Jeħduh f’sormhom

Forsi din ma hix espressioni li l-grupp tal-facebook Kelma Kelma se jittratta b’daqstant faċilita. Mhux għax ma ħaqqhiex. Anzi. Naħseb li tikkwalifika sew bħala espressjoni mill-iprem fl-użu kurrenti tal-poplu Malti. In-natura ipokrita tal-Malti (il-bniedem mhux l-ilsien, jaħasra) ma tippermettix pero li titkellem dwar il-kurrenti u l-magħruf jekk il-kurrenti u l-magħruf huwa – kif isejħulu is-soċjologi – taboo. U s-sorm, kif kullħadd jaf, diġa huwa taboo minnu – aħseb u ara l-espressjoni li timplika teħid ta’ oġġetti mhux neċesarjament speċifikati fil-warrani.

F’kampanja elettorali bħal ma hi din is-sorm jispikka b’mod ubikwu mingħajr qatt ma jissemma. Filwaqt li fuq il-mezzi tax-xandir jagħmlu l-għolmu tagħhom biex jagħtu xejra ta’ diċenza u (għaliex le) serjeta professjonali f’kull dibattitu mimli retorika propagandistika, huwa fl-analiżi odjerna li ssir għand tal-grocer (kif xtaq Simon) li joħroġ veru l-ispirtu razzjonali tal-votant Malti u jissemma bil-bosta s-sorm (kif forsi ma xtaqx Simon).

“Smajtu lit-tali ilbieraħ? Ma felaħx jitkellem iktar minn sormu”. Kliem espliċitu, vera, imma indikazzjoni ċara tal-andament tal-affarijiet. L-apprezzament jaf ikun partiġġjan u jaf ikun diżilluż pero is-sorm hemm jibqa’. Tista’ ukoll taqa fir-redikolu venjali – l-isplapstick tas-satira – u tgħid li bilfors dak il-kliem kollu dwar il-gass minn x’imkien kellu joħroġ.

“Kemm se jdumu jeħduħ f’sormhom (bija – suġġettiv, bina – ġeneriku)?” Il-bżar fl-għajnejn, it-tlellix u x-xinxilli, iċ-ċejċa, il-propaganda u l-ispinn. Din l-espressjoni hija l-oażi ta’ rifuġju għal min xebgħa sal-ponta ta’ imnieħru bir-retorika antika, bil-wiegħdiet foloz u bir-riżma insulti għall intelliġenza. L-irkant tal-wiegħdiet forsi jaf jingħata post speċjali fil-mezzi tax-xandir – taf int, għal għajn in-nies – imma fil-privat il-proxxmu jiżżarma minn kull ewfemiżmu inutli u jfaqqa’ verżjoni mundana ta’ “Kemm se jdumu jeħduh f’għajnhom”.

Għax iva. L-għajn hija ewfemiżmu ukoll u tfakkar wisq fl-għajn bħala fonti jew sors li f’dal każ jissarraf biss f’sors ta’ inutilta … l-anti-google. Bħal meta tisma’, biex nagħti eżempju konkret, dik il-gidba dwar “id-dekriminalizzazzjoni tal-omosesswalita“. Ma nafx int imma demmi jibda jbqabaq. Bħal dak li qallhom kien krimini qabel l-1974 li tkun omosesswali. Mhux vera. Qed jieħduh f’sormhom bik meta jgħidulek hekk.

Il-krimini kien li proprja tieħdu f’sormok. Litteralment. U li tagħtih ukoll. L-orjentazzjoni sesswali kienet irrilevanti f’għajnejn il-leġiżlatur. Kien biss l-att – magħruf teknikament bħala sodomija – li kien illegali. Biex niftehmu sas-74 il-pufti (kif kellhom tendenza kerha isejħu lill-omosesswali dak iż-żmien) setgħu ikunu pufti kemm iridu. Li ma setgħux jagħmlu  kien l-att as-sodomoija. U mhux huma biss – għax teknikament jekk kont tinqabad fl-att ma kienx se joqgħod jistaqsi jekk intix pufta jew le. Ftakar li il-fetiċċju li tieħdu f’sormok jaf ma kienx limitat għall-irġiel biss. U le il-ktieb ma jismux “50 Shades of Gay“.

Illum għal grazzja kbira m’għadniex nużaw it-terminu pufta avolja li għal żmien twil wara’ kienu l-istess psewdo-liberali ta’ nofs is-sebgħinijiet li baqgħu jużawha bħala insult – insult li jsib il-benniena tiegħu fil-biża u fl-injuranza. Pero ftakar. Meta jgħidulek li iddekriminalizzaw l-omosesswalita ma jkunu qed jagħmlu xejn ħlief jeħduh f’sormhom. Bik. Għax issa legali hux.

Ħabib tiegħi jirrakkonta storja li taf tkun apokrifa dwar Duminku Mintoff. Meta kien ikun irrabjat b’xi problema kien jgħid “Min se jiġi ineħħili dan iż-ż* minn sormi u jsibli sorm ieħor fejn nitfgħu?” Inkredibbli. Mhux talli l-lingwaġġ huwa popolari u ġenwin iżda huwa anki rikonoxximent tal-irwol importanti tal-warrani fejn jidħlu problemi u soluzzjonijiet. Jispikka ukoll l-altruwiżmu ta’ Dear Dom li ma kienx se jħalli xi ż* jiġri mas-saqajn.

“Naħseb kien b’sormha meta ħareġ biha”. Għax il-kelma għandha mitt użu u l-għodda t-tajba tiswa mitqla deheb f’idejn l-imgħallem. B’sormha… għal darb’ oħra insibu ġustifikazzjoni għan-nuqqas ta’ sens. Għax jekk mhux qed jeħduh f’sormhom bik bi ħsieb allura forsi qed jiżbaljaw għax ħadu grokk żejjed il-każin.

Hemm qiegħdin. Wasalna f’punt fil-kampanja fejn iċ-ċittadin qed jirrikorri għall-espressjonijiet vernakulari iktar u iktar kull ma jmur. Iktar milli xebgħa huwa għajjien. Strafinit. Dak li jiġrilu. Jħalli lil min iħaddmu bi storbju, b’muntanja wiegħdiet u beżgħat. Minkejja li jaf x’qed jagħmlulu iħalli lil min jieħdu f’sormu bih.

U dakinhar tal-vot imur u jagħtihulhom… qisu qatt ma kien xejn. Ħasra. Għax bir-rata li għaddejin biha x’iktarx li naqgħu għal sormna.


m4s0n501

15 thoughts on “Jeħduh f’sormhom

  1. Meno male che j’accuse c’e’.

    Insejt wahda topika immens, sieheb: wicchom u sormhom l-istess.

    Interessanti ukoll l-uzu ta’ dal-proverbji/insulti Maltin b’mod strategiku u effettiv fuq il-Kummentarju Jgelgel

  2. “Il-krimini kien li proprja tieħdu f’sormok. Litteralment. U li tagħtih ukoll. L-orjentazzjoni sesswali kienet irrilevanti f’għajnejn il-leġiżlatur. Kien biss l-att – magħruf teknikament bħala sodomija – li kien illegali.”

    According to my old edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, “sodomy” includes copulation with a beast.
    There is no entry for “homosexuality”.

    Referring to my copy, again, an old one, of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, “homosexuality” includes relations between persons — the meaning given to “relation”, includes (3b), “sexual intercourse”.

    Putting the two together, it appears that the Labour Party is correct to claim that homosexuality was decriminalized by the MLP under Dom Mintoff.

    1. In fact one can correctly say that homosexuality was decriminalised as homosexuality means not just homosexual persons but also the homosexual attraction between these persons and the acts associated with them, and this is the description also used in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm

      As can be seen in this report, the law criminalised not just sodomy but also other “various” homosexual behaviour or acts.

          1. Le David. Irrispondejtek u kif. Bhas-soltu (u din l-espressjoni toqghod bizzilla f’dan il-post) ghandek rashek tant qieghdha mitlufa go sormok li joghgbok tikkonfuta billi taqbad suggett iehor ghax dak kurrenti ma jaqbillekx izzommu. Hadd ma zeffen il-ligi ingliza tal-omosesswalita u Lord Devlin fin-nofs. naf li dan suggett skomdu ghalik u naf ukoll li specjalment il-pregudizzji tieghek dwar omosesswali jaghmluha difficli titkellem dwar is-sugget pero ma hemmx fejn tintilef. Il-krimini li giet abrogata f’Malta kienet wahda li tikkriminalizza s-sodomija.

            L-ebda qabza logika jew diskussjonijiet dwar ligijiet inglizi ma huma se jibdu dan il-fatt. Tista ddum tmeri s-sewwa maghruf. Taf int. Imdorri. Imma fatt jibqa fatt. Issa ara kif se taghmel u tigbed rasek il-barra minn hemm ghax se tifga.

    2. Jacques, since neither of us is Humpty Dumpty, we must accept that the meaning of words is precisely what the lexicon says. A “beast” is any four-legged creature. As far as Black’s legal definition of “sodomy” is concerned, it makes not one iota of difference between copulating with a dog, a horse, or a sheep; AND the beast’s gender is irrelevant.
      Rather than challenging Black’s definition, you chose to give an example of the (in)famous “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy … something I would expect from a gutter-level blogger; not from JRZ.

      In regards to the title of this blog, I can tell you that it is not what you are making it out to be: that idiom is borrowed from the English, “up you arse”, meaning that what is said, or offered, is nothing better than what flows out of the exit-end of the digestive canal.

      I do not have a copy of the Maltese law which criminalized anal eroticsm but I would bet my bottom Canadian dollar that it was not drafted by Maltese; rather, it was imposed on the Maltese by their colonial masters, the British who did the same thing to just about every country within their Empire.
      Furthermore, in the Maltese language of that time, there was not an equivalent term for either “sodomy” or “homosexual”.
      In the Malta of those days, when it came to sex and other delicate subjects, euphemisms were the order of the day.
      A homosexual was referred to as, “xitan”! Young men were warned to stay away from “dak ix-xitan”. (I have no idea what the term for “sodomy” was, if there was one.)

      To end what could be a long rant, I’d rather take you on in a game of chess. ☺

      1. So CJohn here is my “shah mat”:

        1) the expression “jehduh f’sormhom” can be used either as an imprecation (wishing ill – ghax ma jmorrux jehduh…) or to describe the fact that someone is pulling your leg (qed jiehdu f’sormu bija). I can concede that your having moved to another side of the world might have put you out of touch with current usage of the vernacular.

        2) The LAW. We are talking about the law right? Not a lexicon? Allow me to point you first of all to a very good article that illustrates perfectly the exportation of the UK laws of sodomy to Her Majesty’s colonies: http://www.acclawyers.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2-Kirby-The-Sodomy-Offence-2011-JCCL-22.pdf . The point I made originally stands. No amount of word-twisting and lexicon searching in David Borg style will change the fact that the laws in question always define the crime on the basis of the act in question and did not qualify it by sexual orientation. What that means in simple English is that whether it was gay-gay or straight-straight (m/f) the crime would persist.

        Thus the Indian Penal Code (McCaulay)
        “377. Unnatural Offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.
        Explanation – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.”

        Unless of course you feel that animals too qualify as homosexuals then the crime here is very evidently tackling sodomy or as they would have it at the time – buggery. Incidentally there’s a great Pratchett poem/song called “The Hedgehog Cannot be Buggered At All” that you could look into for your amusement.

        Having said all that it is a very simple question that you have to ask yourself in order to see whether you are right or wrong:

        Before 1974 (or was it 75) could an openly homosexual person be prosecuted under criminal law for the mere fact that he was homosexual?

        Honesty would require you to answer NO. Apart from the difficulty of proving “homosexuality” in court (Yes m’lud, he insists on passing not so subtle comments about my “fashion sense” and bursts into tears every time we watch Gone with the Wind) it is obvious that “homosexuality” was only caught in a wide trap that made “sodomy” or “buggery” a crime – independently of sexual orientation.

        Which leads me to conclude. Quite safely and honestly that the Malta Labour Party under Dom Mintoff DID NOT DECRIMINALISE HOMOSEXUALITY BECAUSE BEING HOMOSEXUAL WAS NEVER CRIMINAL.

          1. David. This is the last point I make here and I simply do it for you to notice how wrong you are (sadly for you and your instincts). Here is the text of the former criminal code section which very evidently is the fruit of ultra-conservative minds at work – the same minds who would interpret what is known as “french kiss” as being a crime of violence much to the chagrin of poor Douglas James (sive Jack) Shadden (ara Pulizija vs Douglas James (sive Jack) Shadden – the case known to students as “tal-bacio violento”).

            The truth is much simpler than you would allow – of course society at the time would have loved to make homosexuality illegal but the FACT remains that it was not. Instead they contented with criminalising “Unnatural Acts”…. go figure… but then again… you wouldn’t (figure).

            Article 223 – Unnatural carnal connection

            Whosoever shall be guilty of an unnatural carnal connection, without the circumstances of violence referred to in the preceding section of this Sub-Title , shall, on conviction be liable to hard labour for a period not exceeding two years, with or without solitary confinement.

            Article 224 – Proof of carnal connection

            (1) The crime referred to in the last preceding section shall be deemed to be complete by the commencement of the connection, and it shall not be necessary to prove any further acts.

            (2) This rule shall apply to all crimes referred to in this Title to constitute which there must be a carnal connection.

  3. This is also my last post on this subject, at least on this blog. I thank you for exhuming and reproducing the dead Maltese law provisions (and maybe this is a fitting occasion to commemorate the 40 th anniversary of its repeal), which besides sodomy probably also cover bestiality.

    I still reiterate my main argument, based on what I, and many others, mean by the word homosexuality. The case you mentioned did not seem to concern the bacio violento, and kisses may still be crimes in some circumstances.

    Returning to my beginning, this is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIIOGka3LKI

Comment here