Whose morality is it this time?

I think we are all well versed in basic concepts such as morality and know full well how such euphemisms are used all over the world to stifle LGBTIQ equality. In the worst cases such as Jamaica, Iraq, Iran, and Uganda “morality” is the justification of genocide. I mean, Uganda has a Ministry of Integrity and a mob-justice pseudo-armed force called the Lord’s Resistance Army. If either of these does not disturb you I implore you to research the horrific situation in Uganda. Box Turtle Bulletin or Truth Wins Out might be a good place to start.

All hail the Mail & Guardian as this morn a fresh news update email arrived in my inbox. Thank goodness we have credible, non-saucy news sources in this country still... The article in the Mail & Guardian called Zuma's call for dialogue on morality welcomed enunciates on the utterances of the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference (SACBC) who welcomed the dialogue. Were I rabid and had I not read the actual article I would’ve declared it a response by zealous sycophants.

While Juju is distracting and entertaining the media Mr Zuma has some breathing space. One cannot deny, Juju is very good at this and that would explain why he is paid so well.

The SACBC had their statements posted verbatim via SAPA, herewith the quotes with some elaboration:

"As a nation, we have been reaping the fruits of attitudes -- social, economic, moral and political -- that have undermined and continue to undermine what common values and principles of behaviour we shared in the recent past to achieve our new South Africa [...]

The elements of a legacy which were beginning to emerge under the leadership of former president Nelson Mandela and his generation of leaders had been substantially squandered."

(Here the SACBC basically denounces every president since Mandela though they welcome the Zuma debate. It is uncertain if they admire the current president.)

"Given the current depth of polarisation along social, economic and political lines, we propose that the starting point be the foundational principle that the human person, and every human person, has intrinsic and inalienable value [...]
All else in any code of morals must take its lead from that basic principle."

(The first sentence states quite clearly that every person – it is even emphasised quite endearingly – has intrinsic and inalienable value. The dilemma is dissecting the real view of the SACBC, cutting through the semantics, rhetoric, and prose to attain the doctrine behind the very diplomatic statements)

It is the new South Africa of course and one does expect statements to be all-inclusive and non-derisive. The clergy of the specific denomination though tend to hold very strong anti-LGBTIQ views throughout the world. It thus comes as a breath of fresh air that we aren’t victims of counter- cohesiveness and divisive tactics. One should though not take things at face value and watch such “morality debates” very closely and examine the statements that participants make.

We know from past reports that Ray McCauley plays the President’s religious adviser and that Mr Zuma placed LGBT rights and abortion-on-demand on the auction list just before the April 2009 general elections to win some political clout with the religious conservatives. He also played lay preacher at the Rhema Bible Church under the close supervision of dear Mr McCauley.

So we debate morality, but what are the implications? Is the debate the granting of a favour promised a while ago by the President? On the surface it might seem perfectly non-threatening. The real agenda though always lurks just below the surface.

We live in a postmodern era which makes all things subjective and obliterates all inalienable truths. One has to do the impossible by looking at subjective inputs to place them on a scale of proportionality and a form of hierarchy since rights often infringe upon each other by definition. One manifesto is to proclaim the most important right is not to infringe upon the rights of another. This catch-all, reciprocal view seems entirely objective in a world of subjectivism but pragmatically it is too vague to be implemented in any way.

We can view how others have prioritised human rights with a “moral” justification and clearly see the dominance of one ideology or a grouping of ideologies with some common ground. This does not relinquish the burden of subjectivity of such hierarchies. We are a democracy, right? Technically it means that the majority vote counts. Should we ever resort to crass head-counting to determine human rights we are guaranteed to erode civil liberties. The South African Constitutional Court has made a pronouncement in this light when declaring capital punishment unconstitutional.

Which point of view will be taken as the moral compass? If you ever mix Postmodernism with religious thought you will get a mêlée of rhetoric with each having motivations based on the same basis. Interpretation of vague, ancient texts can never be objective. Such interpretation will never offer protections to the most disenfranchised groups in our society.

Luckily by looking at the flurry of comments on the article it seems most are opposed to the Great Morality Debate. The basis and justification for this debate is mocked with incessantly. Clearly Postmodernism has infiltrated our society to near saturation point.

We all need comic relief. Somehow by virtue of living in South Africa we are entertained each time we read the news and commentary below it. We are bemused with what we see on TV. We are amused by double standards and sheer ignorance. One has to dabble in self-amusement to survive the news each day. Never a dull moment...

Dear diary

In our lovely activist community there are a few who dare lift a finger and try anything in their capacity to advance and protect the rights so many take for granted. They are often subject to ill intentioned rhetoric coming from competing organisations. You see, this town isn’t big enough for the two of us. They draw their guns, they shoot each other down. These are supposed to be people with a kindred spirit and an esprit de corps. This is sadly not the case.

You see, dear diary, there are those with political clout and struggle credentials and others by virtue of birth not being able to have any liberation credentials – I was born in 1982 – how on earth would I have gained any brownie points with the apparatchiks? Some of these most esteemed former activists still cling to their political links like ticks. I often catch myself wondering whether this specific tick species causes boutonneuse fever of Rickettsia origin. Most likely…

Aside from the obvious struggles of the struggle (aluta continua) there’s no such thing as common decency even amongst supposed allies. Some very puffed-up ones have aborted propriety and conscientiousness (it is rather rare traits in itself) and replaced with uncouthness, haughtiness and expedience.

Oh and who can forget the armchair critics? They sit in front of their macbooks, laptops and all internet connected devices and lament the state of affairs yet are quick to lash out at those very few that despite their lives replete with responsibility and obligations attempt to do something, even if it is only to raise awareness. Godforbid one has an opinion on anything – opinion is their sole intellectual property and who it is granted to their sole prerogative…

Attending any vigils, protests or other means of voicing disgruntlement is for “those activists” only. The armchair critics will rather go party, take some GBH, alcohol is a prerequisite.

One day when the boat is rocked it will unfortunately be too late already. “Why didn’t somebody do anything about this?” Godforbid the mighty armchair critic raise a finger. All those wasted effort. Why do we go to Joburg Pride? For the after parties of course!

Why do we march through Rosebank? Hell, I don’t know, it seems to be a custom. But it is one hell of a party.

The hell of party might just be around the bend and this party is no party in the ordinary sense. Imagine an angry mob lynching and necklacing those wretched gays. Against the order of nature. Un-African. Evil. Imperialist import. Burn act 108 of 1996 with it they say. It’s paper – it burns quite easily.

What is left of either signifies the frailty of both at any given moment.

Uncle Angus says...

Our managing director is a devout workaholic; his wife quite pragmatic. He spends day and night at the office so the dear children have to visit, they make a virtual appointment and there they are. I have workaholic tendencies as well and more than enough work to keep a clone and I busy. I thus see aforementioned children once in a while. Once a year is too much for moi though as they are completely impossible little brats. The boy is eight, the girl is twelve. The eldest is way too wise for her years while the youngest one is about as obnoxious as a whole kindergarten in one.

The children know they are personae non gratae in my office so they’ll just pop in to be obnoxious. The visits are usually after normal business hours and I often wonder why I am still at the office...

Little Miss Sunshine walks in and says:

“Oom Angus sê dat dit nie reën in die Kaap en George nie omdat daar te veel gays is en hulle moet ophou sondig”

She says this with a kind of self-asserting, nonchalant tone almost if she is trying to convince someone. I call her drama queen.

So I sit there repressed and trying to keep composure and start to ask questions. It happened at school she says. I ask if it is one of the teachers, she says no. I ask if she heard it directly, she says no. One of her friends told her.

Okay, by this time I am still shocked and indignant and I don’t think people who have never suffered tacit and/or systematic discrimination can even begin to fathom what such a flippant statement does, even to someone on the wrong side of 25 (out of the closet for a decade) and the statement coming from a mere child.

So I think. I ask after a long pause if she doesn’t like any particular groups of people and she admits she despises “Germans”. I tell her it is illegal to discriminate; she asks what “discrimination” is! I just said one should treat others as you would like to be treated and that even though she might not like a certain group it is wrong to insult them for just being part of the group. No mention of the gay topic. I find it grossly inappropriate to discuss such issues with MD’s children.

Now, I am admittedly overly-analytical and my pet psychologist agreed (years ago, long story), I start thinking about motives. Is it deliberate? I find myself feeling utterly nauseated that in 2010 (yes, twenty ten) children talk such tripe on school grounds. It is self-evident that it originates from the parents. I find it strange since it is a de rigueur private school catering for the very upper LSMs.

So as fate (which I incidentally do not believe in) would have it I see the immense damage caused by the heavy rains in Gauteng and surrounds on the news. To compare the destruction of the floods with the drought in the Cape is quite tragic. I wonder which is worse. Now if the poor people in the Cape are being punished for having inordinate gay population ratios I wonder if Gauteng is conversely, based on the same premise, blessed. Or is the punishment just the inverse of what is dished out in the Cape although not supposedly uttered by the Potato Prophet?

The Potato Profit is quite the spiritual businessman these days. I recall a huge billboard next to the N1 in Midrand (the country’s busiest highway), which is a very expensive area for billboard advertising as the audience is about 200 000 per day. The ad read “South Africa turn to God” and was visible for about three months, sponsored by Shalom Ministries, the ministry of Uncle Angus.

I noticed also how similar billboards started popping up next to the highways leading to OR Tambo International Airport – the busiest airport on the continent so I assume it doesn’t come cheap too.

So class, Uncle Angus says the Cape is being punished by drought for harbouring so many gay people and my city is being flooded.

I wonder what Uncle Angus says about that...