When contacted by this paper yesterday, Anti Cyber-harassment Alliance member Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando said that “Cyrus Engerer was one of the most valid local candidates in the forthcoming MEP elections. He has paid dearly for a mistake he made a number of years ago by withdrawing his candidature. I feel that he still has a lot to contribute to the country and admit to being saddened by the fact that there are those who seem to want to see him totally destroyed and ostracised.”

This paper also contacted the committee Chairman, and government MP, Deborah Schembri. She explained that the committee has not met for quite a while because of personal reasons and its members have not had time to disuss the Engerer case. As such the ACHA does not have a formal stand on the issue.

But speaking in her personal capacity, Dr Schembri said that one cannot call something wrong anything else. “If the courts found wrongdoing and issued a sentence that decision has to be honoured. The important thing is to distinguish between something that has been decided on by the courts and other repercussions, such as whether that person should be fired from his job. They are separate issues.”

The PL MP said that what she personally thinks about the court sentence is another issue. “But I will not go there because I have to respect the court ruling.”

LGBT Council chairman ‘Minister’s prerogative’ - MGRM

When asked whether Mr Engerer should be removed from his post of Chairman of the LGBT Council, MGRM coordinator and council member Gabi Calleja said: “it is the Minister's prerogative who to appoint as chair of the LGBT consultative council. We will work with whoever occupies this role in the best interests of LGBTI persons.”

Ms Calleja also argued that Mr Engerer’s crime was not homophobic. “An act is not homophobic because it is directed at a gay person but because it is directed at someone specifically because he or she is gay. In this case, our understanding of the case is that Cyrus Engerer has been convicted of an act towards his ex-boyfriend, not because he had a problem with the fact that his ex-partner was gay but because of their personal relationship and whatever lead to its breakdown. So, one may classify such an act as one of revenge but to call it homophobic is a misnomer. What would classify as a homophobic act is a reaction from those who saw the pornographic images and treated the ex-partner differently,  having found out he was gay. If one were to take the comparator of a heterosexual couple, a man who circulated pornographic images of his female partner would not be considered heterosexist. 

MGRM does hold that when and with whom to come out is a matter for any LGBT person to determine for him or herself and has always refused to publicly expose a person's sexual orientation. However, outing someone is not in and of itself a homophobic act since being gay is not a crime or a disease but simply a part of one's identity and there is, in effect, nothing wrong with being gay. 

Former partner says moral responsibility has been paid

In the meantime, the victim of the crime committed by Mr Engerer, his former partner Marvic Camilleri, made reference to the court sentencing on Thursday. Writing on Facebook, Mr Camilleri said: “A court ruling does not change anything when moral responsibility has been paid. The case has been dropped because I never wanted it to become a political ball.”