DON’T PROMOTE GAY CONVERSION UNLESS YOU ARE “TAGHNA LKOLL, FUQNA LKOLL”
by a Blog Reader
Militant gays are the new gods of Malta. They are empowered to crucify those who are different from them. Mentioning gays in a non-flattering light is now worse than blasphemy. If you don’t want to get in legal trouble, “don’t say gay.”
This is how freedom of speech has crumbled in Malta under a draconian law and a corrupt government that unleashes the police to terrorize free Christian thought and curtails the law when Christians strike back in defense of equal rights. The law is supposed to protect both religion and homosexuality from spite but so far only one of the two triggers prison sentences and exorbitant fines. Try to use the same law to protect Christians and the government will march in brushing off the insulted and afflicted as extremists. Under the name of equality, “tagħna lkoll, fuqna lkoll” are more equal than others.
“Advertising” under Maltese law is very broad in its definition, to include “publishing… displaying, distributing, referral and circulation of any material promoting [gay conversion] practice.” Gay conversion is illegal in Malta. A Maltese Christian, an ex-gay, was interviewed on PMNews about his successful gay conversion experience. The programme aired without a hitch on the tiny TV station and had next to no audience judging by the station’s ratings. Like so many low-budget programs, it faded away, right away.
However, a man by the name of Silvan Agius had other thoughts and reported the programme to the police as it was his right. But he didn’t stop there. Three weeks after the program aired and the advertising for it had stopped, he sent a link to the TV programme to the Malta Gay Rights Movement (MGRM) knowing that it would cause consternation among the gays. In other words, he decided to start advertising (as defined under Maltese law) for the gay conversion programme. At MGRM, this link spread like wildfire. This second wave of advertising hit its target in the eye.
We heard this past week, from one of the members, a queer, how she wasn’t aware of the TV station and were it not for Silvan Agius’ link she wouldn’t have watched the programme. She described how the programme triggered her to those days in her younger years when she felt a sense of guilt for feeling attracted to other girls. If anyone is to blame for bringing the gay conversion programme to her attention, it was Silvan Agius. Silvan Agius is no simpleton. He is a member of the cabinet of the EU Commissioner for Equality Helena Dalli.
The TV station had advertised the programme, Block 1 in the following diagram, and stopped as soon as the programme was over. But after a three-week hiatus, Agius triggered what is known as “flighting” in advertising scheduling. He started advertising the program again, as seen in Block 2. Flighting refers to the period when advertising is being run, while the cessation period is known as a hiatus. PMNews was responsible for the first block of advertising. Agius was responsible for the second block of advertising. The second block turned out to be much more effective because Agius went after a new target market, Maltese homosexuals. Homosexuals are the prime target market for gay conversion programmes and Agius stuck it to them as only he knows how to.
How Agius used flighting to promote the program
The police should investigate Agius for initiating a second wave of advertising for the gay conversion programme. The police should also investigate the Commission’s potential role in promoting the programme if he associated himself with the Commission in writing to MGRM. The office of the Commissioner of Equality, Helena Dalli’s, should also explain how one of its own advertised gay conversion in Malta. Chapter 3 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is about equality before the law. Agius calls himself an equality expert. He reported FMNews to the police for their advertising. It’s about time he reports himself too, both to the police and to his employer, all in the name of equality. The last audible voice should be that of an equality expert claiming equality is not applicable in his case.