Our police should be concerned with facts and stop attacking humanity to appease self-indulgent politicians and a mob of activists.

The fact that Fr. David Muscat is going to be dragged to court for writing the word ‘gayyaġni” or stating that being gay is worse than being possessed does not make a person homophobic. One may like or dislike Fr. Muscat, but the law is not something applied ad hominem i.e against a particular person because he/she happens to be disliked by politicians or a mob of activists. The law should be there to protect and defend one and all.

In this case, the reason for Fr. Muscat being dragged to court does not arise from what he wrote but because there is a section of the population, amidst both Labourite and Daphne supporters who thoroughly dislike him. But then should we be surprised considering all the hate speech writing of those Daphne disliked? It is up to their street.  

Oddly enough, what Fr. David Muscat succeeded in achieving is to reconcile these two opposing factions  – Repubblika and Labour. Both diehard Labourites and Repubblika[ns] dislike him and both are clamouring for his blood.

This is why one needs to focus on facts. And it is here where I disagree with those Government ministers who are pronouncing themselves on this case. They are stating that Fr. Muscat has broken the Law. But which law has he broken? What Fr. David Muscat has done is to create a neologism because to my knowledge the word “gayyaġni” does not exist in Maltese so I fail to see how “gayyagni” is being defined as a homophobic word. Hence, tkun gay or qiegħed fl-istat ta’ gay is linguistically and legally correct in Maltese. But were I to replace this long sentence and use one word “gayyaġni”, then it becomes unacceptable and I am accused of being homophobic!

And here I digress for a moment on the word homophobic. Do these attackers happen to know when the word homophobia entered the English language? I doubt it, otherwise, they would put their grey matter to far better use. Homophobia was coined in 1972 by George Weinberg an American clinical psychologist. As for the adjective homophobic, it is interpreted as having or showing dislike towards gay people, or treating them unfairly. Can somebody explain to me how precisely has Fr David treated anyone unfairly?  

The fact that Fr. Muscat stated that being gay is worse than being possessed does not mean anything. Again wherein lies homophobia in this statement? There are individuals in Malta who pride themselves on being possessed by the Devil and there is also a Devil worship cult. Therefore, a simple statement that could have meaning in any religion should bear no significance in a secular society. One needs to accept that what our legislators have done is to completely secularize and dechristianize Malta within a very short space of time. Therefore, what value do such statements have in a secular State? All these LGBTIQ rights were being sold by people who made it their mission to dechristianize Maltese society and they have succeeded. Hence, a secular person should not give two hoots whether someone is possessed by the devil or not. There are branches of science that define those possessed by the devil as suffering from mental disorders. There are those who insist that they have a right to adore the Devil ergo evil. Therefore, why hasn’t the media accused Fr. Muscat of pronouncing hate speech against Devil worshippers? We are living in a pluralistic society where everyone and anyone has the right to practice whatever religion or cult one wishes.

What is certain is that there is nothing criminal in Fr. Muscat’s statement. One could say that it was a stupid remark (but I don’t think it was) but there again any stupid reply to a comment on Facebook by its descriptive nature of being stupid cannot be considered criminal.  

The problem here is that this is an uncommon case. Yet it is indeed a highly politically motivated case. The police were egged on to press charges against Fr. Muscat. For this reason, and especially with what we have been witnessing of late, a priori condemnation by politicians and activists cannot lead to a serene and fair trial. There is a risk that our courts will ignore the fact that there is nothing homophobic in that statement.  Similarly, they are not likely to be as apolitical and objective as they ought to be.  

Furthermore, this case is already prejudiced. Some Ministers and even the Archbishop have already declared Fr Muscat guilty. The media and some politicians have a vested interest to make Muscat appear guilty. But his only guilt is that of upholding the Roman Catholic Doctrine. Malta purports to be a free country but the reality is that she is not as we have been witnessing at regular intervals.  Those who do not like such doctrine have a right and are free to move on but they do not have the right to gag Catholics, or anyone else for that matter, from expressing their views because it is not music to their ears conveniently forgetting, by the wayside, that there are many other religions and cults that do not take kindly to LGBTIQ activism which at the end of the day is only a sign of an inferiority complex. Otherwise, they would get on being whatever they want and chose to be and stop craving for centre stage and turning vicious when they don’t get the applause they expect.  

The problem with Fr. Muscat’s case is that those accusing him feel that he has written something to which they strongly object. Therefore, he needs to be punished, humiliated, and destroyed!

This is nothing more than a fanatical attack on basic democracy – freedom of expression.

This is why this is a serious attack on humankind by our politicians, our archbishop, and the police, using Fr. David Muscat as the scapegoat to create another circus show.

2 comments

  1. I agree that what he wrote is not a criminal act. BUT they were words of great intolerance and he showed lack of love and charity towards gay people, thus hurting them and their families. The archbishop was right to condemn such words as they go against our Catholic faith ,love your neighbour as yourself, plus this came from a priest, who should teach love not hate.
    I am no Labourite nor a Daphne fan . On the contrary.

  2. Spot on Mr Mercieca. I fully agree with your post! I really hope that many people will realize where this new age movement is taking us!

Leave a Reply