My reply to Tim Diacono regarding my blog: “Profs Simon Mercieca is called a liar while Lovin Malta pushes the agenda of the gayyaġni while attacking River of Love.”
By Marica Micallef
Dear Mr Diacono, clearly, you misunderstood my piece.
I will again quote the blog’s part which you labelled and described as defamatory, and then explain, while spoon feeding its entire analysis. All I am doing is speaking up for a Christian community which Lovin Malta and all other media portals have been targeting and bombarding for days on end now:
“But according to Lovin Malta, the claim that this pastor does not practise conversion therapy is to be made fun of and “any claims that they do are barefaced lies.” Because it is fine for Lovin Malta to spread its lies in its woke and liberal propaganda, but then, others who are under the media’s attack, cannot explain themselves. So, in Lovin Malta’s opinion, pastor Gordon Manche is a liar because he is accusing the mainstream media of making claims which are barefaced lies. How hypocritical of the media!”
The statement “any claims that they do are barefaced lies” was also put in inverted commas by myself like you did, because, maybe you did not realise, that I did realise that that was a statement which Pastor Gordon Manche wrote in Maltese in his piece. So, in my first sentence, I quoted what you quoted. I read the articles very well, before I write, you know.
Here, it is apt to ask, why, from all statements that Pastor Gordon Manche wrote, did you put that in your article’s caption? Why didn’t you put his biblical quote, for example? Wasn’t it a way, perhaps, in my opinion, to make him a laughing stock, again, of the masses, whose comments show that they do not believe the pastor’s claim? By now, I am sure that you are experienced in the fact that many people, do not read the article but just fire comments from reading the title and the caption.
Secondly, the sentence before the last one reads “So, in Lovin Malta’s opinion, pastor Gordon Manche is a liar because he is accusing the mainstream media of making claims which are barefaced lies.” Didn’t I here specify that this was Pastor Gordon Manche’s statement, who is defending himself from all those who claim that his fellowship practises gay conversion therapy? In this contest, it is such claim about the pastor which is defamatory!
Thirdly, I stated “in Lovin Malta’s opinion, pastor Gordon Manche is a liar” which means, that it is an opinion and is something that can’t ever really be empirically proven true or false.
So, in what way is my blog defamatory? Haven’t articles about River of Love and Pastor Gordon Manche been published ad nauseam, simply because Matthew Grech attends such a fellowship, so to twist the public’s opinion about this community, and because the media portals know very well how to use the simple power of hypnotic repetition effectively, since repetition builds pathways in the brain of the masses who in turn will create, in this case, hatred patterns against this Christian community? This is one of the ways how the mainstream media forms your opinion. Which investigation led the media to conclude that Matthew Grech is no longer gay because he attends River of Love, which by default, hints that it was River of Love that converted him? Isn’t this conclusion defamatory?
It is already enough that we have a good percentage of the masses which makes fun of this Christian community and hates it with passion, for no reason at all. At the end of the day, River of Love does not publish any articles pushing an agenda.
And in what way is my blog defamatory, when in the most part of it, I defended River of Love’s right to exist and practise; when I defended Pastor Gordon Manche’s right to defend himself; when I referred to the fact that loads of “defamatory” words are used by people to attack Profs Simon Mercieca, which no local media portal condemns; when I showed that I have love towards people whose sexual orientation is different than mine and tackled other issues?
Why didn’t you all come out attacking the EU-sponsored journalist, Manuel Delia, when he defamed Simon Mercieca in his piece “Simon Mercieca is a menace to society”, among others?
Moreover, in which statement did I mention your name and say that you have called Gordon Manche a liar?
Is there something else which was not digested very well, by any chance?
And why do you refer to Profs Simon Mercieca in your right of reply as if he wrote the piece? I can understand that the right of reply is sent to him because he is the owner and founder of this site. But I don’t understand why I am not calculated and mentioned in your right of reply, when I am the writer of the blog you have issues with. Am I invisible? This is how women who don’t go well with the narrative and with the mainstream, are treated. They are cancelled.
Considering my arguments above, my blog is not defaming anyone and your right of reply, dear Mr Diacono, is just your unfounded, opinionated perception.
Above all, it is the local media which has to stop using subtle bullying tactics and defaming people like Fr David Muscat, Fr Luke Seguna, and the Dominican Priory of St Albert the Great College, tarnishing their credibility and themselves, while it had no scruples in calling Edwin Vassallo a dinosawru. Imma l-media titfa’ l-ġebla, u taħbi idha. How hypocritical! But Mr Diacono thinks that my statements are hypocritical. This is what in psychology is known as “double standards”.
On another note, it seems like the fact that I stated in the title that Lovin Malta is pushing the agenda of the gayyaġni, did not bother you. You never mentioned anything. Neither did you mention anything about the liberal, leftist and woke agendas which are pushed by the media. Any comments from your end, please, so you can make the public believe otherwise?
What I wrote, which I also explained again here, was exactly what you wrote in your right of reply. Hence, you misunderstood the whole piece and hence my blog is not causing any injury or damage to any character, in this case yourself, because, I repeat, I never even mentioned your name.
To all the readers who are reading this piece, I hope you understand how hypocrisy works: some have a right to defame others, but when others speak the truth, they are accused of defamation. Again, in psychology, this is called “double standards”. As stated in the conclusion of my blog, in the occult phrase “as above, so below” stage of inversion, this is when the truth becomes a lie and the lie becomes truth.
Let us allow the practise of freedom of speech, shall we, because what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
On a final note, I appreciate if Lovin Malta can explain to the nation why, when I was gently and kindly contacted via the phone by one of your journalists, back in 2020, after I took the initiative to call and was told that a journalist will call me back, to explain the experience of my father, its publication was refused. Was my dad’s story defamatory of the Covid-19 narrative and propaganda by any chance?
Mr Diacono, thank you and God bless you.