting themselves as both gay or lesbian or queer or transgendered, and as Palestinians. They will not be forced to make a choice. Here is a quote from the oraganisation Palestinian Queers for BDS:

“As Palestinian queers, our struggle is not only against social injustice and our rights as a queer minority in Palestinian society, but rather, our main struggle is one against Israel’s colonization, occupation and apartheid; a system that has oppressed us for the past 63 years. Violations of human rights and international law, suppression of basic rights and civil liberty, and discrimination are deeply rooted in Israel’s policies towards Palestinians, straight and gay alike.”

That is, the struggle for sexual and gender diversity is inseparable from the Palestinian struggle for freedom.

By demanding and struggling for their rights as gay men and lesbians while at the same time asserting their opposition to Israeli occupation and apartheid they assert their right to existence within Palestinian society and at the same time they claim their place within the Palestinian struggle for national liberation.

In this they are following in the footsteps of that other great struggle against apartheid – the struggle against Apartheid South Africa. Resistance fighters who were also gay, such as Simon Nkoli, won the respect of their heterosexual co-fighters, and from there moved to a recognition within the ANC and eventually in the country’s very constitution.

The strong presence of gay and lesbian activists in the international solidarity movement was another factor. We should also remember that that international boycott campaign included a boycott of gay contacts as well as sporting, tourist, trade, religious, scientific and academic contacts.

And that is where we come into the picture. The international movement of solidarity with Palestine - and that includes gay, lesbian and queer solidarity - must remain uncompromising in its opposition to Apartheid Israel. At the same time we must give our full solidarity to our Palestinian gay, lesbian and transgender brothers and sisters in their struggles within Palestinian society as may be requested by them. It is through this double act of solidarity that we can help Palestinians realise both national and gay/lesbian liberation.

Video: How Now BDS? Media, Politics and Queer Activism: A conversation with John Greyson and Judith Butler, moderated by Jasbir Puar

Solidarity with Gaza, Solidarity with Palestinian Queers

My speech at the Gay Marriage Rights rally, Sydney 25 November 2012

It is great to see so many people here standing up for our rights. At the same time we should also think about the rights of others, elsewhere. One of the great traditions of our movement is international solidarity. What I wish to ask all of you is to also think of the rights of our gay, lesbian, transexual and queer brothers and sisters in the besieged Gaza Strip in Palestine.

The besieged people of Gaza have just undergone a horrific bombardment which has claimed many lives and injured many more.

Some might ask: what does this have to do with gay and lesbian rights? Well, do you think that bombs discriminate between gays and straights? Bombs kill indiscriminately.

Gaza has been blockaded for many years. Israel controls the movement of all supplies: food, medicines, fuel, building materials, clothes… everything. There are no separate convoys, with pink triangle or rainbow flag markings, delivering the necessities of life only to those who are gay or lesbian or transexual in Gaza.

Equally significant is the effect of the blockade on the queer movement in Palestine, including in the Gaza strip. Yes, there is a queer movement in Palestine. Their organisations include Aswat, Al Qaws and Palestinian Queers for BDS.

The blockade of Gaza, the Israeli military checkpoints in the West Bank, the heavily controlled movement of Palestinians between the occupied territories, Jerusalem and inside the expansionist borders of Israel makes the movement of Palestinian queer activists very difficult, often impossible.

It is shameful that the mainstream Israeli gay and lesbian organisations are complicit with the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. They lend their name, their cause, their rights, to the Israeli propaganda machine. Israel tells the world that Israel is a beacon of light, of democracy, a haven for gay men and lesbians. It seeks to make people believe that this is in contrast to backward, baabaric Palestinian and other Arab countries. It wants us to support it, and to oppose Palestinians, because unlike other Arab countries, gays and lesbians in Israel are free. This is what is called the Pinkwashing of Israel.

Many will be surprised to know that homosexuality in Palestine, under the Jordanian mandate, was decriminalised in the 1956. In Israel this did not happen until 1988. You see, when a society, such as Palestine, is invaded, occupied, colonised, and its people are oppressed, this tends to have a very conservatising effect on the social mores of the oppressed population. So when Israeli propaganda uses homosexuality as a tool with which to attack Palestinians, this enables conservative Palestinian forces to target homosexuality with more impunity. When Israeli police blackmail Palestinian homosexual men to force them to become spies and informers, in the eyes of most Palestinians all gay men become suspect. This is a deliberate policy by the Iraeli police forces.

In other words Israel is actively complicit in the oppression of Palestinian gay men, lesbians, transexuals and queers.

But, as I mentioned already, there is a Palestinian gay and lesbian movement. In South Africa, during the great struggle against Apartheid, the active participation of gays and lesbians in the struggle for liberation was a major factor in the fact that the Constitution of South Africa today provides protection from discrimination for gays and lesbians. In the same way, this can be achieved in Palestinian society by the active struggle of Palestinian queers against Israeli Apartheid.

And just like in the struggle against South African Apartheid international gay and lesbian solidarity also played a big role in gaining South African gays and lesbians recognition in their own country, likewise our international solidarity with Palestine will, at the same time, be of immeasureable benefit for Palestinian gay men, lesbians, transexuals and queers.

So I urge you all, today, to express your solidarity with all the besieged people of Gaza. The national liberation of the Palestinian people and their sexual liberation are inseparable.

More on Same Sex Marriage in the Maltese Australian newspaper The Maltese Herald

When I took on the debate with Paul Calleja another person – P. Borġ, of undisclosed gender – waded into the fray. As can be seen from his/her letters the arguments are weak but, significantly, they betray prejudices that the writer does not even seem to be aware.

                                           ***

P. Borġ, The Maltese Herald 31/07/12

Dear Sir,

I hate to get on the band wagon and talk about same sex marriage. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary it says, “Marriage: condition of man and woman legally united for purpose of living together and usu….. etc.”

I am sure that, like me, there are plenty of others who have nothing against gays. It’s their life and I hope they live it happily. However there shouldn’t be any impositions on others or any extraordinary claims.

What I am against is the word MARRIAGE. If they want to make it legal to live together for whatever reason, they should have a BINDING CONTRACT and also an avenue to break the contract according to the same law as DIVORCE. Otherwise if you are gay, good luck to you and enjoy whatever is your fancy.

                                         ***

Michael Schembri, The Maltese Herald 07/08/12

Dear editor,

P. Borġ's prejudice (TMH 31/07/12) leads him/her to some very twisted logic. Apparently same sex marriage would be an imposition. How? Is anyone pointing a gun to his/her head to force him/her to marry someone of the same sex? The real imposition, on the other hand, is one where heterosexuals can get married if they choose to, but homosexuals cannot.

P. Borġ attempts to make an academic argument; he/she quotes the Concise Oxford Dictionary. P. Borġ conveniently forgets or ignores one basic fact about language: language changes over time and dictionaries can only try to keep up. A dictionary is not a Book of Dogma.

P. Borġ's argument boils down to this: I have nothing against gays but... That "but" says it all. Discrimination by any other term remains discrimination. What's good for the goose evidently is not good for the gander.

                                           ***

P. Borġ, The Maltese Herald 28/08/12

Dear Sir,

Michael Schembri seems to enjoy twisting facts to suit himself. I am only against using the word marriage. Marriage is a bond between two normal people (a male and a female) to fit in, in a legal way to suit the State and not necessary the church or any other people or governments.

I have a right to disagree. That is why I suggested a binding contract for a better word, to obtain legal rights if you have any.

Michael enjoys his lifestyle and good luck to him and he admitted after 16 years, that he is not contemplating marriage. I am sorry, but this is my belief. The word marriage between same sex people is off limits.

                    
                                         ***

Michael Schembri, The Maltese Herald 04/09/12

Dear Editor,

P. Borġ (TMH 28/08/12) is entitled to his/her opinion. I am entitled to my opinion of his/her opinion. To disagree with an opinion is not to deny its right to be held.

Likewise P. Borġ has the right to believe he/she is "normal". Whether that is true or not is, again, a matter of opinion.

Same Sex Marriage: a debate in the Maltese Australian newspaper The Maltese Herald

The Maltese Herald is an Australian Maltese community newspaper. One of its regular contributors is Paul Calleja, who lives in the state of Western Australia. In early 2011 Paul published a rather nasty anti-gay/lesbian article which I responded to. In July of this year he published another article which focused exclusively on his opposition to same-sex marriage. Again I wrote in challenging his retrograde views. Below is the exchange of letters between Paul and myself.

                                            ***

Paul Calleja, The Maltese Herald 10/07/12

Dear Sir,

There are two indisputable realities in the debate about gay marriage.

The first is that, the homosexual lobby attempts to promote its campaign for so-called “gay marriage” as a justice issue when they are fully aware it is not. Australian legislation now allows same-sex couples equal access to adoption procedures and in vitro fertilization. In addition, they gave same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples in such areas as transfer of property, medical treatment, superannuation and inheritance upon the death of a partner. If the homosexual lobby claims that they receive less than heterosexual couples they should identify the service they are referring to. A blanket claim of injustice or prejudice is simply, dishonest.

The second reality is that, the true intent of the homosexual campaign is to change the definition of marriage and thereby make so-called “gay marriage” synonymous with that between members of the opposite sex, which clearly it is not. One has the capacity to produce offspring and the other simply does not. Nature deems it this way in both cases. So they cannot, with any level of truthfulness, be considered to be synonymous just as homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are not considered synonymous. It follows therefore, that legal union between same-sex couples should not be referred to as marriage, because this would be dishonest and also inaccurate.

                                       
                                              ***

Michael Schembri The Maltese Herald 24/07/12

Dear Editor,

I wish to reply to Paul Calleja’s letter in the TMH 10/07/12.

This is the second time, to my knowledge, that Paul has demonstrated his anti-gay sentiments in this paper. I struggle to understand the reason for this irrational hostility towards us.

I have lived with my male partner for close on 16 years. Personally I am not dying to get married. It simply is not something I care for. It is ironic that I find myself having to defend same sex marriage, but I feel obliged to given this reactionary statement in a public forum.

There is good reason why there should be full separation between Church and State. If the Church chooses to define the ‘sanctity’ of marriage as one between men and women, I’ll leave that struggle to Catholic homosexuals. However as far as the State is concerned, yes, I do expect absolutely no discrimination. So if marriage is available to Paul it should be available to all other adults. Marriage is not defined by the ability to have offspring; if it were then it should be denied to those heterosexuals who get married with no intention of having children. And it is legal for women past childbearing age to get married, as it is for couples who are unable to have children. On the other hand it is sheer ignorance to think that gay men and lesbians cannot have children (through artificial insemination, previous relationships, adoption etc.)

Appealing to Nature is not very wise. Do other animals sign a marriage contract to be recognised by society?

And it’s not as if so many heterosexual marriages do not fall apart.

I fail to understand what Paul stands to loose were same sex marriage to be recognised by the State. Is anyone challenging his marriage? So why does he not get on with his life and stop trying to impose his morals on us?

                                               ***

Paul Calleja, The Maltese Herald 07/08/12

Dear Sir,

I thank Michael Schembri for his measured and honest response (TMH 24 July) to my earlier views on so called ‘gay marriage’. However, Michael seems to have missed my two main assertions.

The first was the gay marriage debate is not a justice issue because legislation already exists to protect economic and legal interests of homosexual couples to the same extent as heterosexual couples, be they married or de facto. The ‘justice’ slant of this debate is a fabrication of the pro gay lobby to exploit the sympathy sentiments of the Australian community. My letter was intended to alert the readers to this dishonest political ploy. Regrettably, Michael made no reference to this assertion in his response and neither did any readers of the West Australian newspaper after my letter was published as the editor’s lead letter.

My second assertion was that the legal union of a same sex couple is different from an opposite sexed couple and I gave reasons for that belief. I never claimed opposition to same sex legal union but simply asserted that the union should be recognised under a name other than marriage because it was different.

Opponents to this view would accuse me of being pedantic but there is more to the gay lobby wanting to use the term marriage for a same sex union than meets the eye. By referring to both types of legal union with the same name necessarily concedes that the two unions are synonymous – but synonymous they are not. The function of reproduction is one of the principal purposes of marriage. It is not a prerequisite or a mandatory component but it is accepted a fundamental because the survival of the species depends on it. This is not a value judgement but a matter of fact. Hence, as different legal unions each ought to be identified by a different term and anything less than this is dishonest and inaccurate.

The term ‘marriage’ was always allocated to heterosexual couples in all cultures, religious or otherwise, since unions of a male and female were first recognised and sanctioned with ceremony many centuries ago. This may be inconvenient for the pro gay lobby but it is true, and we should always run with the truth because it is a thing that will set us free. Therefore, the gay lobby should end their political humbug and coin their own term to identify a same sex union.

                                             ***

Michael Schembri, The Maltese Herald 28/08/12

Dear Editor,

Paul Calleja wrote (TMH 7/08/12) that I did not address part of his argument against same sex marriage. Here is my response to his letter.

Paul separates what he refers to as justice issues from marriage. He claims homosexual couples have equal economic and legal rights as heterosexual couples. Let's put aside that the accuracy of this statement varies from state to state and federally in Australia (and certainly untrue for many countries beyond.)

First off I would point out that these rights were not given to us magnanimously but were struggled for by the gay, lesbian and transgender movement over a period of decades. Paul intimates that there is more to what he calls the gay lobby than meets the eye. Actually, all gay and lesbian organisations I have ever dealt with have been very upfront about their agendas. There is nothing sinister about our 'lobby' (which in fact is made up of a myriad of organisations, many of which do not necessarily agree with each other on every point.)

In any event there is nothing untoward in having a 'lobby.' Ethnic communities do, as do workers, employers, churches and so on.
The second point is that nowadays many heterosexuals choose not to get married. The 'family' in modern times takes many shapes - married couples with children, others married without children, de facto couples, single parents (whether by choice or otherwise), same sex couple and so on - and this is reflected in the legal forms of recognition that they receive from the State. And of course married couples are free to divorce. This means that, in this day and age, marriage is not a must, even for purposes of procreation. It therefore leads us to the conclusion that people choose to get married for any number of reasons. Some believe that it is the proper thing to do if they wish to raise a family. Others - I would suggest most if not all - seek the recognition and legitimacy they believe marriage confers on their relationship. My point here is that, whether Paul likes it or not, the legal and moral links between marriage and procreation have been severed. It is precisely the changes to heterosexual marriage and the laws that regulate it that have now made it logical for same sex couples to also demand the same recognition through marriage, irrespective of whether children are involved in the relationship or not.

I must admit I was flabbergasted that Paul would link marriage to the survival of the species. Not only because, as stated above, many heterosexuals choose to have children out of wedlock, but also because there is no correlation between being gay/lesbian and not having children. A surprising number of homosexuals do have children. Paul can rest assured that our species is not in danger of dying out - unless it is through global warming or other such human-made disasters.

Paul makes a big issue of stating only the facts. But then he claims that marriage was "allocated to heterosexual couples in all culture, religious or otherwise, since unions of a male and a female were first recognised and sanctioned with ceremony many centuries ago." With this claim he demonstrates an ignorance of history and anthropology.

Many non-Western societies have had a range of interesting ways of recognising same sex relationships.

In the West, for thousands of years, marriage was of necessity heterosexual because it was based purely on political and economic reasons. To quote historian Stephanie Coontz, who specialises in the history of the family, marriage was, for centuries, “about sealing political alliances and business deals, gaining well-placed in-laws, making the family workplace more productive through the labor of one's children, and making sure that only legitimate children, born to a parentally sanctioned match, had any claim on the family's property.

Coontz also points out that it was the early Catholic Church which ruled that the validity of marriage did not depend on the ability of a couple to procreate. It was only in 1215 that the Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament and it was in 1563 that it began to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage legitimate.

There is a limit to how many historical facts I can cite in a letter. But I suggest that the facts prove the contrary to Paul's uneducated claims, and they therefore reduce his claims to nothing more than prejudice. History supports those who he claims are showing political humbug.

                                                 ***

As a sideline to this debate another person – P. Borġ - wrote in opposing same sex marriage. This shorter debate will be published in another post.

IL-ĠMIEL LI ĦALLEJT WARAJJA

Kull fil-għodu, kif inqum, kont nittawwal mit-tieqa ‘l barra. Quddiemna t-triq kienet għadha mħarbta, żrar, ġebel u terrapien. Ix-xogħol fuq il-B’Kara Bypass kien għadu fil-bidu tiegħu. Kont nittawwal lejn daqxejn ta’ xitla għolja inqas minn 30 cm. Kellha fjura waħda, bajda. Kul fil-għodu kont nagħtiha titwila u nifraħ biha. U kuljum napprezza li rnexxielha tikber qalb dik il-ħerba, minkejja n-nuqqas ta’ ħamrija.

Xi ġimgħatejn qabel emigrajt minn Malta għall-Awstralja, fl-1986, waqqafni ċertu professur fil-fakultà tal-edukazzjoni. Qalli kemm jien ixxurtjat se mmur ngħix f’pajjiż fejn hemm ambjent naturali sabiħ. Mhux bħal Malta. Urejtu li ma qbiltx miegħu. Għidtlu li l-ambjent Malti sabiħ wkoll. “Mela qatt ma sifirt?” staqsieni. “Dażgur,” weġibtu. “U għalhekk kapaċi nagħraf dak li għandha x’toffri Malta.”

Il-ġmiel tan-natura f’Malta dejjem laqatni. Nibqa’ niftakar meta ħabib mill-għaqda tal-għasafar (illum imsejħa Birdlife) kien qalli li f’Malta l-għadd ta’ speċi ta’ pjanti li jagħmlu l-fjuri huwa ikbar milli fl-Ingilterra.

Il-Qabru

Dik il-ħabta, fit-Tmeninijiet, kien instab granċ tal-ilma ħelu. Il-lokal fejn instab ma kienx ġie nxandar, għax kienu Alla m’għamlu dan l-imsejken granċ! Il-qabru (il-Granċ tal-Ilma Ħelu) jinsab biss fil-gżejjer Maltin.



Il-wiżgħa ta' Malta, Għawdex u Kemmuna

Il-qabru mhwiex l-unika ħlejqa li tinsab biss f’Malta. Hemm il-wiżgħa. Din għandha kuluri jvarjaw minn gżira għall-oħra. Sottospeċi waħda tinsab f’Malta, Għawdex u Kemmuna. Oħra tinsab fuq Filfla. It-tielet waħda tinsab fuq il-gżejjer ta’ San Pawl u r-raba’ waħda fuq il-Ġebla tal-Ġeneral.

L-ambjent Malti jgħaxxaqni. X’hemm isbaħ mix-xagħri għeri, bix-xtieli tipiċi bħalma huwa s-sagħtar? U mbagħad x’kuntrast joffri mal-baħar kaħlani Mediterranju!

L-istaġuni joffru l-varjetà tul is-sena. Għalija l-għaxqa tiegħi meta tinżel l-ewwel xita li tikser in-nixfa tas-sajf. Mill-lejl għan-nhar il-gżejjer Maltin kważi jinbidlu. S’issa x-xtieli kollha kienu maħruqin. Imma issa l-ħamrija niexfa tieħu lewn skur u minna tinbet ħdura ġdida. Nibda nieħu nifs qawwi wara ieħor biex nimla l-pulmun bl-arja friska. U mbagħad jitfaċċa n-nemel itir, biex imur ifittex fejn jista’ jbejjed.



Darba minnhom uħud minna fl-għaqda tal-għasafar ħadna koċċ tfal Ta’ Ċenċ, Għawdex. Morna hemm biex tul il-lejl nisimgħu liċ-ċief dieħel mill-baħar biex ibejjed fuq l-irdum. Iċ-ċiefa għandha għajta li ssaħħrek – qisha bikja ta’ tarbija. Kien lejl li ma ninsieh qatt.

L-għajta taċ-ċiefa

Iċ-ċiefa

Wara sitta u għoxrin fl-Awstralja fl-aħħar mort żort lil Malta. Ħafna qaluli li ftit fadal kampanja. Imma jien bqajt, bħal dari, mistagħġeb kemm għad hemm kampanja f’dawn il-blatiet żgħar. U ftakart f’dak il-professur. Jien kont tlaqt minn Malta. Hu baqa’ hemm. Nittama li tul dawn is-snin għaraf li fejn baqa’ igħix hemm ġmiel naturali li bħalu ma ssib imkien ieħor.



“Made in Australia” – tfal ta’ imigranti, imwelldin fl-Awstralja

Malta għandha l-problemi tagħha fejn jidħol it-tagħlim u l-użu tal-Malti fost it-tfal. F’pajjiż bħall-Awstralja t-tfal tal-imigranti jiffaċċjaw problemi oħrajn. Fost il-kommunità Griega għandi l-impressjoni li għalihom m’hemmx xi problema serja, għax ħafna minnhom fi tfulithom imorru skejjel tal-ilsien Grieg, ġeneralment fi tmiem il-ġimgħa. Gruppi etniċi oħrajn għandhom esperjenzi differenti. Milli naqra fil-gazzetta Maltija Awstraljana The Maltese Herald ħadt x’nifhem li m’hemmx ħafna tfal li jmorru jitgħallmu l-Malti fl-iskejjel tal-ilsien Malti. Iżda dan mhux xi qasam li naf wisq dwaru.

Hawn se nirrakkonta x’ġara fil-każ ta’ żewġt itfal li twieldu l-Awstralja, wieħed minn ġenituri Maltin u ieħor minn missier Anglo-Awstraljan u omm Indoneżjana.

L-ismijiet f’dar-rakkont bdilthom kollha, ħlief dak ta' sieħbi Danny.



Maltese Language School of Adelaide


Duncan

Oħti kellha l-ewwel tarbija daqs 18-il sena ilu. L-ewwel wieħed kien tifel. Semmewh Duncan. Il-ġenituri tagħna u aħna t-tliet aħwa lkoll ġejna l-Awstralja flimkien. Bejtnietna bil-Malti bqajna nitkellmu. Mal-wasla ta’ Duncan sibnieha ħaġa naturali li niddeċiedu b’liema lsien se nkellmuh. Meta ngħid aħna nfisser ommu u misieru, missierna u ommna (in-nanniet tiegħu) u jien.

Iddeċidejna li nkellmuh bil-Malti. Ir-raġunar tagħna kien hekk:

Fl-Awstralja, ħlief mal-familja, dat-tifel kullimkien kien se jisma’ l-Ingliż mitkellem – fit-triq, fil-park waqt il-logħob ma’ tfal oħrajn, fuq it-televiżjoni, l-iskola… Mela mhux se jkollu problema jitgħallem l-Ingliż. Iżda għarafna li jekk ma jitgħallimx il-Malti fid-dar, mela qatt mhu se jitgħallmu.

Dal-fatt konna nafuh mill-esperjenza tal-kuġini tiegħi li twieldu l-Awstralja. Uħud minnhom forsi jġaħġħu xi frażi ‘l hawn u ‘l hinn. U dejjem b’aċċent li jqalliblek l-istonku! Jifhmu l-Malti xi ftit jew wisq (għalkemm deherli li iktar ftit milli wisq.) U naħseb li din hija l-esperjenza ta’ ħafna tfal Maltin li twieldu l-Awstralja.

Fost iz-zijiet mhux kulħadd qabel magħna. Kien hemm min ħaseb li għax kellu l-Ph.D jaf aħjar minna, u avżana li se niżvantaġġjawh lil dat-tifel. Iżda jien kont naf li t-tfal żgħar kapaċi jixorbu iktar minn ilsien wieħed. U tagħna għaddiet.

Kien moment interessanti ferm meta Duncan, meta kien ġa beda jitkellem xi ftit, iltaqa’ ma’ koċċ tfal jilgħabu fuq il-bandli. Meta pprova jkellimhom ma fehmuhx. U huma lilu ma fehmuhx lanqas. Infexx jibki. Imma ma damx wis biss ftit ftit beda jaqbad l-Ingliż u wara ftit taż-żmien kien qisu mhux hu jilgħab u jitħaddet mal-istess tfal!

Duncan illum għadu jitkellem il-Malti ma’ Maltin oħrajn. Għax minn tad-dar tgħallem li m’għandux minn xiex jistħi. Ikolli nżid ngħid li l-Malti tiegħu m’huwiex estiż wisq, għas-sempliċi raġuni li l-firxa u l-għadd ta’ Maltin li jiltaqa’ magħhom u l-esperjenzi tiegħu bil-Malti huma limitati. Lanqas ma’ tgħallem jikteb u jaqra bil-Malti.

Iżda bqajt nieħu sodisfazzjon kbir kull meta xi Malti Awstraljan jibqa’ mistagħġeb kemm Duncan, li twieled l-Awstralja, jaf jitkellem bil-Malti.

Skola Maltija Wollongong

Joseph

Chen Chen kienet ġiet iżżur lili u li sieħbi Danny, li jiġi z-ziju tagħha, minn Ġakarta, l-Indoneżja. Fil-ftit ġimgħat li damet magħna ltaqgħet ma’ Mario, u t-tnejn inġibdu lejn xulxin mill-ewwel. Meta Chen Chen marret lura Ġakarta Mario mar iżurha spiss f’pajjiżha, u fl-aħħar iżżewġu hemmhekk stess u ġiet lura miegħu b’visa tar-residenza.

Kważi tmien snin ilu kellhom tifel – Joseph. Dan għall-ewwel dera jisma’ kemm lil missieru jitkellem bl-Ingliż u lil ommu titkellem bl-Indoneżjan. Iżda meta beda jitkellem, bl-Ingliż beda jinqeda.

Għall-ewwel ommu ma ddejqitx. L-Ingliż tagħha baqa’ xi ftit jew wisq batut, anke jekk maż-żmien tjieb xi ftit. Imma meta t-tifel beda jmur l-iskola tan-nuna ntebħet li ma setgħetx tlaħħaq mal-Ingliż tiegħu. Jum minnhom qalitlu li ma kenitx se twieġbu jekk ma jkellimhiex bl-Indoneżjan. Għall-ewwel ħadha bi kbira, u tgħidx kemm beka. Imma malajr dara u llum jitkellem tajjeb ħafna kemm bl-Ingliż kif ukoll bl-Indoneżjan.

Darba fis-sena jmur ma’ ommu u missieru l-Indoneżja. Hemm iqattgħu bejn erba’ u sitt ġimgħat. B’hekk iġedded ir-rabta tiegħu mal-familja Indoneżjana, speċjalment ma’ nanntu. U kuġini ma’ min jilgħab għandu kemm irid. Allura permezz taż-żjarat tiegħu fl-Indoneżja jkompli jsaħħaħ l-użu tiegħu tal-ilsien Indoneżjan.

Inċident wieħed jibqa’ frisk f’moħħi. Darba, xi ftit tas-snin ilu, għidtlu xi ħaġa bl-Indoneżjan mill-ftit li tgħallimt jien. Baqa’ jħares lejja mistagħġeb. Imbagħad staqsieni għala qed nitkellem bl-Indoneżjan. Għax f’moħħu kien daħħalha li l-Indoneżjan huwa mitkellem mill-Indoneżjani biss, u l-bqija jitkellmu bl-Ingliż.

                                             *
Postscript

Ftit tax-xhur ilu iz-ziju li ma kienx qabel li n-neputi tiegħi nderruh bil-Malti staqsieni fejn bintu tista' ssib kotba biex titgħallem il-Malti. Bintu hija tfajla miżżewġa bit-tfal. Sliftu l-ktieb Teach Yourself Maltese ta' Ġużè Aquilina. Illejla kont qed nitkellem m'oħti fuq it-telefon. U mingħandha sirt naf li l-kuġina trid titgħallem il-Malti għax sabet li sħabha kollha li m'mhumiex Anglo-Awstraljani (i.e. li l-familja tagħħom hija Taljana, Yugoslava, Griega eċċ) kollha jafu jitkellmu bl-ilsien tagħhom. Hi biss ma tafx. Iz-ziju ammetta m'oħti li dawk is-snin kollha ilu aħna kellna raġun.

                                             *                   
Jekk int qarrej ta' dil-kitba u tixtieq tgħaddili kumment, merħba bik.