Satirva's musings

Jason Mraz - I Won't Give Up (Official Lyric Video)

2012-01-07T00:39:00.000+02:00

Does it really get better?

2011-12-27T23:08:00.000+02:00

I will concede that the It Gets Better campaign hasgarnered a lot of sympathy for the plight of LGBT teens and mainstreamedawareness of the social ill that is the suicide of LGBT youth. Judging it bythose parameters, it is a fantastic campaign. It went global, it was all therage and political leaders, and other VIPs recorded their own It Gets Better YouTubecouture.

Reminiscent of the NOH8 campaign it was about visibility and popular appeal. Itsomehow made an extremely emotive issue a rallying point. It was easy to paintany detractors of equality as simply callous (which they are in any case, one neednot parade human suffering to get that point across).

Sure, being LGB and T gets more tolerable as one ages, but tolerance is farfrom "better". Acceptance is also a word thrown around. Acceptance isnice, won't deny, but it's not enough.

Methinks in our attempt at mainstreaming we might havesettled for second best. Tolerance and acceptance aren’t issues we have to workon (from a progressive perspective), these are things that should be the bareminimum.

Sure, it gets better, but is “better” enough? Moreover,by whose standards would we measure this hypothetical “better”? Tolerable isalso better than intolerable but Ibet you won’t settle for that.

Are suicides in our community so rife and such a socialill that we need to present any form of positivity and encouragement no matterhow lacklustre it might be to those radical activists?

I thought a lot about this topic, wrote, and erased, aclose friend even suggested that I do the right thing and self-censor, and notpublish the most morbid parts. I was awfully melancholy I must admit, but likethe weather that changes too. Maybe this change gives us some fragment of hope.

We somehow know from experience that we are not ourinflictions and that they are evanescing. I have dealt with the concept ofsuicide to an extreme extent. I have seen the undiluted desperation that chafeschronically. I suspect the intervention is about as desperate as the inflicted.

So, yes, we tell people that it gets better, because in asense that is true. One’s circumstances change over time. One’s mood changesover time and so the impetus for execution is temporary but the execution has long-termconsequences.

Before you make that final decision, stop and think, andif you cannot think contact someone, anyone. Speak or interact with someone,they will most probably not tell you cheesy lines but it will divert yourattention.

Bertrand Russell must have been in a flippant mood, whoknows, but he said one important thing that speaks to this topic too: “Iwould never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong.”

Think about that.

No Straights Allowed

2011-12-14T10:48:00.000+02:00

Pleasekeep out of gay bars and clubs appeared in The Independent to my immense dismay (admittedly quite a while ago,but it did the rounds on Facebookrecently). The author very short-sightedly makes the case for segregation ofnightlife on the basis of sexual orientation. Apparently the scene in Englandis such that gay people are restricted to so-called gay villages (a concept I couldnever really understand). I previously wrote about the ghettoization ofthe gay community and how deplorable I find it, but I digress.

The author maintains that there are so few gayestablishments out there that they should be somehow protected from the tyranny of the majority. In aconstitutional democracy the minority is protected from the tyranny of themajority but in this instance the concept of segregation for the sake ofpreservation is taken way too far. It becomes awfully reminiscent of apartheid.We are not equal in our segregation. The social segregation of the sexes byitself should be done away with, and there is no place for segregation on anybasis when it comes to something as inconsequential as phuza-ing.

I remember distinctly the night after 2008 Joburg Pride. Therewas a trendy lesbian-only nightclub in Rosebank that made a concessionespecially for Joburg Pride. It would allow gay men in, that night only. So I wentthere with my (lesbian) friend, my brother and his girlfriend. As we got to thedoor an officious lady looked at me and my lesbian friend and said “you two cango in,” and with a slight tone of derision said to my brother “you two cannotgo in, we are a lesbian establishment.”

I immediately interjected. I was horribly offended andequally embarrassed. The pink community complains of being discriminatedagainst on a daily basis, of being side-lined. How can we perpetrate andperpetuate the same thing we fight against? I looked at the officious lady andsaid “look, it’s my brother and his girlfriend and they will not bother anyonehere.” The words fell on deaf ears, I wasted my breath.

On another night my brother, one of his friends and I wentto a well-known gay club in Centurion. The doorman immediately spotted thestraights and gave them a self-righteous pep talk. I once again felt betrayedby the pink community establishments for their “admissions” policy. I oftenlook at those Right of Admission Reservedsigns while shaking my head. Those signs perpetuate inequity by virtue of theirexistence.

I bet your bottom dollar when a prime Sandton hotspotimplements a new policy of straights onlythere would be a very loud and very shrill outcry from the queers. Emails to pinkrights activists would pour in. It is unfair discrimination andunconstitutional, most complainants would argue. Some might foam at the mouthfailing to see the hypocrisy.

Every single time a straight person is turned away from a“gay” establishment, every time a straight person is treated with contempt bythe club mafia the pink communityloses sympathy. We will scream “equal rights not special rights” till we are bluein the face but the plea would be worthless because we made it worthless withour little gay ghetto.

Sorry ladies equality cuts both ways.

Gloria Borman

2011-11-25T09:52:00.000+02:00

Gloria Borman

You're always on the run now
Running away from the ANC
They're gonna get you somehow
I think you've got to slow down
Before you start to blow it
I think you're heading for a breakdown
So be careful not to show it

You really don't remember
Was it something that they said?
Or the voices in your head,

Abstaining Gloria?

Gloria
Don't you think you're falling?
If Mantashe wants you
Why isn't anybody helping?
You don't have to answer
Leave them hanging on the line
Oh, Abstaining Gloria

Gloria
I know they have your number
I know they have the alias
That you've been living under
But you really don't remember
Was it something that they said?
Or the voices in your head,

Abstaining Gloria?

Gloria
How's it gonna go down?
Will you be dismissed now?
Or will they deploy you to the Netherlands?
Will you change vote for the money?
Take your scruples to the dumping site?
Feel your innocence slipping away
Don't believe it's coming back soon

And you really don't remember
Was it something that they said?
Or the voices in your head,

Abstaining Gloria?

Gloria
Don't you think you're tjatjarag?
If Gwede Mantashe wants you
Why isn't his minions calling?
You don't have to answer
Leave them hanging on the line
Oh, Abstaining Gloria

Gloria
I know they have your number
I know they have the alias
That you've been living under
But you really don't remember
Was it something that they said?
Or the voices in your head,

Abstaining Gloria...

#BlackTuesday

*Sincere appreciation to Ms Borman for her courage and conviction

http://www.thenewage.co.za/35929-1007-53-ANC_MP_why_I_did_not_vote

(with apologies to Laura Branigan, all rights remain those of the owners)

The clothes maketh the woman

2011-11-17T09:36:00.000+02:00

I have cross-dressed only once. It was for a social awareness project that one of my graphic designer friends had chosen. It was a horrifying experience. I was a horrifying experience. Stockings, high heels, hideous skirts and tarty tops aside, I could barely breathe. I fell off my platforms down a flight of stairs and felt like Tori in Playboy Mommy.

With the added benefit of a sprained ankle (and the terribly restrictive clothes) I hobbled almost like Courtney Love to the location of the photo shoot. I didn’t have to be in front of the camera to feel like I was on display. Everything I wore felt like a display item. I had to be terribly careful of how I sat, walked, the way I conducted myself. I had to make sure makeup didn’t smudge. I was for the first time acutely aware that unless you dress in a curtain just draping over everything, that you really have to be mindful to avoid wardrobe malfunctions and exposing yourself unladylike (for whatever that means).

Last shot was taken of me, concussed drag queen, lying in a bath with my legs dangling out, sort of like I was thrown in, like a deadweight large and uncomfortable mess. One of the assistants shouted something along the lines of “maak toe meisie!”

Despite the obvious disturbing nuances of gender-based violence and identity-based hate crimes, which was the theme of the social awareness project by the way, I realised there was another evil at play: the Patriarchy enforcing itself on the female with something as simple as clothes.

We take clothes for granted. We obsess about this matching that and fashion and other practicalities, but we never or hardly ever examine clothes as a social construct. We take for granted the rules clothes impose on us, maintaining the status quo and keeping the masses submissive.

I could feel, tangibly, how the male gaze and the accompanying sexist mind-set was imposed upon me. I realise on a daily basis how the power asymmetry is enforced by fashion, de rigueur, norms, traditions, heterosexism and an array of prejudices. I can see women subverting themselves by projecting gender norms and patriarchal structures upon other women, while feeling superior doing so. It never ceases to amaze.

Take a look at what you are wearing. Now stop thinking of it as a fashion statement. Think of it as an employment uniform of sorts, like a doctor’s scrubs, like a prison jumpsuit, like a curtain. These “garments” each have its own social significance and connotations. It is not by chance that doctors are required to dress formally, it is all about perception.

I feel rather restricted in formal wear required for work and cannot wait to get out of it each day. Why do we do that? If I were a woman I would have scoffed at the patriarchal hegemony and its requirements and impositions. Alas I am not. I am writing as an outsider. Women out there, you really know what it is like, why don’t we discuss this more? Will we be relinquished if we at least know and are aware but nevertheless remain oppressed? Something to think about…

Artists Against Hate Speech concert

2011-11-17T07:16:00.000+02:00

An amazing evening of music, hosted by Mr Gay South Africa ™ 2011 finalist AleXander Steyn, titled Artists Against Hate Speech was held at Thaba Ya Batswana on Wednesday 9 November 2011. The serenity of the scenic venue opposite the Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve in Johannesburg South matched the event’s inherent message of love and peace.

Master of Ceremonies for the evening was Samantha Cowen from 94.7 Highveld Stereo. The line-up featured poignant performances by NX, The Brunettes, aleXander Steyn, Andre Smuts, Belinda van Zwijndrecht, Tessa Denton, Ferdi & Dihan, Ansua and E3N.

The event was organised by AleXander as a fundraiser for the South African Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (SA GLAAD) to promote an environment of respect for human rights and equality.

“My wish is to put together a variety concert for this cause, to make people aware of what our rainbow nation needs – peace, love and respect for all races, genders and sexualities,” said AleXander just before the event.

“Many artists throughout the years, from Live Aid onwards have used their unique status to promote causes such as famine-prevention, human rights advancement; to advocate for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi or to work for a more just society,” said Cobus Fourie of SA GLAAD.

“The current state of public discourse in South Africa especially regarding freedom of speech has been pushed in an unfortunate direction and the public has to be made aware that rights need to be constantly and jealously guarded. Jefferson famously said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance,” Fourie continued.

[picture: copyright aleXander Steyn 2011]

Artists Against HATE SPEECH concert

2011-10-16T22:10:00.000+02:00

Artists Against HATE SPEECH concert

Time	09 November · 20:00 - 22:00

Location	Thaba Ya Batswana 46 Impala Road, Klipriviersberg Nature Reserve

Created by:	AleXander Steyn, Marguerite Erasmus, Coenie W. Kukkuk

More info	Tswana Kraal at Thaba Ya Batswana - see map here: http://www.footprint.co.za/klipriviersberg.htm R100 per person Tickets available from aleXander Steyn More Artists To be Announced --- "Please reserve your place at the Artists Against Hate Speech Concert. EFT the amount of tickets to A. Steyn ABSA 406 157 7062 Branch 632 005 Reference: AAHS (and your name) Inbox me with your email address and I will send you your tickets!!! See you all on the 9th of November!!! aleXander" http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=665375485

So tell me, why are you single?

2011-10-16T14:31:00.000+02:00

“So tell me, why are you single?” I pause. The image of this ingrained in my mind while I'm staring at it on BlackBerry Messenger. Anyone accustomed to the concept of jamais vu would know instinctively that words on a screen can be as meaningless as its encoded semantic presentation.

The sender of this loaded question is a very good-looking young professional. Well, by young I am of course referring to my age of reference. Being in the winter of your twenties renders an early thirty-something as sorta young. Beggars can't be choosers, right?

I wonder why anyone would ask such a seemingly trite question. I would never ask someone that. At the base it is underscored by a host of presuppositions. Call me a militant homosexual activist (wait, I've already been called that by the Levitican Lobby) but several very flawed assumptions and societal constructs create a loaded question rendered almost impossible to answer other than to indict yourself with some social stigma and pariah status. So, no, I do not do things because "one has to" or because "society expects it" -- I rebuke such notions like the militant feminist I was recently called. I sample such concepts like hors d'oeuvres, and I eat such questions for dessert.

So I ask him, “what do you mean with that question”, not even pretending to be flabbergasted. He retorts: you are young, you are good-looking, you are successful and accomplished at your job and a visible and seemingly successful activist (I won't own up to all of that though). So I reply with a simple “flattery will get you everywhere”. He laughs. Emoticons aplenty.

I did not know that being seemingly accomplished afforded one perpetual marital bliss though. Had I known that I would have strung them in by now. I tell him that I've had mostly fleeting and meaningless relationships and that in the gay community a life of a relationship is measured in something akin to dog years. He thinks I'm pretty humourous by now. All I've been was dead honest.

Immediately I think of Bridget Jones' Diary (the movie) and how Bridget shyly (and wryly) says that singletons are covered in scales. Also immediately the image of the angstful dream of being mauled by Alsatians comes to mind. Mind you, I recently had to protect myself against escaped suburban dogs while jogging at night. The eaten-by-Alsatians theme seems universal. Lest I break out in All By Myself by Celine Dion and diarise how much I drink and smoke (none of each) and how much I weigh (godforbid) I shall end this juxtaposition right here.

I have seen the cutest couples on Facebook, and despite the notion that gay relationships are as fleeting as the life of a housefly there's evidence that many relationships do not conform to this stereotype. My (maternal) uncle and his partner have been together for 25 years more or less, ever since I could remember. So I tell myself that there's hope. It is not always easy to harbour such a positive view on the subject as I normally revert to my sardonic jadedness. I am very happy in my own skin for all those who are wondering. I don't need another half because I believe that 1 and 1 makes 2.

Back to the good-looking young professional. In the meantime I learn that he is in a relationship (he didn't think it necessary to tell me). His relationship is as dysfunctional as it probably gets (and I am grilled on why I am single, pot kettle black...) And that he's kind of desperate and in a very miserable state of mind. If this is how the average relationship looks I'm quite content sans the heartache. I eventually wean myself from him but that loaded question mulls in my mind.

I keep on wondering what it is that makes me less than relationship material. Is it because I can relate to most of Sarah Britten's writings? Apparently gay men ought not relate to the writings of honest and accomplished contemporary women. Apparently I think too much and do too little. Apparently most men are sex obsessed to the point where I couldn't hide my incredulity anymore. “Say what, you do it how many times a week? You must be kidding me!”

Of course I too went through a rather promiscuous phase. I gathered a lot from that. I thought chasing after one meaningless fling to another that I would somehow find love. I didn't. All I found was a lonely emptiness and an equally empty gratification.

I might for all intents and purposes not be relationship material after all. I have too much baggage, a mind too free to be tied down. I might be too comfortable in my own skin and I might be too cynical and obstinate.

As I'm nearing 30 (shock, horror) it slowly dawns on me that I would probably get asked this question more frequently in future. In my defence, I could always be the love-interest-to-be one step ahead and ask the question before I get asked. Then again, I am not a little fuckwit drowned in inane assumptions but desperate times call for desperate measures. Jamais vu might as well turn into déjà vu. “So pray tell, why are you single?”

A brave new world

2011-07-29T13:24:00.000+02:00

Followers of this blog (do I have any?) would have noticed that not much has been happening on here for quite a while now. Gone are 2009 and 2010 when I averaged two articles per month and wrote for a literature website.

Then again I suffered from severe and chronic sleep deprivation from July 2008 until the end of 2010. I used to fall asleep at the wheel while driving on the N1 towards Bryanston, which is quite a busy road any time of the day. I struggled to keep awake at work to the point that narcolepsy medication was the only cure. The modafinil worked fine (although it is hideously expensive and I am being euphemistic), my micro sleep was kept in check and I managed to hold onto my day job.

I realised afterwards that I did activism work after hours while having a very demanding day job and that it was simply not possible for me to live healthily with so little sleep. I did not realise it then because I was either too busy with some tedious issue at work or writing indignant emails to the medical director of the South African National Blood Service while dishing out advice and trying to prevent people from killing themselves.

I think my personality has changed. It is either that or it is some pre-the-big-30 existential murmur.

I was previously constantly ill and I jokingly called myself a virus-whore since I picked up the 2009 Pandemic H1N1 Swine Flu twice. Nice. Besides the swine flu I was constantly down with some kind of virus and I was very frequently burnt out completely. Burnt out normally meant a one day hiatus and then slogging again at top speed.

So when the big-30 loomed closer I realised what was wrong with my life. There’s a saying that says “charity begins at home” and I realised I was too occupied trying to kick-start the then stalled activism scene in South Africa and I was almost criminally neglecting myself.

Luckily activism picked up speed in late 2010 and there emerged a new wave of citizen involvement to the point that the same government with which we had so many tiffs introduced a motion for the protection of all people regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity at the UN Human Rights Council. In 2008 I would have laughed at the idea and would have considered it impossible.

Much has changed between 2008 and 2011. Jon Qwelane was finally found guilty of hate speech by the Johannesburg Equality Court and South Africa’s UN behaviour nudged more towards advancing the South African Constitution.

Since then an NGO called the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) was formed by some high profile and commendable persons. In short, even though South Africans still face an onslaught in the form of the Protection of Information Bill, inter alia, we have a mobilised and more vigilant civil society, case in point: the Right 2 Know Campaign (of which SA GLAAD was a founding signatory along with about 400 NGOs).

I am healthier now. I do not jokingly call myself a virus-whore anymore. I am quieter although I have met the most exceptional people on my journey and am much more conversational than I was in the past.

I still fight some activism battles but I choose them carefully. I have resigned myself to the fact that the majority will still be nonchalant and complacent and have this sense of entitlement that someone else has to fight their battles. I won’t be duped into a proxy fight anymore. When my partner-in-crime and I started out there was very little help from the outside and we had to learn a lot and do everything on our own. I do still have deep gratitude for the handful of individuals who provided us with their kindness, assistance and guidance.

It took an extremely hateful article to awaken me politically and in that sense I do not regret its publication. The domino effect meant that the parent company of that sad tabloid started to act more conscientiously and now is starting to disallow pig-ignorant commentary on some of its websites.

I used the one letter word “I” a lot in this article and not without reason because it is my focus. I do not care if there is no “I” in “team” because I was never a team player anyway. I have always looked on from the fringes speaking up for the underdogs in my own community.

Some may ask if it was in my self-interest to have gone through those years and I will say “yes” despite seeing all that is foul out there. If we live in a better world, have our rights protected and advanced then I benefit as well. Note, Ayn Rand acolytes, this is not your cue to the promote the “Virtue of Selfishness” ;)

I am not abandoning what formed a great part of my life and lead me to the greatest people. I am just more focussed now. Today is coincidentally #FollowFriday on Twitter and it was very rewarding to receive very heart-warming thanks for our efforts just now.

So, regardless of whether anyone reads a word of this this is my catharsis. I might even start to write on literature sites again and even though that I have found my voice again I am doing so with quiet contentment; in my brave new world.

Get me our token lesbian stat!

2011-06-19T20:09:00.000+02:00

So there I was, being interviewed on live TV regarding the Qwelane saga, grilled by Jeremy Maggs in his distinct interview style. When I got out, an Establishment Activist had written a rather sour post on Facebook, probably forgetting that we were Facebook friends. I do need to review my Facebook friends list I thought...

I sat in my car, still having to drive back home pondering the comment: "how DID that irritating person end up speaking on behalf of the SA queer community? Cringe!" (I edited out the gratuitous exclamation marks but I think you get the message)

I did not realise I was that omnipotent and that when I speak; I speak for about ten per cent of the population! Gosh, it is flattering and all, but no dear, I spoke as representative of the Amateur Organisation I devoted three years of my life to. Nevertheless, flattery will get you everywhere as I always say. My, but this was precious. I think Athol Trollip would appreciate and understand, you know, his less-than-polite email about the Freedom Front Plus was accidentally sent to the Freedom Front Plus; with full media coverage. Ouch! Foot in Mouth Disease.

The Establishment Activist deleted his acerbic comment and rationalised that it was a very foolish move on the part of my Amateur Organisation. Apparently, we should have gotten a lesbian to speak, and preferably a "black" lesbian. Hmmm... Get me our token black lesbian stat!

Just so the general public know: the media doesn't give notice in advance for such interviews. It happens as the news unfolds, quick and no fuss. I was working away at my day job the day thereafter when a journalist did a telephonic interview with me. Luckily, I wore my headset permanently. Journalists like to pounce on people when they least expect it.

Back to the softened criticism... I would have seen it as an utter slap in the face if I were that elusive black lesbian and I would only be used for window dressing and being a slave to a puppet master. That is what you call condescending. I can only imagine how that Tuesday would have played out had we a window dressing spokeswoman. I would have phoned my fellow board member, drafted a statement and answers to possible questions. Then for the hard part. The token lesbian.

Of course, it may not be a black lesbian from the suburbs with a model-C accent. We would not want a Lindiwe Mazibuko, you see, otherwise Blade Nzimande would call her a Coconut and Juju would refuse to debate with the Madam's Tea Lady. It had to be real.

By this time I would have been frenetic, you see, we could not find the real makoya that day, so we had to opt for a gay male with a very annoying voice. So I rushed all over town to buy butch jeans and a flannel shirt, yeah, the people wanted diesel-dyke meets township lesbian, so I also stolen a ZCC lapel logo and stuck it on.

I had to be the fake township lesbian. I could not quite pull it off. I could not be condescending and arrive on set in my flannel shirt and ZCC logo, it would have been contrary to everything I believe in. It would have been incendiary in its bigotry. Therefore, I arrived on set dressed as me... Something missing yeah, I feel you baby.

Bloody agents!

2011-04-26T17:25:00.000+02:00

I happen to be a founding and board member of a Pink rights organisation. I am therefore moderator of a Facebook fan page and several groups, inter alia.

Our organisation is structured like a federation, much like Cosatu, to use a local example, and we allow each his or her own opinion. You can say we are a broad church to go further down Alliance terminology. Sometimes we have radically diverging views and sometimes it clashes but we do not air dirty laundry – that is the preserve of the political parties, par example, or Desperate Housewives for that matter.

I monitor the main fan page on a daily basis and view it quite a couple of times a day (in excess of 16 times), if not from a computer, from my cellphone. Three years of Marketing Management has made me a nervous wreck when it comes to brand, image and reputation management as I know all too well that perception is reality to supporters no matter how skewed that perception is. I would wake up in the middle of the night in a puddle of sweat dreaming that something sordid happened to the organisation. So I am super careful.

I try keeping traffic to the page moving and posting links to stories of a very wide variety of subjects, but I review everything that I post on there with a fine-tooth comb. I have this uncanny propensity for Foot-In-Mouth Disease, so I am very careful with my commentary as well. I literally weigh everything up and consider implications and context ad nauseam. So much for toning down on OCD behaviour…

We allow our fans to posts links as well. As a rule I would only delete spam, Russian Mail Order Bride advertisements, and links by spam bots, ostentatiously offensive material and anything that would amount to hate speech or would otherwise be in breach of the platform’s terms and conditions. I am thus not in the habit of toying with censorship.

The Pink community itself is a very diverse group and a grouping of various groupings. Some use the alphabet soup acronym LGBTIQ. In Canada it has grown to LGBTTIQQ2SA. Brevity is obviously not a determinant. We chose to pick a short term intended to unify everyone in our diversity.

Tragically, the Pink community is also sometimes very fractured and divisive. It is impossible keeping such diverse people happy all the time. I have little time for pettifoggery so I do not wade into petty squabbles, but sometimes the most random people choose to have their squabbles play out on our territory. When people start to bring the name of the organisation in disrepute I am on the scene faster than a Heat journalist on a gossipy story.

I have contributed sans any compensation since 2008 as a founding member and member of the national board. For well-considered reasons the national body is unfunded. I have often seen that with funds come vested interests and compromised decisions. I have seen that money can demand agenda, strategy and tactics. Some funders even cause divisiveness if it suits the purpose.

Compromised agenda and integrity-for-sale are to me of the most obscene kind of organisational prostitution. At least real life prostitutes aren’t window-dressing and more than often admit to the oldest profession on earth. No shame there, at least they are being honest. The moment impartiality is breached all outwardly respect is lost.

I have listened to a government sycophant ranting on about the capitalist agenda of supposed independent civil society. An interesting acolyte coined the term astroturfing to describe civil society organisations that “pretend” to have popular “grassroots” support and have been properly, democratically constituted. The same lacquey waxed on poetically, and somewhat bitterly, and handed out quite a couple of stabs to well-known civil society organisations. Oh the joys of subscribing to a listserv, sometimes the conversation is utterly fascinating and sometimes it is exceptionally brain-dead. It mostly makes for good reading in any case and although I do not approve of said ideologue there is mostly always something to learn.

For example, the labels sycophant, acolyte, and lacquey should never be administered to an independent civil society organisation. Independent also implies freedom from outside influence, bias and manipulation. If a donor wishes to dictate what a non-profit should do with its money it is akin to the madam scolding the servant over her expenditure. It is paternalistic at the very least no matter how well-intentioned it may seem.

I have seen how vested interest has made puppets out of supposedly non-compromised individuals. I have seen how patrons dictate discourse and even attempt to drown out dissent and silence conversation. I have observed all of this and traced it all back to its roots but motive remains unclear.

A cynic like me will dispute the true independence of almost everyone. I venture to sniff out agenda with Spaniel-precision. I have slaved away too many hours to foster a sense of unity in such a volatile community to have years of work derailed. I consider assumptions; I even doubt the assumptions in this article. One thing I will not concede on is impartiality. Corporate weasels (or Spaniels in this case) are trained with a nose for distrust. To anyone thinking favour is for sale: don’t come here with those tendencies. This is a revolutionary house!

Of course my favourite novel inscription also applies to everything I write. Those who happen to read themselves into this are flattering themselves. Bloody agents!

The Closet of Fear and Shame

2011-04-18T16:57:00.000+02:00

This past Friday I followed the 1 in 9 protest on Twitter. About 1500 people descended on Grahamstown to protest the silence and shame attached to rape victims and many a victim came out of the closet as such. A brave and brilliantly talented woman whom I hold dear stood in front of the mass of the people with the slogan “rape survivor” on her t-shirt.

She spoke candidly of her experiences via Twitter and had many people in tears. Just following it online affected me profoundly. When I finally put two and two together my heart fell to the floor. I was rendered in a state of catatonia. I tried to imagine what it must be like but I couldn’t – it was not possible for me to imagine such a thing. I recalled how it felt when I was mugged by six grown men who threw me to the tar and took literally everything I had. I had a knife to my throat as an extra, and luckily I escaped physically unscathed. What struck me was that this lady was empowered, despite having gone through the ordeal she came out stronger and wiser on the other side. Victim empowerment is key to really healing.

Through my work as activist and NGO volunteer I often come across deeply suicidal gay men. Some are barely out of school, some are even close to my age, but they all have a vulnerability and desperation in common. I do not actively recruit people for counselling, people are seemingly nudged in my direction by life’s events and misfortunes. I am not a medical professional so I may not dispense therapy but I do try and persuade people to seek the help of medical professionals. I will be half-asleep and be woken up by an instant message from a person desperately needing someone to talk to. It takes a lot out of you.

Some postulate, and I lost the article, that the compassion fatigue that I often suffer is actually a euphemism and should be called Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder. It leaves people like me feeling just as vulnerable and desperate as the emotionally tormented victims. My doctor once told me that most general practitioners have their own psychologists and psychiatrists. I can already see a self-perpetuating cycle here. The only way to stop it is by changing the hearts and minds of people out there. Root out the cause instead of the symptoms.

So, I know of a gay guy once booked into a psychiatric clinic in Pretoria where this hapless patient was subjected to a shrewd and most unethical psychiatrist. I find it unforgivable for mental health professionals to abuse their patients. The peculiar one tried to pimp out a severely depressed patient to his peers. The doctor quite callously said that if the case should ever reach court or if the story comes out that all doubt will befall the patient because a “respected” doctor’s testimony carries far more weight than “a little crazy man”.

The story left me deeply disturbed. I have asked so many people to go see mental health professionals and I wondered how many fell prey to insufferable predators masquerading as doctors.

I knew somehow that the story of the 1 in 9 protest in Grahamstown carried a fundamental lesson, applicable to my situation also. Much like the brave woman I wrote about, several of the people who cross my path also need to come out of the other closet: the closet of fear and shame. There is no shame in seeking help; in fact, it is a sign of hope.

It really must suck being a woman

2011-04-09T22:42:00.000+02:00

It really must suck being a woman. I mean, women are being objectified literally all of the time. You cannot switch on the tv without seeing some model-actress promoting some "new and improved" product to make you look, feel, seem, and smell absolutely fabulous. All of these advertising props are size zero (I don't even know what a "size zero" is to be completely honest). No wonder evils like anorexia and bulimia are quite rife in the female population.

Anorexia and bulimia are starting to rise to dangerous levels amongst men as well, and not only gay men. Many straight men also fall ill to the ailment of our quite sick Hollywood-glam culture. Men are being bombarded with how-tos and 20-step programmes in GQ and Men's Health. "Great abs in 20 minutes", "Have sex like a porn star", all of these are released on the hapless, aspiring everyday man leaving a feeling of guilt, worthlessness and ineptitude in the poor reader. Do these magazines really want to make you be "the man that you could be"? No, they're in the business of selling advertising space. Methinks the same principle applies to women.

Back to women. Besides being portrayed as a man's toy and subjugated, subservient object to be devoured by eyes at the least, women really have a raw deal. How much must it suck to have PMS, to have to endure ridiculously macabre and obscene childbirth reminiscent of the dark ages. How rancid it is to be subjected to sexual harassment. And I am probably not even aware of all the other social ills.

For a mere two days I "manned" a station at the Systems Support call centre. And I found myself appalled, nauseous, disgusted and demoralised. It was an experiment to discern the working conditions of female employees. I took on a female name and tried to sound as "female" as possible. Great fun, and no, I didn't cross-dress. Had I to wear something as restrictive as a bra and stockings and hideously uncomfortable shoes I would've told everyone I quit. No thanks, I'd rather be a man.

So calls came in. A certain "Steven" phoned and immediately the misogynist language poured in. I was everything from "precious sweetie darling" to "beautiful". I didn't appreciate. Since when do men think they have free licence to speak to women like that? I was thinking, "who the fuck said you can call me that?" Nevertheless, I said "fuck" a lot between phone calls and threw my proverbial toys out of the cot a couple of times. I was very glad that this experiment only lasted for a very brief time, I have not the patience to endure objectification and subservience. For good taste's sake I left out the vast majority of crude and sick epithets.

Some say it's a Man's World. It seems despite the amazing Constitution we have, placing so much emphasis on gender equality, the mindset of Joe Public is pretty much still horribly chauvinist and patriarchal. It might suck to be a woman but it taught me that women are strong and resilient of character and blossom in the face of disrespect and adversity, and that, I noticed and greatly admire.

All Animals Are Equal

2011-04-02T23:23:00.000+02:00

I read a report via Ex-gay Watch today regarding the Maryland legislature extending non-discrimination protections to transgender persons. It made me think. America is not exactly the most Pink rights progressive country in the world yet some states are a few steps ahead of South Africa in a way.

Gender Identity is a term nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of 1996 and also shines in its absence in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 4 of 2000 (Equality Act). Sexual orientation, intersex, gender, race, birth, conscience and just about any other determinant appears in the Equality Act, but not Gender Identity.

Owing to a judicial matters amendment act, persons do not have to undergo complete gender reassignment surgery before they are allowed to change their sex and names on their birth certificate and identity document. This affords transgender and transsexual people in South Africa a modicum of fairness. We sure have come a long way since the abominable twighlight zone in which many people had to live, embarrassment lived through when dealing with law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats. A de facto double life steeped in shame and debasement. Some things do change for the better.

It doesn't distract from my main concern however. I am still flummoxed at why the negotiators, politicians and judicial officials at the Congress for a Democratic South Africa chose to ignore the term Gender Identity. I am still astounded as to why the drafters of the 1996 Constitution also somehow "forgot" to include Gender Identity in section 9 of the Bill of Rights. Confounded I am on why the newly established Constitutional Court who ratified the Constitution of 1996 seemingly overlooked the gaping wound. And coloured confused as to why the South African Human Rights Commission and their very pro-egalitarian commissioners, legal staff, state law advisors and the parliamentary committee overseeing the Equality Act omitted Gender Identity. Am I pondering ignorance, am I hugely mistaken or was the intention to protect the trans community through the ubiquitous gender clauses? I admit forthrightly that I am not a legal practitioner but have learnt a lot over the three years I have been politically active and participating in Pink rights advocacy.

There seems to be a complete lack of awareness regarding transgender issues in South Africa. We have one venerable organisation called Gender DynamiX who lobbies for and works to protect the trans community and they are doing sterling work. As far as I know they are also the only trans-directed organisation on the African continent. Politics is a numbers game and even though we have Gender DynamiX, we need a lot more people to wade into trans activism.

Of course our rights are interrelated and inextricably and inexplicably interlinked. My colleague and friend coined the term "Pink community" as an umbrella term for all non-heterosexual and non-cisgendered people, and of course our allies. The LGBTI acronym is fundamentally flawed in that it places people in pigeon-holes and creates a semantic prison of term entrapment. It has at the heart of it a one-dimensional understanding of human existence and an unfortunate byproduct of inherent exclusion. Never will any alphabet soup term, no matter how long and convoluted and contrived encompass our diversity when what we dearly need is unity in our rich diversity. So no matter where you fit in the Pink community the lack of trans protections ought to bother you as well. The South African term, "an injury to one is an injury to all", is not a random statement. The persons who fought for democracy here understood that fascism doesn't care which kind of "wrong" you are.

I have listened to Lady Gaga's Born This Way too many times today, I had a very long distance to drive so allow me to be so pedestrian as to quote a little phrase: "No matter gay, straight, or bi,
lesbian, transgendered life, I'm on the right track baby, I was born to survive." Lady Gaga clearly doesn't ignore the transgender topic. And neither should anyone of us. It doesn't matter if you don't understand it, if you have some irrational fear for it (often masquerading as intense dislike), challenge yourself! You are not as inept or inane as people would lead you to believe. Research, read, ask questions.

Whenever I hear people speaking of "Gay Pride" I cringe. And ditto for "the Gay Flag" -- there's no such thing. Get out of your ghetto.

Very infrequently a statement is made that outlives the event, country and author, Gandhi comes to mind but a statement that is as relevant today as when it was said is a statement by Pastor Niemoller after the Nazi-era, and it has reference to this topic as well:

First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

What are you doing? Are you speaking out regarding the human rights blackout? Maybe it is worth considering...

I’m yours

2011-03-17T08:16:00.000+02:00

I am 29 years and two days old. Thirty looms in the very close future. Like a known contingency, like a casualty of time.

I spent my whole life pleasing other people, and in the process I have lost myself. During the last three years I tried to help other people thinking it is by proxy somehow going to help me in return. It doesn't. Charity is a very expedient and ungrateful master. It is no coincidence that there is a maxim that states that charity starts at home. I have fooled myself thinking it relates to domestic issues. It doesn't.

"I know a cat named Easter. He says will you ever learn. You're just an empty cage girl. If you kill the bird" -- Crucify by Tori Amos

I never fully knew what that meant, I never fully knew what it implied and what the consequences were until an apotheosis-like state of mind this morning. I understand what she meant. I get it now. After so many years of having the song on repeat in my car, at the office. And my heart is sick of being in chains too.

A person who I look up to; who I am drawn to for some really unknown reason, a kind of well-known person and writer; wrote on Facebook the other day that wanting to please other people is a very bad habit. She doesn't know who I am exactly, but I know her. I saw her spiralling down into an emotional abyss and come out perfectly bold the other side. She's honest, and unashamedly so. While I was hiding what I felt and thought, she was quite frank about it. I thought it liberating to be in a position to have nothing to lose. Not a reputation, not clout or social capital, not a single thing.

We are so saturated with our daily petty lives and our jobs and the monstrous amount of pettiness that comes attached with that, that we have no time or consideration for reflection. We do not have the opportunity to stand back and look at a situation because we are so stuck in muddiness that we cannot reach a mirror even if we tried.

I thought what I wanted to do for that scary 30th birthday. I wanted to see Jason Mraz live somewhere, somewhere blissful and profound like my favourite song. I watched the music video for I'm Yours on YouTube so many times in the last couple of days. So much for data bundles... It is really an expression of contentment. The scenes are pretty, the music is pretty and the lyrics are undecidedly brightening. Liberatingly so. Jason is someone else's. I cannot claim who he is referring to or whether he is referring to a person at all. He might as well be referring to a newfound state of mind.

Here's the video, you can decide that for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkHTsc9PU2A

I had my head in clouds and in darkness earlier. Somehow it wasn't precipitation clouds. It was akin to a layer of mental fogginess, the way I normally feel in the mornings after getting not nearly enough sleep and often passing out with my phone in my hand. I am not on mxit I'll have you know, that is for kids. I'm a twitter junkie. But the bird is dead, the cage is empty and there's no more tweeting. My cat named Easter probably broke open the latch and ate the bird. Good for him.

But I won't hesitate no more, it cannot wait, I'm yours. And I come with a cat. He is very affectionate. I am still figuring things out but Easter always has good advice.

I’m a slave, but hey, at least I’ve got a job

2011-02-11T11:30:00.000+02:00

I am your average corporate weasel. There, I said it. I confess. I am neither a rabid libertarian nor an unthinking progressive. Cosatu will not burn me at the stake along with my hypothetical Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand collections and neither will I get honorary life-membership by extolling the virtues of Friedrich Engels.

According to the Department of Labour, I earn too much to qualify for some essential labour law protections, so I see our “progressive” labour law as not egalitarian enough. Yet it is a case of the rather devil you know than the devil you don’t. Strangely enough, Allister Sparks, writing for the Business Day, made my blood boil the other day.

Mr Sparks in all of his libertarian wisdom proposed some pseudo Industrial Revolution labour law relaxations in AT HOME AND ABROAD: Tiny puff of a possible wind of change. Mr Sparks hedges his assumptions on the warm welcome South Africa got when it was invited to the BRIC bloc of self-congratulating nations (I suppose it is BRICS now).

I have worked for shysters and have seen our esteemed labour law in action. I propose calling Johannesburg the Wild West of Exploitation since I have seen so many transgressions and constructive dismissals that I am immune to any of it and consequently suffer compassion fatigue. Worst is that employers get away with these violations with total impunity.

I know a couple of lawyers who will not touch labour law with a ten-metre stick. I completely understand. Labour law is a messy business. I had to deal with a couple of situations and I would be lying if I said I was completely unscathed.

I cherish the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997, the Employment Equity Act, 1998 and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 – although in practice, I have seen that the lofty provisions contained therein are not even worth the paper it is printed on.

My previous director often summoned me regarding the sectoral and ministerial determinations of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the subsequent wage increases. We discussed a certain sectoral determination and unexpectedly the question came from the 46 year-old: “do women get the same amount?” I nearly fell off my chair in disbelief and had to force my mouth shut before any insects could accumulate. I feigned nonchalance, answered a couple of other equally bigoted questions, and excused myself.

I vividly remember my mother bitching in the late 1980s that they were paid less than men for no other reason than gender. Even as a small child I couldn’t comprehend this inequality, let alone the other vast and ruthless inequalities that existed.

As we are inundated with speak of job creation and having to listen to the President saying the word “jobs” so many times in 80 minutes, we need to look were we came from before we consider giving up equality and a semblance of human dignity and implement slave wages.

I feel there is almost an unhealthy obsession with jobs amongst politicians and economists and columnists alike. I am lead to believe this panacea will be our saving grace and miraculously all of our problems will disappear while we are working together doing more.

There are supposedly so many hurdles and red tape that private enterprise isn’t incentivised to employ people. Apparently our minimum wages are too high. I wonder if these pompous columnists ever tried to live on a minimum wage.

Sparks et al argue that it is better to employ people on ridiculous wages than to have the outrageous levels of unemployment that we face. I see a catch here. The first thing that will happen is that the classic supply-and-demand economics will kick in and wages will fall to inhumanely low levels.

I can just imagine the Tea Party speak; it might sound something like this:

My skiewie from the DRC is prepared to work for R10 a day, so why would I employ these arrogant South Africans? They’ve got human rights now, remember. Human rights! We didn’t have human rights and we survived just fine.

I see exploitation and a lot of it. If our current lofty labour laws cannot even protect the average worker, how on earth will our society look on ruthless, anarcho-capitalist policies?

But don’t forget those jobs; they will cure all social malaise.

Notes on memory and road carnage

2011-01-24T22:09:00.000+02:00

Memory is elusive, sometimes clear. However, memory can also be deceptive and haunting. I mull at this while I'm driving to Rustenburg in the Northwest Province. One-hundred-and-seventy kilometres are quite a distance and allow ample time for thinking. Destination: Rustenburg South African Police Service.

It is one month save for one day since a four-car accident happened on 16 December 2010, late in the afternoon just west of the Hex River Bridge, in flood season. I have been driving the N4 via Rustenburg for more than a decade, Arrive Alive season just ironically delivered a surreal, first person experience of the thousands of "statistics" road carnage in South Africa. It strikes me as confounding that this day happened to be the Day of Reconciliation. It happened to be the day I reconciled myself with transience, and all things unfortunate, annoying, and traumatic.

I guess the accident scene was as typically South African as you get. In less than five minutes after the crash, the “road-vultures” arrived and set their eyes on their prey. Tow-truck drivers must have some sort of sixth sense, ubiquity of presence and zeal. In 10 minutes the paramedics arrived and not much later a lone traffic officer. It, however, took the police about three hours to arrive, and they are stationed a mere five kilometres from the accident site.

My car was only dented at the passenger side from the wheel to the back door as car 3 ploughed into me as we swerved out to avoid a certain death. Car 1 and 2 were not so lucky, and neither their passengers nor drivers. Yes, at such accidents vehicles are numbered according to their position in the queue before the accident happened.

Despite the relatively minimal damage to my car, a too-school-for-cool, young, Afrikaans man kept on harassing me insisting that my airbags would explode and my face cut open should I dare drive the car and not allow them to tow it. He was incessant and when I finally had had enough of him and closed my window he kept banging on it like a lunatic. As if four bodies strewn across the road aren’t horrible enough, I had to walk over to the then lone traffic officer and report the insolent, little man...

These are though all memories of events after the accident, which are of little concern to the investigator and the prosecutor. As I drive, I remind myself that I need to conjure up a statement of the events that predates the accident. To be honest I remember very little, if anything at all. How could I? I was the last car in a queue and had all but a front row seat, which I guess is a blessing in disguise.

At the first toll plaza just north of Pretoria, I start ruminating over those specifics of that specific day. The incident plays itself out over and over in my mind. I snigger at the idea that it might be obsessional, and heaven forbids, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In a little more than an hour, I have to report to the inspector assigned to this case.

I have to enunciate a new statement even though I already had, almost a month ago. The accident report had disappeared in a record time of less than 24 hours. My insurance company was unperturbed by this, nonchalant even. Does this happen often? I only wanted the administrative red tape to be over and done with. Luckily, I was the last car in the pile up and I was not hurt. The only damage is to my car and psyche. Insurance pays for car damage, psyche is not that easy.

After the tollgate, I watch the kilometres tick by. The ruminations begin to intensify. I was aware that I was completely depersonalised. I wandered around in a desensitised state until a very kind paramedic grabbed hold of my upper arm for a check-up. I was literally in the middle of the road with no realisation that oncoming vehicles might hit me. My memories of the incident was probably conflated and contaminated by the annoying woman’s account of the scene. She was in car 3, unhurt and I found her quite a lousy narrator. She spoke of a wheel falling off car 2, which in turn somehow lead to car 1 being on its roof way down the side of the road. I did not see a single soul emerging from that car. The woman and her two platteland-emo boys were annoying but I was unflustered. I wondered: did I see a wheel fall off? I don’t think I could have but the scene played itself out in my minds-eye.

Sixty kilometres to go says my trip-meter as I get to the next tollgate. By now I am thoroughly confused. I swipe my card and drive off due west. I contemplate a thousand things at once. How can the courts rely on witness evidence? How is it admissible, especially when our memories aren’t snapshots but perceptions and interpretations? The concept of retrograde amnesia is well explained in medical literature as the inability to recall events or the lack of memory relating to events that occurred before a traumatic event.

Having a penchant for medical sciences, I was familiar with the phenomenon that can also rarely be brought on by benzodiazepine tranquilisers like diazepam (Valium).

Our memories are like muddy waters, like a cloudy sky with bias abound. We often see what we want to see, moreover only remember what we want to remember, it is a self-preservation tactic, I guess.

As I arrive at the last tollgate before Rustenburg, I am still embattled and confused. There are vast stretches of the very long road that I have no collection of driving on just now, as I was pensive and probably ironically not a good driver. It is still 15 kilometres to go and I have no idea what I am going to dish up. I am trying to put together a narrative of which I am ill informed.

Both my memories and lack of memories muzzle my mind as I pass the Hex River Bridge and the site of the accident. So much water under the bridge... Amnesia is strangely stalking, especially if one is deemed an eyewitness. En route to the Rustenburg Police Station the sight of the scene still haunts but feels faded away and I am still not sure what I am going to say.

Brandhouse Beverages -- Prison Sleaze Campaign

2010-12-28T23:15:00.000+02:00

A conspicuously rancid ad reared its ugly head towards the end of 2010, apparently to dissuade men from drinking and driving. The ad is though so tasteless and crass that someone had to report it to the Advertising Standards Authority.

The advertisement starts out with “prisoners” summing up their proclivities and interests in what can be described as a televised dating service. The scene is expanded as the camera zooms out to include a deluge of scantily clad men, intently “dressed-down” to exploit prejudices and enforce fears. All of these “inmates” would love to meet you. One decidedly dressed-as-shady “prisoner” says in a husky voice at the end: “ek wag vi jou” [I am waiting for you]. The supposed intent of the advertisement is to dissuade men to drink and drive.

Aforementioned most ill conceived ad is replete and saturated with innuendo to the point that there seems consensus that it exploits male rape as a cheap scare tactic to supposedly prevent men from driving under the influence of alcohol.

^[1]http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/rape-in-jail-ad-too-shocking-for-some-1.1003729

^[2] http://victimempowermentsa.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/drive-dry-are-we-accepting-that-prison-rape-happens/

^[3]http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/a-dose-of-stupid-v41/

Should female rape been used in a similar fashion it would have been summarily banned and international outrage would have ensued. Why these double standards?

Sans condoning any abusive behaviour, it is abhorrent that double standards exist in our society whereby men have been subjugated as faceless sufferers who enjoy no sympathy from the public and often endure slights to their own sexuality if they report rape. Many a times men do not report these crimes and prison authorities ignore it.

For decades activists fought to have male rape recognised as a serious crime. For centuries, men who were fundamentally violated saw a miscarriage of justice as assailants were only charged with “indecent assault”, a much lesser charge carrying a much lesser sentence. Only in 2007 with the promulgation of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act , [No. 32 of 2007], was the common law definition of rape scrapped and reformulated and expanded to include male rape.

Norman Reyneker’s claim ^[1] that “...research had shown that 88 percent of South Africans would be deterred from drunk-driving by the prospect of arrest and incarceration,” does not vindicate the abhorrent advertisement in any way. Is this not the crassest manifestation of heterosexism ever? Is the consequence of drunk driving rape? Is this constitutionally fair? I think not.

Reyneker states in the IOL ^[1] article: “The campaign is not about prison life. It is about the consequences of drunk-driving.” Should we infer that the consequence of drunk-driving is what is portrayed as the in-your-face innuendo (i.e. rape)?

Victim Empowerment South Africa ^[2]states eloquently: “The idea of prison is to rehabilitate those who have broken the law, not to inflict violence and abuse against them. Those in prison may have had their right of movement restricted, but they should not have their rights to dignity removed.

Nobody deserves rape. Prison rape is not acceptable. [Emphasis in original] Nor, is it funny or sickly romantic (as is presented in this advert).”

Toy Soldiers For the forgotten men and boys who suffer in silence states ^[3] that: “Thirdly, if the research shows that most South Africans would be deterred from driving while drunk by the prospect of arrest and incarceration, why is the ad campaign not about that? In Illinois there are several drunk driving ads featuring drivers (all men, because apparently women never drink and drive) with their cars filled with alcohol. The ads end with the drivers getting pulled over and arrested, with the disclaimer that if you drink and drive you will go to jail.” It is extremely painful to have foreigners point out the self-reinforcing nature of our violent society.

A spokesperson from the ASA as quoted in the IOL article states that one should see the ad in question in context ^[1]. Is the corrective services inextricably and inexplicably linked to sexual abuse? Should it be seen in this way? Does “context” justify the use of abuse tactics?

Civil Society Pressures Governments to Successfully Reverse Discriminatory Vote at UN

2010-12-22T13:46:00.000+02:00

Civil Society Pressures Governments to Successfully Reverse Discriminatory Vote at UN

"Several swing states indicated a change from their votes in November. South Africa, a key vote from the African region, stated that in today's vote they were "guided by our Constitution that guarantees the right to life" and that "no killing of human beings can be justified whatsoever." Colombia, which abstained on the earlier vote, also offered its unequivocal support during the new vote."

via the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

Civil Society Pressures Governments to Successfully Reverse Discriminatory Vote at UN
12/21/2010

Contacts:

Jessica Stern, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,jstern@iglhrc.org, +1 212 430 6014 (English)

Marcelo Ferreyra, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,mferreyra@iglhrc.org, (54) 11-4665-7527, (Spanish, English)

(December 21, 2010) On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring reference to "sexual orientation" in a high-profile resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The reference to sexual orientation had been removed by an earlier amendment at the committee level by governments opposed to ensuring protection for individuals targeted because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. The vote - which passed 93 to 55, with 27 abstentions and 17 absent or not voting - demonstrated that efforts to exclude vulnerable groups from human rights protections at the UN will be vigorously opposed.

Today's dramatic vote comes after a UN General Assembly sub-committee responsible for human rights issues voted in November to remove the reference to "sexual orientation" from a paragraph enumerating vulnerable populations in the resolution condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The earlier removal of the reference to sexual orientation, approved in committee by a vote of 79 in favor, 70 opposed, with 17 abstaining and 26 not voting, was met by an international outcry – including from governments such as the United States who vowed to re-open the issue.

Introducing today's amendment, the representative of the United States called on governments to acknowledge that all persons have the right to be free from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including those targeted because of their sexual orientation. The US later went on to note that the voices of civil society and human rights defenders had been heard. They also called on UN Member States to sign onto the 2008 General Assembly declaration confirming that international human rights protections include protection from violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The discriminatory vote in November prompted a massive mobilization by civil society including through action alerts issued by ARC International and by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – an organization which, in July, faced unsuccessful efforts by the same conservative forces to prevent it from gaining official NGO status at the UN.

"This, of course, could not have happened without the concerted and passionate efforts of several governments. But what this victory also demonstrates is the power of civil society at the UN and working across countries and regions to demand that their own governments vote to protect LGBT lives." said Cary Alan Johnson, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC). "The outpouring of support from the international community sent the strong message to our representatives at the UN that it is unacceptable to make invisible the deadly violence LGBT people face because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Following the November vote, civil society from around the world - including strong coalitions from the Global South - were vocal in pressuring their governments to support critical human rights protections for LGBT people. As the ad hoc civil society coalition from South Africa noted:

"The November amendment … aggravates an already difficult environment for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people and their defenders, who live in continual fear of violent attack and experience discrimination throughout Africa and many other parts of the world. ...and ignores the overwhelming evidence that people are routinely killed around the world because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

Following today's successful inclusion of language on sexual orientation, the resolution itself passed with a vote of 122 in favor and 1 against (with 62 abstentions and 17 absences). It now states, "To ensure the effective protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings, including those targeted at specific groups of persons, such as...killings of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, or because of their sexual orientation...."

This marks a return to previous inclusive language that governments in the UN have supported for close to a decade. These abuses have also been consistently documented by UN Special Rapporteurs in reports to the UN Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, a point noted in today's statement by Belgium on behalf of the European Union.

Regrettably, governments have so far failed to include in the resolution mention of, or specific protection around, killings committed on the basis of gender identity. This is despite the fact that transgender people around the world are among those most vulnerable to violence and killings.

Today's vote to reinstate protections passed with broad cross-regional support. Many states took the floor in support of inclusion of reference to the vulnerability of LGBT people and calling for a stronger response against killings on the basis of sexual orientation that take place all too frequently around the world.

Several swing states indicated a change from their votes in November. South Africa, a key vote from the African region, stated that in today's vote they were "guided by our Constitution that guarantees the right to life" and that "no killing of human beings can be justified whatsoever." Colombia, which abstained on the earlier vote, also offered its unequivocal support during the new vote.

Although several countries claimed a supposed lack of a definition of sexual orientation in international law as a reason for their opposition, countries such as Rwanda firmly rejected this saying: "Take my word, a human group need not be legally defined to be the victim of executions and massacres as those that target their members have [already] previously defined [them]. Rwanda has also had this bitter experience sixteen years ago. It is for this that the Delegation of Rwanda will vote for this amendment and calls on other delegations to do likewise."

Today's vote affirms the message of UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon, who on International Human Rights Day, delivered an unequivocal statement - much quoted by States supporting the amendment - on the obligation of the UN and its member states to end violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

He declared, "Together, we seek the repeal of laws that criminalize homosexuality, that permit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, that encourage violence. People were not put on this planet to live in fear of their fellow human beings."

Watch the video from Human Rights Day Event and read UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon's full statement »

Contacts:

ARC International
Kim Vance +1-902-488-6404 (Canada)
John Fisher +41-79-508-3968 (Geneva)
arc@arc-international.net

CariFLAGS
Kenita Placide
Tel: +1 758 7141765, kenita72@hotmail.com

COC Nederland
Björn van Roozendaal
Tel: + +31 6 22 55 83 0, BvanRoozendaal@coc.nl (Netherlands)

International Day to End Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO)
Joel Bedos
Tel: +33664715921 (Paris)

International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)
Jessica Stern
Tel: +1 212 430 6014, jstern@iglhrc.org (New York)

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association (ILGA) World
Renato Sabbadini
renato@ilga.org (Brussles)

In favor of amendment restoring sexual orientation to UNGA resolution on executions (93):

Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua-Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Marshall Island, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela

Opposed to amendment (55):

Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Dar-Sala, Burkina Faso, Burundi, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Abstained (27):

Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao, Lesotho, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Mozambique, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome Principe, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Vietnam

Did not vote/Absent (17):

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Seychelles, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan

Read the formal communications from human rights defenders in countries that lobbied their governments on this vote (PDF) »

See the IGLHRC petition on this vote with over 3400 signatories from over 85 countries »

The folly of unquestioning patronage

2010-11-07T01:19:00.000+02:00

There’s probably nothing more dangerous than blind faith and unquestioning patronage. I may align myself with a particular political party or organisation but that relationship is never unconditional. If your political party of choice screws up spectacularly you should hold them to account for it. There is no such thing as perpetual liberation amnesty. Has anyone noticed that the only time political parties are interested in the electorate is during the couple of months before election time? After they have conned you into voting them into power they smugly cling onto it with their dear lives with complete disregard for the participative and cerebrally unchallenged electorate.

I have allegiance to a very, very small group of people and myself only. I am a firm believer in the sanctity of individualism and classical liberal rights. I am luckily not an Ayn Rand acolyte and I do not support anarcho-capitalism or laissez-faire economics because I know shysterism in the business world very well. I trust neither private enterprise nor the state to play god with my life. It is my life; my prerogative and the sanctity of my bodily and psychological integrity should be respected at all times as stipulated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, section 12(2):

2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right :

a) to make decisions concerning reproduction;

b) to security in and control over their body; and

c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

On 4 November 2010, the much-anticipated The Gathering took place in Sandton, organised by The Daily Maverick. It created quite the buzz on twitter and peaked at the number four spot of trending topics worldwide (no mean feat). Twitter itself has been in the news recently with the ever-ingenious ANC Youth League threatening to “closer” [sic] the micro-blogging service. I first got word of the story via Jonah Fisher on twitter and the story as well as a plethora of new fake profiles and jokes went viral. Call me “bloody agent” with “white tendencies” but I think the joke is on the Youth League as twitter users took the Mickey out of Juju et al.

The Daily Maverick claimed it was unintentional but Gwede Mantashe and Zwelinzima Vavi happened to be in one space unbeknownst to them and if you follow politics, you should know that they aren’t exactly the best of friends. However, this didn’t deter either of them and some good points were made regarding disregarding the electorate and using the state as a feeding trough.

Vavi went first and said, “There are tenderpreneurs who think they have the right to eat off the half-naked bodies of hired black women.”

The Daily Maverick further summarises Vavi’s stance on the contentious Protection of Information Bill: “Vavi also spoke out against the Protection of Information Bill, saying it would stop the media reporting on corruption and would stop union members from blowing the whistle on corruption. It drew plenty of applause from the audience.”

Mantashe however seemed more authoritarian. Mantashe “seemed to suggest that some of the civil society groups he caught Cosatu cosying up to may have motives that are against the ANC. He says they’re not being paranoid about this, but are actually worried. We think he’s trying to warn Cosatu against getting too friendly with organisations that are funded by foreign powers. Paranoid? You decide,” The Daily Maverick continues.

It seems from statements that Vavi actually pays attention to the electorate while the ANC is busy to legislate for authoritarianism. You may not like Vavi’s politics but at least he doesn’t consider us cannon fodder.

It was, however, blogger extraordinaire Khaya Dlanga who made the most profound speech called The paradox of South African Youth.

Dlanga spoke of the lack of participation by the South African youth, made poignant references, and fully substantiated his claim. He quoted America’s second president John Adams

My occupation allows me little time for the finer arts. No, I must study politics and war, you see, so that my sons will have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons must study navigation, commerce and agriculture, so that their children will have the right to study, poetry, painting and music.

Dlanga also spoke about Jefferson, Biko, and Luther King who despite their youth made an imprint on history. Dlanga then made the pivotal statement: “How did these young people become so famous? They served humanity not themselves. Studies show that people who serve causes that are higher than themselves are more satisfied and are happier. Those are, in fact, the ones who are enjoying their youth.”

The people Dlanga mentioned kept their constituents in mind and did not play the politics game for material wealth. We hardly ever see such a trait in South African politics today, no matter the party.

It is because of a puppet electorate, unquestioning political patronage, and a lack of citizen participation, apathy, and complacency that we sit today with the dilemma of the fascist Protection of Information Bill. Benjamin Franklin made an apotheosis-like statement, which should be our guiding light concerning Secrecy legislation

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We need to be constantly vigilant when protecting our fundamental rights. We need to be a little cheeky and insolent and we must question authority at all times and never take anything for granted. Do not moan while sitting on the sidelines – I have no sympathy for you then. Roll up your sleeves, get into the fight, and don’t be afraid to step on some toes and invoke the ire of those in power. Politicians place themselves in the public domain so they should expect heightened scrutiny.

Spirit Day

2010-10-26T13:57:00.000+02:00

Today the news broke that a Pink rights activist (or LGBT as they prefer in America) committed suicide in Brooklyn. This is short on the heels of the half a dozen young people who committed suicide in America in a spate of a month due to homophobic bullying and abuse. Subsequently 20 October 2010 was declared “Spirit Day” after a grassroots campaign by a Canadian Facebook user who started the event, on the social media network, went viral and attracted millions and helped to draw attention to the social evil of prejudice.

On 20 October 2010 probably millions of people around the world wore purple in remembrance of those who lost their lives due to homophobic abuse. The colour purple in the rainbow flag (also commonly referred to as the “gay flag”) represents spirit, ergo the colour chosen as a means of expressing solidarity of grief. Inadvertently an estimated 100 000 Jacaranda trees were also in full, magnificent, purple blossom in Johannesburg and Pretoria.

Activist Dan Savage started the “It gets better” campaign which features several thousand YouTube videos from celebrities to Hilary Clinton and even Barack Obama. One aim of the campaign is to denounce bullying as a “rite of passage” as Obama puts it and also to send out a message of hope to many millions of young gay/bi/trans people who are attacked purely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I doubt that there is a gay person out there that hasn’t been victim of some sort of abuse or slight and I can attest from personal experience. Although I was never subject to physical violence I had my fair share of vitriolic insults and snide remarks.

Vitriolic remarks aren’t necessarily confined to interpersonal communications. On Friday 22 October 2010 a “herrie” broke loose at “Die Herrie”, a community newspaper in Oudtshoorn, after one of the staff members, a certain Karin Zaayman wrote on her Facebook profile that: “Aids is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals. It is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.” The owner of the paper responded quite expeditiously and sent a generic response to all the diligent Pink rights advocates including me distancing him and the paper from the distinctly hateful and ignorant statement.

The article was quite the buzz in Rapport and to nobody’s surprise the pig-ignorant public continued in this vein and contributed a slew of hateful statements directed at the Pink community while expressing their solidarity with Ms Zaayman. Many lamented that they have a right to freedom of speech without knowing that freedom of speech is limited by section 36 of the Constitution and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act 4 of 2000. I have studied both and discussed the latter with the erstwhile CEO of the South African Human Rights Commission, Advocate Tseliso Thipanyane.

I don’t think someone who doesn’t intimately know how it feels to be persecuted because of some prejudice will ever fully understand. I don’t think the plethora of commentators will be aware of how much damage their flippant remarks create. I oftentimes receive email from desperate and often suicidal people and often see the pain in what they endure. I came across the following description of suffocation from an anonymous young person:

The closet is a lot like being trapped. Like being in a cage under
water with your air cylinder almost running out. It's like suffering
from the severest of asphyxiation phobia. It renders you a constant
nervous wreck carrying around nasal decongestant spray to ease
breathing, to make the suffocation that hits a couple of times a day
more bearable. Such is the same for being closeted and even worse when
you are still under you parents’ care and you know full well that you
might be kicked out and destined to live on the street. So you suck it
up. You swallow the anxiety, the panic and the pain and hold on for
dear life to just at least further your education lest you be so much
worse off and god forbid destitute. Reduced to options ranging from
prostitution or meaningless like a job that slowly kills you where
bruises never heal.
You throw yourself into your scholarly activities to forget the part of
yourself that's repressed. And it haunts you the more you repress it.
Your repression turns into obsessive compulsive disorder as a
desperate means to distract your attention. And you know that
'sometimes' is never good enough, that you shouldn't forget to put that smile on your face.

You do not contemplate suicide because it's the easy way out. You
contemplate it because there is no way out. None at all. The
atmosphere presses down on you more than usual and late nights and
early mornings get coloured cobalt blue from angst. Your face is numb. Your soul is dead. Your innermost being is a wreck of paranoia and memories that you would die to forget.

Masculinity, uncertainty and obscure rites of passage

2010-10-10T23:37:00.000+02:00

Someone I know quite well alerted me to a (gay) medical doctor and his fascination with all things esoteric including the sickening concept of male rites of passage.

Granted, Mister Medical Doctor is on the wrong side of 40, I am on the wrong side of 25, and I suspect there is also a generation gap between our world views. Aside from the generation gap, one also needs to be mindful of my supposed extreme libertarianism in the anarcho-centre-leftist range.

Maybe I am viewing all of this through my intense disdain for the Patriarchy, which would also explain the anarchist tendencies. I see all rites of passage as incongruous to our Zeitgeist. Moreover, I see attempts to grasp the unattainable through mass hysteria and trance-inducing rituals as inappropriate and scary – hence why I avoid certain charismatic congregations and any 12 step programmes like Alcoholics Anonymous.

I’ve exposed the proliferation of the men’s movement in The patriarchy, the religious right and the threats to human rights in August of 2009 in which Amelia Jones, author of Feminism, Incorporated. Reading “postfeminism” in an antifeminism age dissects the methodology and hysteria of the men’s movement:

The other side of the postfeminist coin is the so-called ‘men’s movement’. Inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) the men’s movement appropriates and perverts the rhetoric of feminism to urge the contemporary American male to 'find a voice of [his] own' as a 'Wild Man'. Bly laments the feminization of the American male at the hands of his female caretakers, and calls for the extirpation of this spineless femininity through primitivist histrionics and rituals of male bonding. The 'Wild Man' immerses himself in mother nature and beats the appropriated drums of his 'primitive' brothers with big sticks to prove to himself that, while he may be a 'minority' his ability to dominate is intact.

Now I know rad-fems can be strident, as exposed in the Mail & Guardian article Lady, tramp, feminist icon. Lady Gaga or Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (as she is known off-stage) must be one of the foremost Pink rights activists of our time. Lady Gaga doesn’t fool around, she asserts herself, and she carries a formidable presence on 15 centimetre heels. However, feminist stalwart Camille Paglia is less impressed and calls Gaga a “ruthless recycler of other people's work” and proclaims that there is an "essential depressiveness and spiritual paralysis" to her. Paglia might be too “old school”. I also wonder what spirituality has to do with equality. It seems both Mister Doctor and Ms Paglia have a penchant for the esoteric.

Via Mister Doctor’s nauseatingly esoteric blog, I came to see a phenomenon called The Mankind Project and it seemingly has a worldwide footprint. I also came across testimony on Facebook of other random gay guys who went on these man-camps only to extol the virtues of the Mankind Project much to my amusement.

My question: why do you feel so insecure and uncomfortable in your own skin that you have to discover your “inner wild animal” in between primitivist histrionics? Darlings, we do not live in the Stone Age anymore. We do not have to stave off wild beasts for our survival and we need no longer hunt or forage for our food. We have a modern service economy with division of labour and we have transgressed the need for strict characterisation between male and female in terms of behaviour and build.

Imagine if women also laagered around their sole common denominator – their sex/gender. I am horrified by the thought of it. Oh dear, the return of Jong Dames Dinamiek! All the shock, horror, shoulder pads, and big hair of the 80s now conjured up in my mind's eye scares me to death.

Men-only events are just plain misogyny in disguise. Men and women are equal – thus no separate events for one sex. Why do men, gay included, seemingly have this existential crisis of late?

We are well aware of circumcision as a type of male rite of passage ceremony but there is also a growing trend towards the reversal of the physical effects of circumcision. One of the organisations helping men undo that was in many instances not their legal choice is called NORM – National Organization for the Restoration of Men. Many websites provide with practical advice on restoration procedures and many lament the fact that socially sanctioned childhood genital mutilation was carried out in the first place. How can any person allow the mutilation/abuse of a baby? It is an outdated “religious” practice and serves no purpose today (the supposed study postulating that it lessens the risk of contracting HIV is extremely dangerous as it could lead to riskier behaviour.)

Back to less serious subject matter... What was refreshing of the Mankind Project is their view on sexual orientation:

• We affirm that all men are welcome on our trainings and in our communities.

• We create trainings and circles in which all men are welcome to discover their deepest truths. We welcome men of all sexual orientations: gay, straight, and bisexual, including those who identify as having unwanted same sex attraction, to do their own work as they define it, to respect the identity and value of others, and to take responsibility for the impact their words and behaviors have on others.

• We support each man in pursuing his path to deeper authenticity. We do not provide therapy nor endorse any particular therapy, including reparative therapy. Any group or organization that states or implies otherwise does so without our permission.

• We do not, and will not, attempt to change a man’s sexual orientation.

• We stand firm in support of gay and bisexual men. We support men who believe that homosexuality is a normal part of the spectrum of human sexuality and of mature masculinity.

• We will not tolerate proselytizing for any religion or belief, organizing training staff into groups that exclude others, guiding men’s processes in a predetermined direction, or grooming men for the training.

• We will not tolerate discrimination on our trainings or in our communities. We support our training and community leaders in identifying and challenging discriminatory language and behavior.

I would solely, based on the above, condone and even praise the Mankind Project for their inclusivity and lack of discrimination. If there is kudos to dish out – the Mankind Project certainly deserves them in this instance.

The Mankind Project goes further to explain the so-called “New Macho”:

The New Macho:

He cleans up after himself.
He cleans up the planet.
He is a role model for young men.
He is rigorously honest and fiercely optimistic

He holds himself accountable.
He knows what he feels.
He knows how to cry and he lets it go.
He knows how to rage without hurting others.
He knows how to fear and how to keep moving.
He seeks self-mastery.

He's let go of childish shame.
He feels guilty when he's done something wrong.
He is kind to men, kind to women, kind to children.
He teaches others how to be kind.
He says he's sorry.

He stopped blaming women or his parents or men for his pain years ago.
He stopped letting his defenses ruin his relationships.
He stopped letting his penis run his life.
He has enough self respect to tell the truth.
He creates intimacy and trust with his actions.
He has men that he trusts and that he turns to for support.
He knows how to roll with it.
He knows how to make it happen.
He knows how to listen from the core of his being.

He's not afraid to get dirty.
He's ready to confront his own limitations.
He has high expectations for himself and for those he connects with.
He looks for ways to serve others.
He knows he is an individual.
He knows that we are all one.
He knows he is an animal and a part of nature.
He knows his spirit and his connection to something greater.

He knows that the future generations are watching his actions.
He builds communities where people are respected and valued.
He takes responsibility for himself and is willing to be his brother's keeper.

He knows his higher purpose.
He loves with fierceness.

He laughs with abandon, because he gets the joke.

On the surface, all of the above seem very noble and my stridency completely unsubstantiated. However, something keeps bugging me. Something I can’t quite explain. I have a finely tuned sense of intuition. It might sound contradictory coming from me that I do not believe in the esoteric. I believe intuition is just astute perceptive skill.

Now my astute perceptiveness tells me there is something more to the Mankind Project than meets the eye and I have thought of joining a camp to experience it for myself. Then again, I am not quite fond of men in general and the “bush” is not really my cup of tea. No, I decided. I shall sit in the comfort of my suburban life, sip on organic vanilla tea and honey bush chai, and contemplate such sociological constructs. I feel no need for a “transition” or rite of passage, but why do so many others have this dire need?

The Puppet Public Representative and the lack of accountability

2010-09-15T13:35:00.000+02:00

This morning I read an interesting piece on Politicsweb titled “[a] call for electoral reform.” The article had seemingly been waiting in my inbox as if it was sent just for me. And it could not have come at a better time. You see, as a generally placid person I have the odd axe to grind and it just so happens to be our shoddy and haughty public representatives with whom I have developed a gripe.

Christina Engela had written a lot on the detrimental effects of the lack of citizen participation, notably in her article Blah, Blah, Click, Click, in which she laments the laziness of the average denizen:

[T]he people who have the final say – the voters – expect other people to do everything for them without their having to make the effort to lift a finger to get involved, or to be bothered with the details – and as the old saying goes, "The devil is in the details."

She goes further to blame the mess that the country is in on the apathetic and complacent electorate who assumed the most enticing fatalist attitude. The ANC is on record that it will supposedly rule until Jesus comes again, so one can assume your average voting citizen does not intend on messing with that kind of brashness and resolve.

Since the shockingly insolent statement it now also seems Pastor Ray McCauley might have furnished the apparatchiks with a nice direct line to the Rhema Communications Centre. And who knows what else is possible, it was the “late” Hayibo.com that said “[w]e want to remind people that there is no problem this country can throw at you that you can’t solve with electric fencing and a pedicure.”

Enough Sandtonista mantra for now – back to my gripe…

Engela also writes in a piece titled Puppet electorate that South Africans are not taught the principles of democracy and constitutionalism at school and this invariably leads to ignorance, apathy and disenfranchisement.

Engela further considers the gist of the apathy problem and states it very eloquently and concisely:

Politics is left to those few who feel a calling to defend human rights, or those opportunists who recognise the opportunity to make lots of money or dictate to others and to force others to see things their way. As a result, there are few impressive figures in South African politics today. And, unfortunately, the political arena that is Government today seems to resemble far more a "revolutionary house" than a democracy, accompanied by the discord and gross incompetence that accompanies such a house.

Yet it seems, at least as far as I am concerned, the puppet is the public representative, not me. I have been involved in politics for some time but I am becoming more frustrated by the day. Maybe these people who are mandated to look after their constituencies are overworked but damn, I haven’t seen such poor work ethic in a very long time.

In the corporate world it is just the norm to reply to email correspondence at least within a week (which in itself is an awful long time). And if you are unable to completely fulfil in all the obligations and demands of the email it is just good manners to at the very least acknowledge receipt of an email; especially if that email came from a client with a very valid gripe.

But political parties are only responsive come election time and here the Politicsweb article becomes relevant again.

A central focus of the [Independent Panel of Assessment of Parliament] report is on the lack of accountability of MPs to voters, brought about by the absence of constituency-based electoral system and the top-down effect of the party-list system. The report indicates a connection between corruption in the award of state contracts and lack of accountability of MPs to voters.

Independent Panel of Assessment of Parliament Report further elucidates on the issue and places due emphasis on the shortfalls of the party list system and pure proportional representation:

It has been argued that the perceived lack of accountability of Members of Parliament to the public, as well as the poor link between the public and Parliament in general, can be ascribed to South Africa's party-list electoral system. The Panel deliberated at length on the impact of the party-list electoral system on various aspects of Parliament's work. It was noted that the party-list system tends to promote accountability of Members of Parliament to their political parties rather than to the electorate … The Panel strongly recommends that Parliament debates the relative merits of various electoral systems and considers the impact of these systems on the institution's ability to give expression to its Constitutional mandate. The view of the Panel is that the current electoral system should be replaced by a mixed system which attempts to capture the benefits of both the constituency-based and proportional representation electoral systems.

While proportional representation in my mind remains the most fair method of appropriating party political support, there is a clear lack of accountability which I now have had the dubious pleasure of experiencing. Conversely, constituency representation in the crude Westminster manner effectively drowns out the voices of a minority within a constituency. It is simply undemocratic if the popular vote is not reflected in Parliament.

A federal system is also wholly undesirable as it creates discrepancies and major human rights differences purely based on geographic boundaries. Imagine being unfortunate enough to live in a province of demagogues and thus having to suffer the tyranny of the majority.

Yet undecided on the issue of which democratic, electoral system to favour, one thing is certain though – public representatives need to realise that they were elected by the people and are therefore servants of the people. Public representatives should never be haughty, self-righteous, aloof and cliquey creatures of some feudal philosophy. Your pretty face is not on a poster to promote your own interests but those of your community.

Is an open constitutional democracy a threat to security, or rather political expedience?

2010-08-25T22:28:00.000+02:00

The current furore over the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal has fundamental and seemingly overlapping human rights issues at heart: the right to privacy and dignity coupled with the State’s interest in supposed national security and the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

The apparatchiks and cadres at the ANC are quite indignant at what they claim the unscrupulous, paparazzi-esque harassment and stalking of esteemed members of parliament, ministers, and other office bearers and tenderpreneurs. They contend that their rights to dignity and privacy are being desecrated.

Let us not forget that the media played a pivotal role in exposing government incompetence, mismanagement, irregularities and fraud, all of which made the apparatchiks look bad. And apparatchiks with a predilection for totalitarianism do not take humiliation and accountability very well.

A knee-jerk reaction followed in the guise of the Protection of Information Bill and the mooted Media Appeals Tribunal. One can almost smell the self-righteous bitterness all the way from Cape Town.

But the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’s Bill of Rights also guarantees the right to freedom of speech and a free press. At the intersection of these seemingly conflicting and overlapping rights the vicious debate commenced.

So much has been written about the draconian Protection of Information Bill and Media Appeals Tribunal that for me to weigh in on that subject would be superfluous. Instead I will focus on some layman’s constitutional juris prudence.

The US Ambassador to South Africa, Donald Gips, also weighed in on the contentious issues facing South Africa at the moment. Gips is quoted in PoliticsWeb:

In the early days of America, our third president Thomas Jefferson said, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." In the darkest days of South Africa, the press was a leading light that helped expose the acts of the apartheid regime.

The US ambassador to South Africa also said that he heard the word "tenderpreneur" for the first time in South Africa. Methinks our penchant for making up words for creative opportunism caught his attention.

Where else would such a neologism be conjured up, I thought? Very few supposedly open, constitutional democracies display the unrestrained duplicity, corruption and nepotism we almost take for granted here. If government gets its way this will most probably be the last time I am allowed to write about government malfeasance or even produce postulations and create “unpatriotic” hypotheses.

As with all things political there is a history pertaining to the current ruckus. 1994 hailed in the miracle that was the new rainbow nation (a term ascribed to the most venerable Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu). After Nelson Mandela, arguably the world’s most liked statesman, stepped down things slowly went pear shaped.

The media grew critical of government shortly after the rainbow nation miracle-honeymoon, circa 1999 – and many a times it exposed very embarrassing actions of office bearers. Sometimes the media highlighted pure, unadulterated hypocrisy and sometimes the wanton abuse of power, wasteful expenditure and the gross mismanagement and theft of the taxpayer's money. This was obviously not a pleasant experience for those who hold sway over the laws of the land.

Granted, government, essentially, tried to better the lives of ordinary citizens and with every exposé some degree of resentment set in. Mama Winnie famously said at the OR Tambo International Airport during the Caster Semenya saga: "We know your responsibility is to inform us, but do so patriotically without insulting one of our own. Use the freedom of press we gave you properly, because we can take it from you."

Some commentators saw in that statement the foreboding of what is emerging while others just shrugged it off – in retrospect it seems to be rather safer to err on the side of caution.

I have personally been subject to invasion of privacy, albeit my subjective evaluation, and mockery at the hands of one of the newspaper groups and I admittedly felt violated – I would be lying if I said I was completely unscathed. I realised though that just as unfair I saw the petty article, the point was that it was petty and an attempt to defend the indefensible. I could have thrown my weight behind the ANC to gag the press and fine and jail journalists but then again I am a journalist myself and the right to freedom of speech and a free press trumps any insignificant dents made to my non-existent public image and seemingly fragile sense of pride.

I am though not sanctioning impunity because malice exists in every industry and like everyone in society journalists should be held accountable like any private person. Then again – if you decide to venture into public life you are relinquishing your complete right to privacy because the consequences of your actions might affect citizens and your comings and goings might be in the public interest.

And here is where the adjudication of conflicting interests and rights come into play. Justice Albie Sachs in his capacity as former judge of the Constitutional Court explains the raison d’être of constitutional litigation in the Strange Alchemy of Life and Law:

I came to see most of the work on my Court as involving claims between right and right. We were concerned not so much with classificatory frontiers between the lawful and the unlawful, as with reconciling the diverse interests that inevitably exist in an open and democratic society. In this setting abstract legal reasoning of a dogmatic kind gave way to a form of adjudication in which purpose, context, impact and values took centre-stage. [Sachs, 2009: 202 – 203]

Sachs goes on to explain the balancing up of rights and the determination of fairness:

Proportionality, fairness, reasonableness: these were not questions that could be decided purely by grammatical textual analysis and logical inference. In just about every case that came before us, the Constitution obliged us to make value judgments on issues of major social and moral importance. The problem then was not whether to make value judgments, but how to do so in a principled way that was true to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. [Sachs, 2009: 211]

The essence of the above is that conflicting interests are adjudicated based on proportionality and reasonableness to determine the most fair and constitutional judgment.

Section 14 of the Bill of Rights grants the fundamental right to privacy and section 10 grants the fundamental right of dignity, while section 16 gave effect to freedom of expression including freedom of the press and other media, and section 32 gave rise to the right to access to information. These rights are subject to the limitations clause as elaborated on in section 36.

Clearly there is a conflict of interest and rights at play here. And in my humble opinion it is not up to politicians to play adjudicators with their inevitable conflicting interests. It is up to the honourable judges of the Constitutional Court, who are well-versed in the concepts of proportionality, reasonableness, fairness, equality and juris prudence to decide whether the Protection of Information Bill and the Media Appeals Tribunal violate the rights of the citizenry by virtue of their existence. Section 36 e) makes it clear that where limitations of rights may apply the less restrictive means to achieve the purpose ought to be used.

The draconian and fascist Protection of Information Bill and the threat that is the Media Appeals Tribunal do not properly balance the rights to freedom of expression including the freedom of the press and the right to access to information with the limitations the State is seeking. Furthermore the limitation of rights clause (section 36) concludes with the profound statement which will hopefully sink these fascist initiatives should it ever reach the Constitutional Court: no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.

Whose rights are the state protecting and what information lurks beneath the surface that we ought to be protected against it? Are we seeing simple exaggeratedness or rather patent expedience?

Bibliography:

Sachs, A. 2009. The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law. New York: Oxford University Press.

We’re ALL African

2010-08-01T18:55:00.001+02:00

It is the theme of 2010 Joburg Pride (Africa’s oldest and largest Pride event) and the venerable Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu proclaimed it during the kick-off concert of the FIFA 2010 Soccer World Cup. It is a statement encapsulating unity in diversity. And its scope is not limited to denizens of Africa as anthropologists and historians alike have postulated that humanity has its origins in Africa.

The preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and the inscription on the South African coat of arms cemented the phrase “unity in diversity.” The old, clichéd adage still holds true: united we stand, divided we fall.

The Joburg Pride Board adopted the theme in light of prevailing threats of xenophobic violence which immediately conjures up memories of the deplorable events of May 2008 when about 100 000 people were displaced, homes and businesses of foreigners ransacked and set alight, the most indigent people in South Africa assaulted and murdered and chased away from their homes like subhuman beings. The victims’ only “crime” was being different – of a different nationality. It is identity based crime and victimisation personified and a close parallel to genocides through the ages from times immemorial to the Holocaust to 1994 Rwanda.

South Africa is one of only a handful of countries that grants asylum status due to persecution on the basis of sexual orientation inter alia. Many members of the Pink community from all over Africa fled to South Africa in search of a sense of normalcy and freedom from persecution/genocide and to experience some of the legal rights and protections South Africans so often take for granted.

If you think xenophobia only applies to foreign nationals, think again. Xenophobia literally means (from etymology) “having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign” [Wordweb, Princeton University]. I’d hate to break the news but many people view us in the Pink community strange or foreign or both. It doesn’t matter if we are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, questioning, queer, polyamorous, asexual or of the various shades of alphabet soup identities in between artificial semantics boundaries.

Those who are not completely heterosexual and cisgender face possible identity based crimes along with foreign nationals. Yet some in our little convoluted community harbour the Orwellian notion that they are more equal than others in the same boat as they are, or simply lack the insight and cerebral capacity to grasp the interrelatedness of human rights. These bitter and self-destructive people draw endless us/them dichotomies to stymie the work done by many in the Pink community to foster a sense of unity in purpose, severalty and diversity.

Here’s the caveat – even if a community is defined as one that is not 100% heterosexual and cisgender one should display extreme caution to not alienate our allies who are both heterosexual and cisgender, otherwise we will be just as bigoted and disingenuous as our detractors. If we approach everyone with the premise of confrontation and contempt that is most likely exactly what we'll get. We'll not only exude gross antagonism but will exhume it from the darkest trenches of misdirected resentment too.

Despite our efforts to fight for the whole Pink community there are continuous assaults from industrious armchair critics, radical feminists (who act contrary to the original suffragette raison d’être), a variety of incessant, unreasonable and belligerent gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender malcontents. Their identities are not the causation of the squabbles but rather their attitudes and being strangers to the concept of reciprocity and being well versed in how arm's length-ing can maintain doubt. There’s no use pleasing the unappeasable.

Notwithstanding the fact that all known Pink community organisations in South Africa fight for the rights of everyone some disgruntled and acerbic minorities within an already minority community completely subvert their own cause by vexing those who do not exclude and discriminate. Instead of widening the rifts of self-fulfilling prophecy in the Pink community these armchair critics should roll up their sleeves and jump in to join the fight for fairness, equity, and social justice.

If certain letters of the alphabet soup par example deem the fight for their rights relegated and given inferior treatment and deficient attention they should get involved and make their voices heard in a constructive way. People tend to not react very positively to gratuitous abuse and wanton destructive criticism. I am using the minority within the minority here as one sees the livid and irrational lamentations of more traditionally “marginalised” community members. Certainly much more should be done for super-minority rights but then activists identifying as such should add their voices to established organisations and if all else fails form their own all-inclusive organisations.

If the marginalised forms a community exclusively for the marginalised whilst harbouring resentment for others in the Pink community for the rights they gained, the marginalisation would perpetuate due to continued isolation. The marginalised would also be no better than those they despise as they would inherently relegate the issues of all others besides their own due to the “other” being inherently excluded as a member of the clique by birth. Fairness and equality is a two-way street.

I could juxtapose the aforementioned situation and my own experiences a certain commonality comes to the fore. I am atypically gay in the sense that modern day gay identities seem to emanate from shop fronts. The great irony is that for decades our predecessors fought for the right to be different with the unfortunate emergence of rigid gay stereotypes and gay men fighting a battle of a different kind to try and reconcile themselves with these convenience store stereotypes. I refused to lose my personality to fit in some superficial mould and I did not attack already established Pink rights groups to blame these social constructs on them – I decided to add my voice, even if it might be seemingly insignificant. In the process I realised there are many others like me who are not content with conforming to some stereotype who also thought that they were the only mismatched socks.

I am thus flabbergasted that those who urgently need coherence and solidarity are wasting their time with infighting. I am quite dejected that people of sound mind lack the insight to see the interrelatedness of our rights, hence this equation:

Xenophobia = homophobia = transphobia = racism = anti-Semitism = any form of bias.

The socioeconomic realities of Africa lead to demagogues displaying obscene McCarthyism – they blame socio-economic circumstances on the “other” which leads to societal intolerance. The blame-game is used as political weapon to cover up the lack of service delivery, tenderpreneurship, fraud, corruption, and misappropriation of public funds and a plethora of callous activities by Public Representatives.

All nonconformists out there are just as vulnerable as refugees and foreign nationals – we need to see the wood for the trees. As long as there is great inequality and a lack of social justice out there we should not rest on our laurels.

It is a pity a lot of people are stuck in this phrase/frame of mind:

“There’s an obvious attraction to the path of least resistance in your life.

There’s an obvious aversion no amount of my insistence could make you try tonight”

Wake up – Alanis Morissette – Jagged Little Pill (Maverick, 1995)

Angry Bitch Helpline hello, how may I help you?

2010-07-20T10:17:00.000+02:00

(The ruminations of your average switch-bitch)

Sweetie darling, you should have witnessed this! After a barrage of under-handed insults and alienating us/them dichotomies being drawn like a line in the proverbial sand, I had decided I had enough with being painfully polite and accommodating with reason falling on deaf ears. Chuck this, enough Mr Nice Gay I decided. Hierdie tannie het beter dinge om met haar tyd te doen!

You know dear, you get these people who intrude and trash well-meaning initiatives without probably thinking further than their noses. Pity, you see, some seem awfully capable, just sheer misdirected anger that will stymie any skewed attempted advances.

Now, I don’t play agony aunt often. So hear me out sweetie pie. I would so much like to offer my 2 cents of wisdom – of course acquired with dealing with your average irate client and general malcontent. Excuse me a few seconds while I quickly climb on this shaky soap box here and put on my best outfit a lá Cosmopolitan.

Ahem, okay, ladies and gents, here’s my advice to budding young armchair critics:
Firstly honeys, you will accomplish didly-squat by vexing those supporting your cause. Oh and I am so sorry that I am excluded by birth from your noble little clique. I guess that places you in the same spot as the bigots you so virulently dislike. If you want to have a warranted bitch fight I will supply you with the contact details of Stonewall (profuse giggle). There you have a reason to bitch on poetically to the tune of your arrogance and self-fulfilling prophecies.

There is a rift between X and Y you say. I say, yeah? Well, you are complicit in deepening that rift.

If I approach everyone with the premise of confrontation and contempt that is most likely exactly what I'll get. I'll not only exude gross antagonism but will exhume it from the darkest trenches of misdirected resentment too.

Another theme I picked up from you is a literal parallel with the notion held by the right wing: that rights gained by one group inherently infringes upon the rights of others. You do not grant your neighbour a modicum of liberty out of pure spite and begrudge them for it. Yeah, life sucks, I should know. Ask any switch-bitch. But who gave you the surreal insight and crude presumptuousness and that you may declare what others are supposedly confined to? Excuse me but who died and made you queen?

Why fight for the right to marry? Hmm... I will let you think about that one for a while. This tannie did not think so many people can you have so little insight. Forgive me for expecting at least a degree of comprehension and knowledge of all things pragmatic.

Anyhoo sweeties – this soap box is about to collapse – they should really give me a better one next time...

The supposed prevention of homosexuality through antenatal medicine

2010-07-07T12:52:00.000+02:00

It is not often that I receive an email addressed to all human rights campaigners that concerns a medical development that infringes on some very basic human rights; but nonetheless there it was on Friday. My colleague often expresses her immense disgust for weekends because such disparaging news has a tendency to arrive just as the weekend is about to kick off.

Normally the bad news is a matter of social or religious conservatism, hateful propaganda, gay-cure-pseudoscience, hatred, intolerance, violence, corrective rape, murder, persecution and legal inequity – which can be far-reaching. This time it came from an unexpected corner. Normally we receive information on the latest psychological charlatanry. Now we see seemingly eugenic medical studies returning. The notorious Dr Mengele would have been proud of some of the little industrious “researchers” out there.

The ruckus involves research which mainstream media labelled The Anti-Lesbian Drug. And rightly so, the implications of just the basis of such “treatment” and “research” by itself have the ability to be earth-shatteringly Nazi-esque.

In this case a synthetic corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is given to expectant mothers to supposedly “prevent homosexuality and uppity women” where the female foetus has (or hasn’t) congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). The congenital disorder, (CAH), causes an overproduction of androgens in utero which may lead to ambiguous genitalia in female infants and a degree of intersexuality and also apparently a rejection of 1950s traditional gender roles. Researchers contend that they only wish to treat congenital abnormalities but the real ethical dilemma with the use of dexamethasone however is claims that it can prevent homosexuality/bisexuality or uppity women.

The premise of the research into antenatal cures for homosexuality: the folly that only heterosexuality is normal, making this the most obscene heterosexist expression ever. Here it is all about sexual/gender role stereotyping – thus conformity within rigid standards and a crude attempt to define “normal”.

Rang et al. (2003: 412) elaborate a bit on dexamethasone describing its properties as “anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive, used especially where water retention is undesirable, e.g. cerebral oedema; drug of choice for suppression of ACTH [Adrenocorticotropic hormone] production." So great – a synthetic corticosteroid is administered to lower ACTH levels which in turn via a negative feedback system stymies the production of “undesirable” androgens (or male hormones if you wish).

But unfortunately most, if not all, medicines come with undesirable side effects as elucidated in Rang et al. (2003: 417): “Possible unwanted effects include suppression of the response to infection and injury; an intercurrent infection can be potentially very serious unless quickly treated with antimicrobial agents along with an increase in the dose of steroid. Wound healing may be impaired and peptic ulceration may also occur.”

Dexamethasone is no wonder drug as seen from a mother’s experience as reported in A Prenatal Treatment Raises Questions of Medical Ethics:

But Jenny Westphal, 24, who took dexamethasone throughout her pregnancy at the recommendation of another doctor, says she feels misled. Like Langford she was not asked to give informed consent. Unlike Langford, however, her daughter, now 3, who has CAH, has also had serious and mysterious health problems since birth, including feeding disorders, that are not commonly associated with her adrenal-gland disorder.

In April, Westphal, who lives in Wisconsin, started doing research online and discovered there was some controversy over the treatment. "I was outraged, frustrated and confused. Confused, because no one had ever warned me about this. I wasn't given the chance to decide for myself, based on the risks and benefits, if I wanted the treatment or not," she says.

Westphal may never know whether her daughter's problems were caused by dexamethasone, though she will likely always believe they were. That is why so many similar situations, in which experimental drugs are prescribed off-label without informed consent rather than in clinical trials, wind up becoming case studies — not in scientific journals, but exactly where Westphal and her husband are considering taking theirs: to court.

Unfortunately the Frankenstein-like medical research isn’t limited to pharmaceuticals, some extremely nauseating “surgeries” and other “therapies” also occurs as reported by Newsweek.

Sharon Begley, Newsweek’s science editor, elaborates on more unconscionable and nefarious “treatments” in The Anti-Lesbian Drug:

... [T]he doctors touch the girl’s “surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator and/or with a ‘vibratory device,’ and the girl is asked to report to [the doctor] how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and the introitus of her vagina.”

While Hanna Rosin at Slate argued that the practice is a reasonable attempt “to answer a legitimate scientific question,” others have gone ballistic, calling the surgery “a form of female genital mutilation” and warning that the annual vibrator sessions could “cause lasting psychological damage.”

Both cases—cutting a clitoris surgically, feminizing a brain through hormone treatments—reflect an almost desperate attempt by some doctors and scientists to keep their patients from straying from gender norms.

Alex Blaze, writing for the Huffington Post in The Sad Lengths Some Go to Avoid Having a Lesbian Daughter, touches the heart of the issue at hand here. If you know that your child will be born with some abnormality, would you want to “intervene” or would you accept your child just as he or she is? Blaze recalls here:

I am reminded here of a colleague who works as a social worker on a craniofacial team at a children's hospital. She was telling me one day, despairingly, of having a consultation with a pair of expectant parents. Their fetus had been diagnosed with a cleft lip, one that would be reasonably correctable without major trauma. It was true the baby would be born with the odd-looking mouth, and that the child might always have a noticeable lip scar. But this was not a child with a fatal disease or anything. Yet the father was flipping out, saying to his wife and the social worker, "I can't handle this! I can't handle this!" He wanted to abort for this.

My friend and I both were both thinking: Come on! If you can't handle this, what are you going to do when your kid smokes a little dope? What are you going to do if she ends up pregnant at 16? What are you going to do if she sucks at math or suffers from a lot of acne? Sure, abort. But don't have any children if you can't handle this.

One needs to explore the raison d’être behind this phenomenon. Are we becoming so neurotic that we suffer more anxiety before birth of our children and unnecessarily so? Do we wish to engineer our kids to be what we wish we were? Or are we only intervening so that our kids may experience a sense of normalcy?

But then again, since when is being gay or uppity abnormal? The American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organisation do not see it as abnormal. Here the real dilemma comes to the fore: what is normal exactly and what causes the bigotry that drives such “interventions”?

Bibliography:

Rang, HP, MM Dale, JM Ritter and PK Moore. 2003. Pharmacology. 5th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone.

Scars and suicidality

2010-06-25T11:48:00.000+02:00

We are well aware what effect societal prejudice has on the mental health of people in the Pink community. I use the word Pink community here since even the most inclusive, well-intentioned and longwinded acronyms such as, par example LGBTIQ, is bound to leave someone out. In Canada, the de rigueur acronym is LGBTTIQQ2SA – quite a mouthful. But I digress before I get a semantic headache.

Back to the topic, I read an article on gay teen suicide not too long ago and it left a lasting impression. The article read like an analytic requiem which I found quite profound. Many people will say only cowards commit suicide, and that it is the most selfish act in this world. People have moral qualms and quite often condemn the deceased to eternal fire and brimstone without actually knowing the person. After all, it is very easy to pass judgment. It is much more difficult to try to explain motives behind suicide. It is much more difficult to explain the why and moreover the existential conundrums.

Gay teens tend to be especially vulnerable due to the fact that most cohabit with their parents, are emotionally and financially dependent on them, and are legal minors with the profound effect that they do not even have complete authority over their lives. I am sure many gay teens are in precarious situations and wish to be legally emancipated yet it is more than often not as simple as the granting of a court order. Parents often lack understanding and view behaviour as recalcitrant – especially when teens act out due to not being able to discuss their true frustrations. Oh, before the Religious Right claims (again *yawn*) that those evil queers are recruiting our innocent kids I shall explain further from personal experience and avoid hypotheses and psychobabble.

I knew I was gay from a rather early age and obviously lived with my parents in a quaint nuclear family complete with mom, dad, 2.4 kids, 1.6 dogs and a single cat. White picket fences there were not as I grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere during the early years of the New South Africa.

Politically it was exciting times. Despite the newfound freedom, I had less of a lovely time. It was a time I became aware of the prejudices held by my dad in particular. My uncle on my mother’s side happened to be openly gay and everyone was used to him and his partner. They couldn’t get legally married until 2006 but as far as I know they were for all intents and purposes considered married. After family gatherings the gay issue would arise during casual conversation. And it was clearly elucidated that being gay was not something one wishes for, to state it utterly mildly.

I was 14 when I was sent off to boarding school in town. Town wasn’t much different than the rural environment. It was just as stuffy and conservative as everywhere else I had been. I experienced anti-gay animus from day one. I wasn’t openly gay though. I knew the terminology and the social taboo and spent days encountering random fits of angst accompanied by the real awareness of the precariousness of my situation. I was fully dependent on my parents for psychological, social and economic support. I knew I couldn’t just run away from home. It would have changed the path of my life and I would probably have been a junkie under a bridge somewhere or even worse, a purveyor of underworld services reading a stolen copy of The Secret or other hideous Oprah Book Club titles.

As I type here I am double the age I was then (note to self: I am past my sell-by date) and I have learnt a lot, learning to cope wasn’t optional, it was almost an impediment and I am still left with a proclivity for introspection.

I left the homophobic town and school after graduating from Grade 12 in 2000 and moved to the Pretoria. I started studying at the University of Pretoria and tumbled out of the closet close to my nineteenth birthday. I was out to all of my friends and my brothers yet my parents were still blissfully in denial. Life in gay Pretoria was definitely colourful. If you’ve seen the Jacarandas in full bloom in Pretoria you’d have a metaphorical idea.

Pretoria was also where I experienced two of my (gay) friends attempting suicide. The Emergency Room experience was all but pleasant. I still remember the one friend with activated charcoal smudged across his face from being forced to consume the vile, dark-grey, muddy sludge. The doctors weren’t mean, it is standard procedure and by the second time that you have seen someone’s stomach pumped donning activated charcoal smudges it becomes less of a horror picture. The surrealist nature of these experiences provided a coping mechanism – otherwise the utter, devastating shock of blood and gore and the risk of your friend dying would have stymied us all.

These friends tried suicide as a final, desperate and painful escape from the inner turmoil they suffered. One’s parents found out he was gay and caused a huge brouhaha. Although I was lucky to see no physical violence I saw emotional stress could also be incessant and very destructive.

Classical negative reinforcement thus prevented me from coming out to my parents. I had no idea how they would react. I knew of guys being ostracised, forced to quit their studies. I knew I could not risk this, even though it was a pure hypothetical. So I simply did not volunteer unnecessary information to my parents. I lived by myself in an apartment while they were 240 kilometres away so I could live a double life and actually have boyfriends without my parents inevitably having to find out.

Despite the privileges of a double life in lieu of being de-closeted completely, there remained a continuous theme of facetious self-deprecation when my dad enquired about girlfriends and a constant guilt trip of harbouring a dirty little secret. I knew there was nothing wrong with me. I was literate after all and had access to almost every possible medical and psychological source on homosexuality. I binge read volumes of academic psychobabble and complex medical journals expeditiously.

One day, armed with feigned wisdom, I mustered the courage to just spill the beans. And the lack of reaction I got from my parents left me more shocked than anything else. They had suspected it but didn’t want to intrude. I wasn’t even pleasantly surprised. I was bemused. I could not comprehend how something I harboured as a state secret could have been so utterly benign, nonsensical even. I realised that I wasted a decade of my life in constant worry and preoccupation. I realised the nefariousness of so-called conservative social norms as the aetiology of much distress and duress.

Years later I moved to Johannesburg, became involved in Pink rights activism. I have at times felt like I was fighting a futile struggle. I felt at times that amazing progress has happened. But to this day the human dignity of the Pink community is trampled upon. To this day many people live with guilt trips and unnecessary torment.

Tori Amos sings it so eloquently in Crucify as an apt conclusion of wisdom:

“Why do we crucify ourselves every day?
I crucify myself. Nothing I do is good enough for you.

Crucify myself every day. And my heart is sick of being in chains...”

South Africa's own 1984 Anti-Sex League

2010-06-04T20:42:00.000+02:00

I saw an article on Mambaonline.com called SA PLAN TO BAN INTERNET PORN and decided to write a letter of protest. So, albeit suffering from severe exhaustion, I wrote the rough first draft of the letter and with the help of fellow SA GLAAD Board Member, Christina Engela, known for her literary prowess and eloquence, the letter was transformed into the letter below. It was sent to all and sundry I could find, ranging from the Department of Home Affairs, the South African Law Reform Commission and the Freedom of Expression Institute.

Two days later the official reply came from the very haughty Head of the Deputy Minister’s Office, Department of Home Affairs. I was less than impressed (euphemism of the year) and sent through the arrogant letter which subsequently appeared in a follow-up article on Mambaonline.com: HOME AFFAIRS ARROGANCE OVER FREEDOM OF SPEECH CONCERNS.

It is not about the freedom to consume pornography, au contraire, it is about totalitarianism. The state has NO place dictating private moral choices.

This is not the end of the line. I do not back off so easily. The Government and regulatory bodies can expect protest from diverse social groups...

The letter of protest:

----------

To Whom It May Concern

Protest of proposed morality/censorship laws

It was with much upset that I learnt of government’s (the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs in particular) pandering to the religious right wing in the form of the Justice Alliance of South Africa.

http://www.mambaonline.com/article.asp?artid=4480

To state that it is awfully regressive and National-Party-like to work to reintroduce censorship into a modern constitutional secular democracy is the understatement of the year, if not the decade.

The Justice Alliance of SA is a small fringe group of religious fundamentalists with clear ulterior motives. Hiding behind “poor innocent children” is just too cute and naïve, but also patently deceitful and by now a “signature” modus operandi of such groups who push an anti-liberal agenda around the world, by detracting from the real issues.

The Justice Alliance of SA could be called fascist solely by their deployment of totalitarian tactics such as dictating supposed public morals and deciding on behalf of adults what they may have access to or not.

If the Justice Alliance gets its way, South Africa will be lumped in with countries like China, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and the Gaza Strip; quite an unenviable achievement – and quite a step backwards in terms of democracy!

As things stand, South Africa is already known for its duplicity in not respecting or enforcing laws empowered by our Constitution which protect our human rights – and it will be a demonstration of our government’s growing links with fundamentalist anti-human rights (and anti-secular) groups if such morality/censorship laws are enacted.

The supposed rationale is protecting the nation’s children from exposure to pornography – and which in effect relieves the parent of that responsibility – and makes a rather bold statement that the State is now the parent – and making ever clearer the statement by Ms Zille that we are moving ever closer to a “nanny-state.”

The solution to parental control over what access children have to internet pornography and pornography on mobile phones couldn’t be simpler. There are so many “net nanny” applications for parents to install themselves on their home PC’s to block undesirable websites and adverts, and there are enough low-end mobile phones available on the market which parents can provide their children with – which by their low-specification design cannot access the internet. The question begs asking: Why work to enact such draconian and heavy-handed Government interference in the loves of the citizenry?

Surely this is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, with the Government taking upon itself the role of “Big Brother”?

This reminds me of Pastor Niemoller's “First they came”, circa WWII. First something seemingly petty is banned “for the common good” until the Thought Police at last has a grip on society quite similar to the old NP government in another guise.

Should one look up the meaning of fascism it is defined as a “political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)” [Princeton University Wordweb]

Just as much as religious fundamentalists the world over have been active in Uganda - so have they been working very hard in South Africa – and as indicated by their recent upsurge in soliciting and influencing the Government to take up their cause, they have been very, very hard at work.

It would seem that there are more serious problems facing the people of South Africa, than facetious “morality” laws – such as corruption, incompetent officials, violent crime, unemployment, and water and power crises. In this country we can watch WWF wrestling, news reports showing bloodied bodies, movies featuring gratuitous violence, and religious personalities advocating hatred and intolerance for sexual minorities – but funny enough, there is no censorship on that. It is duplicity in the first degree.

I implore you to see the wood for the trees and not fall prey to ulterior motives. I also ask of you to keep the Constitution’s spirit of freedom into consideration and leave parental control to those it was designed for: Parents.

Kind regards

--
Cobus Fourie

Johannesburg

----------

Followed by the insolent reply:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thamsanqa Msomi, Thamsanqa.Msomi@dha.gov.za
Date: 4 June 2010 15:25
Subject: Concern over the proposed Act
To: cobus.fourie@gmail.com
Cc: Bayanda Mzoneli, Bayanda.Mzoneli@dha.gov.za, Patrick Williams WilliamsP.CIVPOA1.CIVMTA3@dha.gov.za

Afternoon Sir,

I hope this email will find you well. Your email on the concerns you have about the meeting held between the Deputy Minister and Justice Alliance was received from Mr Patrick Williams.

Whilst we appreciate and respect your views, it is quite obvious that we share different and conflicting value systems and opinions on this and other matters. Perhaps we should just acknowledge our different viewpoints in this regard and leave matters at that.

Kind regards,

Thami Msomi

Head of the Deputy Minister's office

Ministry of Home Affairs

----------

Government is basically saying: WE have our moral code, we are not interested in debate of civil rights and we are going to implement our morality laws and you will be forced to conform kicking and screaming.

Nice people, hey?

I wonder why they are called civil servants, because I see no service and no civil rights.

Political correctness: Bullard, Maas, Qwelane and the origins

2010-05-27T22:12:00.000+02:00

There are quite a few misconceptions about political correctness. Some have the preconception that it stifles public debate. Some say it infringes on their right to freedom of speech.

One-word response: fallacy.

Political correctness doesn’t stifle debate, just as much as the criminalisation of homicide doesn’t promote debate by preventing you from literally silencing your opponent.

Political correctness has its roots in the rejection of Imperialism/Colonialism and the Patriarchy. These ideologies were enforced by organised religion and created the super class: the Caucasian Heterosexual Cisgender Male. Everyone not Caucasian, heterosexual, cisgender and male is still fighting for basic human rights to this day. Yes, supposed “Western” culture has caused much damage and it is through egalitarian and progressive foundations like the South African Constitution that human dignity for all persons is installed.

People often say that we have become oversensitive. It is not about being oversensitive – it is about embracing basic human dignity and equality.

Another defence for being politically incorrect is Moral Relativism. It is defined in an ethics context as Normative Relativism, this being “the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behaviour of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.”

This patent postmodern ethical approach cannot escape reciprocity, though. Ah, the joy of reciprocity, of double-edged swords – it cuts both ways. Normative Relativism also could be interpreted as that you are free to libel since it might be your personal conviction. Alas no ... It is not.

According to the University of London’s Department of Philosophy Moral Relativism can be explained as follows:

Standards of morality are all culturally relative ... therefore it is wrong [emphasis in the original] to pass moral judgement upon the practices of other cultures. This style of relativism is obviously self-refuting, since its very formulation involves a non-relative use of "wrong" (or whatever equivalent) in order to rule out non-relative moral judgements. Judgements like "It is wrong to pass moral judgement upon the practices of other cultures" or "It’s wrong to criticize other cultures" are themselves (at least on the face of it) trans-cultural or non-relative moral judgements.

The Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses Moral Relativism:

Most often [Moral Relativism] is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes "moral relativism" is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.

Political correctness is very much an ethical matter. And political incorrectness often leads to horrendously shocking implications, and often those who defy political correctness suffer the consequences of their actions.

Three important examples of the defiance of political correctness and the catastrophic consequences:

David Bullard
David Bullard wrote a racist column for the Sunday Times and a spectacle of epic proportions ensued and subsequently the Sunday Times fired Bullard, who now trolls the net and leaves random comments about societal oversensitivity.
[News24]
[Independent Online]
[Pierre de Vos].

Deon Maas
Deon Maas wrote an impertinent column on freedom of religion for Satanism for Rapport and got fired after brouhaha and an sms campaign by readers calling for a boycott which threatened the commercial interests of the newspaper. Here societal propriety in a deeply conservative market dominated.
[News24]
[Independent Online]
[Pierre de Vos].

Jon Qwelane
Jon Qwelane wrote the most morally reprehensible column for the Sunday Sun of 20 July 2008 called “Call me names, but gay is not okay.” All hell broke loose as the Press Ombudsman and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) received more complaints about this article than ever before, and as far as I know that record still stands. Qwelane is currently facing a case before the Equality Court and News24 dropped his column after the controversy.
[Mail & Guardian]
[News24]
[Pierre de Vos]
[Mambaonline – Qwelane to face Equality Court]
[Mambaonline – Wrong is wrong].

We have political correctness for a reason. It just enforces a dignitarian approach (I humbly borrow from Justice Albie Sachs here). Former Constitutional Court Judge Albie Sachs explains this concept in his book The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law. It is an approach where human dignity is valued above all else. It prevents ideologues, demagogues and the general public from callously trampling all over minority human rights.

With rights comes responsibility, and you cannot just purge out what you like, it might just expose the bigot that you really are. We operate within legal frameworks and societal propriety; we always have done so and we always will: we will thus have to keep to the codified standards or we might run foul of the law.

---

(Originally appeared on Litnet: http://www.litnet.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=1270&news_id=87586&cat_id=166

Mini-seminars: Political Correctness: http://www.litnet.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_custom&cause_id=1270&page=korrek)

Paranoia: the fuel of the Culture War

2010-05-23T02:24:00.001+02:00

I have harboured the idea contained in the title for a while now and subjectively it has been proven correct time after time. It is uncanny when one has a grasp on the raison d’être of a social phenomenon and impertinently watch from the sidelines. There is a certain magical realism to it. One is both connected and unconnected, both objective observer and subjective participant. It might sound mutually exclusive but alas it is not.

Intent: the one word which makes the world’s difference. Intent is questioned ad nauseam by a great variety of demagogues, religious and other social conservatives, extremists of every hue, even some moderates and the Pink community sometimes – in a self-reflective way I guess.

After intent has been questioned, more than often being misinterpreted as offensive, contrary to family values, and/or against nature, some will inevitably conjure up outlandish conjecture and delusive interpretations. Those who feign a sense of credibility and scientific aptitude often distort, contort and miscontextualise valid scientific thought to create the illusion that there is factual basis for their conjecture and misrepresentations.

The Culture War thus became a war of words, a battleground of propaganda and counterpropaganda, limitless in its scope of malice and wanton abuse of rhetoric, concept and the lives of the real people caught in the crossfire.

The Pink community has along the way gained a modicum of true equality (only though in some countries). Activists for Pink community equality have been campaigning without respite for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and the hotly contested term “marriage equality” – the right of same sex couples to marry to gain all the rights heterosexual couples enjoy which many take for granted. Think of visitation rights in hospital etc.

For each right fought for and granted in some cases the religious zealots have had a knee jerk reaction of note. Mass hysteria is oft spread through congregations and hysterically, mostly factious and fallacious chain emails: the most pedestrian of methods.

The fight for the decriminalisation of homosexuality was met with a crass counter reaction by the Culture War Warriors. It is contrary to the natural order they say. I wonder if some penguins attack the gay ones... It seems not, these stately birds do not have discriminating tendencies. It is unbiblical they say. They forget that the seminal text is often mistranslated and misinterpreted and contradicts itself quite a couple of times. Many court records confirm the Culture War Warriors’ unhealthy preoccupation with sex; it seems if they imagine gay people they conjure up images of decadent orgies. No darlings, we do not nookie all day long. It is not about sex, it is about being decriminalised, about not being a de facto criminal. It is about attaining basic dignity and equality. Being gay cannot be a crime like being left handed cannot be a crime. And no, it is not a sinful lifestyle choice. Nobody chooses a lifelong risk of defamation, hate speech, harassment, intimidation, intolerance, discrimination, abuse, assault, and possible premature death by violent attack.

Protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity brought along a toxic backlash by the bigots of this world. Those queers want “special rights” they claimed. No special rights just equal rights we answered. Is it too much to ask for to ask not to be fired from your job or kicked out of your apartment just because of your sexual orientation or gender identity?

Marriage equality... A hotly contested concept... Who would have thought that the granting of equal rights, not special rights, will ever be placed on the ballot? But it happened, on many occasions, the most publicised is most likely the Proposition 8 (or as it is been dubbed, Proposition Hate) debacle. The Culture War Warriors claim that same sex marriage will destroy traditional marriage and will destroy the world. Strange logic there but they have not really been noted for their intellectual prowess anyway. Even the Pope, in his little dress, said something to that effect during his recent visit to Portugal. Despite this Portugal became the eighth country in the world and the sixth in Europe to grant full marriage rights to its denizens. The others are Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada and South Africa. The South African brouhaha warrants a full thesis. It was a lengthy legal struggle fought in large part by Fourie and Bonthuys all the way to the Constitutional Court, which ordered Parliament to legalise same sex marriage in December of 2005.

The thread that runs through the knee-jerk reaction and backlash of each of these rights gained: severe, unadulterated, debilitating, emaciating paranoia. The Culture War Warriors of this day and age are so paranoid and illogical and bereft of the normal functioning of all of their mental faculties that the condition justifies inclusion in Psychiatry textbooks, medical taxonomies, classified as a formal psychiatric disease by both the World Health Organisation in the ICD and the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM.

Should this medically certifiable paranoia not have existed both sides of the battleground would have had a much healthier existence, no war of words, no hateful propositions, and no innocent people caught in the crossfire. And maybe some hope for peaceful coexistence...

An injury to one is an injury to all, free Steven and Tiwonge now - a memento

2010-05-23T00:21:00.000+02:00

A protest email regarding the arrest, remand, conviction, sentencing and incarceration of Steven and Tiwonge, Amnesty International's prisoners of conscience:
Sent out 22 May 2010, 21:20 to recipients, SA GLAAD & SA GLAAD Gauteng Facebook groups and SA GLAAD fan page.

---

To: justice@malawi.gov.mw, sg-justice@sdnp.org.mw, lawcom@lawcom.mw, lawcom@sdnp.org.mw, highcommalai@telkomsa.net, distms@malawi.gov.mw, infopol@africa-online.net, chadzapg@malawi.gov.mw,

CC: InfoDesk@ohchr.org, nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org, gmagazzeni@ohchr.org, civilsocietyunit@ohchr.org, dexrel@ohchr.org

Subject: Free Steven and Tiwonge now

--

Dear Representatives of the Government of Malawi

It was with much disgust that we learnt of the conviction of Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza for a supposed indecent act. Their crime: daring to hold a symbolic marriage ceremony. Should we remind you that aforementioned individuals have been convicted under colonial-remnant law?

Steven and Tiwonge have been adopted as “prisoners of conscience” by Amnesty International. The governments of Great Britain and the United States of America, inter alia, have been vocal opponents of their conviction. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, condemned the conviction and said that protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a fundamental human right that cannot be overruled on cultural grounds. The South African Human Rights Commission condemned the ruling as dehumanising and urged Malawi to revisit its laws. The South African official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, called the ruling regressive and reprobated the ruling in no uncertain terms.

Moreover a plethora of civil society and human rights organisations including but not limited to Outrage!, Section27, OUT LGBT Well-being, The Joint Working Group, the South African Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission have all expressed strong disapproval. The South African Municipal Workers Union of COSATU also weighed in and said in a press release that: “repressing sections of our community because of their sexual orientation is not acceptable, and that we refuse to be silenced and divided by prejudice and homophobia. Let’s remember: An injury to one is an injury to all! Free Steven and Tiwonge now!”

The sentence is inhumane for an act which shouldn’t even be a crime. The refusal of bail and the remand of Steven and Tiwonge are abhorrent, as is the conviction.

It is time for Africa, and in this case Malawi, to rid itself from the defunct colonial codified discriminations and human rights oppressions.

We urge you to overturn the ruling, scrap these discriminatory laws, and to free these men.

Signed
Cobus Fourie
SA GLAAD

Doublethink – the ethos of South Africa?

2010-04-25T21:40:00.000+02:00

I finished George Orwell’s masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four this weekend. It was with much anguish that I read some chapters recognising my country’s government and apparatchiks in the “Party” as mentioned in the book.

I wrote the following to the leader of a political party not very long ago:

The trend of the current Executive is to play demagogue to cling onto support, a classic case of Scapegoating/McCarthyism plays itself out each day. I am really unable to recognise the difference between Orwell's 1984 and the current regime. The irony, which is so uncanny, is really very saddening.

In reply the leader of the political party sent out a newsletter containing the same sentiment:

The utterances of the ANC today have all the hallmarks of the double-think of George Orwell’s 1984. If you haven’t read the book, double-think involves holding two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time. This means that when your actions contradict your words, you actually believe your own propaganda.

One might think it is quite a stretch to link up doublethink with the current regime’s stance on Pink rights – alas, and sadly so, it is actually very easy.

Doublethink entails holding a dichotomous stance on an issue and acting out whichever placates the Executive and the cronies and cadres.

I thought of a simple example while debating the current Zeitgeist with an American who grew up in South Africa, who also understands the contradictions in South African society. In South Africa we are in the unique position of having laws that are far ahead of social progress. I don’t think the same situation exists elsewhere.

The prime example of an act spurred on by doublethink is the appointment of Jon Qwelane as High Commissioner to Uganda while Qwelane is still to face trial here in an Equality Court case regarding an alleged hate speech article of 2008. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees gay rights but the president decides to send a clear message to the South African Pink community that the government of the day supposedly believes in Pink rights and the nullification of the equality and dignity of the Pink community albeit initially symbolically.

Another very recent example is a protest which was planned for Freedom Day 2010 to protest the Ugandan and American governments. The Pink community has the right to hold a peaceful protest according to law but the contradictory stance is taken officially when the Tshwane Metro Police comes up with lacklustre excuses of not having enough manpower for the protest and then in the same vein making it very clear that protesters will be arrested.

The old adage is true: actions speak louder than words. The Constitution is just a piece of paper and not even worth the paper it’s printed on if the provisions contained are not implemented or in the current instance defiled and subverted.

Beware the Thought Police, they are sure to follow...

Was Eugene gay?

2010-04-11T22:29:00.001+02:00

The pivotal question was asked by The Sunday Independent. The alleged white trash newspaper of South Africa (“Sondag”) allegedly accused the “English press” of irresponsible reporting. Sondag could not fathom why the mean English press could be so callous and questions some of the logic of the allegation. Sondag states that “the average 15-year-old rentboy isn’t usually so zealous to see his gay lover that he would kill his dogs and break into his house.”

Sondag reports that field marshal lieutenant colonel captain Adele Myburgh, spokesperson of the police in the North West Province, said the story by the Saturday Star was hogwash and that they could say with 100% certainty that no condom was found on the scene. Field marshal lieutenant colonel captain Myburgh also said, according to the yellow journalism rag, that the police had a bone to pick with the Saturday Star. Field marshal lieutenant colonel captain Myburgh also said that rape could not be ruled out though.

Sondag reports that Pieter Steyn, new don’t-touch-me-on-my-studio spokesperson for the AWB, also believes that the sex scandal story is absurd. Steyn allegedly re-establishes the alleged white supremacist agenda by stating to Sondag: “[w]e consider it a lie. Eugene could have been raped. His murderers are not intelligent enough to know that something like DNA-testing existed.”

The alleged “alleged” condom was sent to the police forensics unit in Pretoria according to the Saturday Star but everyone allegedly knows that this centre allegedly has a two year backlog and allegedly a tendency that specimens go rancid before they can be analysed.

The Sunday Independent reports today in a front page article “[w]as ET gay and bonking darkies?” that the AWB emphatically denies the condom allegation and said that the Terre’Blanche family along with the AWB will see the Saturday Star in court. The Sunday Independent also reports that Terre’Blanche was allegedly seen buying liquor with the two accused on the day of the murder.

Meanwhile the Sunday Times has a front page article “ET wanted to sodomise me, says accused”. According to the paper a lawyer acting on behalf of one of the accused said, “[m]y instructions from my client are that there was some sodomy going on and it sparked the murder of Mr Terre Blance. This is going to form part of our defence during the trial.”

The City Press reports on page 3 that “AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche could have been killed during an alcohol-fuelled homosexual sex encounter on his farm, investigators revealed.” The City Press further reports that Supreme Crime-fighting Genius Alleged Cadre-Deployed General Jan Mabula, head of the Hawks Special Crimes Investigation Unit in the North West, “has confirmed the possibility that Terre’Blanche’s murder could be investigated as a sex crime.” The paper continues that “three police sources in Ventersdorp, two working for crime intelligence, told City Press that the investigation included the possibility that Terre’Blanche was having sex with the 15-year-old.”

“Meanwhile, questions have also been raised about Terre’Blanche’s relationship with a young member of the AWB who spent a lot of time on his farm,” the City Press reports.

Rapport confirms the report in the City Press that the boy mentioned slept in Terre’Blanche’s arms. “[N]ew AWB leader Steyn van Ronge said Terre’Blanche ‘took pity’ on the child because he came from a broken home. The boy’s uncle said the boy had since been moved to a place of safety and that he was not aware of allegations that the boy had been sexually abused.”

Six newspapers later and an elaborate investigative trip from Johannesburg to Pretoria to Midrand and back, there is still no clarity regarding the ruckus brought on by that famous alleged condom.

A few things are clear. Independent Newspapers’ The Sunday Independent reports on a supposed rumour and ruckus caused by sister paper the Saturday Star and it is uncertain whether the journalists at the Saturday Star had something leaked to them. Maybe the Saturday Star paid more attention to the defence lawyer? It is clear that Rapport, Sunday Times, and City Press are all a bit more cautious in their reports. It is also clear that Sondag is taking a clear stand in supporting the renunciation of the AWB.

Then again this journalist had to drive all the way to a dodgy part of town in Pretoria to buy the Sondag and did so swiftly as if buying contraband. Then again there are fully exposed bosoms on page 3, a full report with photos on a dachshund unfortunate enough to be inhumanely castrated by a couple of lesbians, and of course the most offensive terms possible were used.

Never a dull moment in South Africa...

(Photo by: Cobus Fourie, shot on location - Park Street, Pretoria, 11 April 2010)

The folly of the socially-imposed dichotomies of gender and sexual orientation

2010-04-04T02:58:00.001+02:00

I have often struggled with conformity in general. My biography places prominence on the notion of nonconformity. I have wondered since I was very little why some things were assumed to be true with no questioning. I always, to this very day, want to know the “why” and “how come” of everything. My erstwhile doctor said it was unbefitting of a 26 year old to be so curious. I interjected and said it would make me a lemming otherwise. My doctor had no clue why I insisted to be a very difficult patient and always demanded on official diagnoses and explanations on pharmaceuticals dished out. I did not realise it then but I was also basking in and entertaining dichotomies and taxonomies.

I'm at risk of inducing a feeling of "not again! Typical. Cliché." But one has to work through these issues. This dissection of the cultural constructs we so often take for granted aims to provide insight into these issues.

I often ask questions (some considered sensitive) to people who are able to provide insight I would otherwise not be able to attain. I can imagine how it might feel being questioned though as I very often field questions regarding the gay issue and had to explain and defend politely so many times to colleagues and others that I stopped counting. But I guess asking is better than assuming so I always treat the situation calmly and with rational constraint.

Many harbour the notion of masculine versus feminine and after years of social progress, heterosexual versus homosexual. These dichotomies are huge largely false social constructs only used to vilify those not exactly fitting into the quaint pigeonholes. Sure, there are people who exist within the tight confounds of these dichotomies but statistically these are a very tiny percentage of the total population.

In Statistics 110 you are taught all and sundry about the Bell Graph or otherwise known as the Normal Distribution. This graph explains many natural phenomena like the distribution of intelligence and even something as simple as test scores. It introduces the concept of the continuum or spectrum between two determined points on either terminal. The premise of the Bell Graph is that the greatest proportion of a sample is presented in the middle of the two extremes.

Does this mean that the majority of people are bisexual and neither wholly masculine nor feminine? It might be pure conjecture but extending a known concept to match aforementioned makes perfect sense. If it applies to so many other human phenomena, why could it not apply to gender and sexual orientation? Judging the diagram drawn up by Kinsey it seems it would have been too controversial to declare most people bisexual.

The Kinsey Scale was probably a revolutionary concept at the time of its formulation circa 1948. Kinsey contended in 1948 that “males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects”

Kinsey goes further to elaborate on the scale:

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual

1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6- Exclusively homosexual

The University of Albany confirms the notion of continuums of sexual orientation, gender and sex.

It illustrates it as follows:

Sexual Orientation Continuum:

<--------------------------------------------------------------->

Heterosexual Bisexual Gay/Lesbian

Gender Identity Continuum:

<--------------------------------------------------------------->

Masculine Transgender Feminine

Biological Continuum:

<--------------------------------------------------------------->

Male Intersexed Female

The continuum of self-identity for gender and sexuality confirms and supplies a bit more on aforementioned. Girshick elaborates on the various continua but includes a two-tier approach which I find problematic as it reintroduces a dichotomy into a continuum. I find it quite paradoxical.

Girshick states the following on gender identity:

The Gender Identity Continuum: Our internal sense of gender relates to our feelings of being a man or a woman. Traditionally it was believed that if you felt masculine you would not feel feminine, and vice versa. But some people feel differing degrees of masculinity and differing degrees of femininity. Some people do not feel particularly like a man or a woman, and some feel they are both. Having parallel continuums where degrees of “man” and of “woman” can coexist help us capture a broader range of gender identity experiences.

Reicherzer and Anderson confirms the gender continuum and expands it to sex, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. The United States National Institutes of Health also has material on the gender continuum

It is though noted that none of the continua I could find noted definite values and distribution figures or standard deviation confirmations. It would be interesting to see the actual distribution on the various continua, given that the sample data is representative and free or error, bias and contains responses from truthful respondents without the truthfulness of the sample causing bias in the data.

In light of above I have a clearer understanding of the Q in the Pink community acronym. I suppose it represents the Not Otherwise Specified out there repudiating dichotomies and the ties attached to labels.

Would I call myself queer? I do sometimes. Do I see myself as entirely masculine? A definite no. Do I see myself as entirely homosexual? A definite yes. Do I see myself as completely conforming to the various gay stereotypes? Also no.

So I must be queer.

The Politicisation of Gender and Sexuality through taxonomy

2010-03-28T00:14:00.000+02:00

The world is obsessed with taxonomies, I told myself upon reviewing some of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) diagnoses. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) revamps and republishes its “bible” about every 20 years. The dubious, new edition will apparently appear in 2013.

People must find it soothing to categorise things. It makes a chaotic world simple to understand, to interpret and to analyse. What can be more precious than a framework to view things through? It abolishes nuance, ambiguity and uncertainty. Of course there is always the fallback category – Not Otherwise Specified. An old office joke goes something like this: a document marked “do not file” is filed in the Do Not File file.

The catch-all approach works well for only certain demographics within certain periods and the taxonomy is also mostly congruent with socially acceptable practice.

This exact notion and enunciation may explain my aversion for structure and total lack of obsession with organised environments. My tax files are somewhere. I’ll find them but don’t ask me to. As a bean-counter I cannot think of anything more laborious and heinous than filing something while at home. I do not care for unexpected traffic congestion, it brightens the scenery. It gives me time to look at my surroundings, whereas we would just normally drive mechanically on the same highways without ever noticing interesting things along the way.

If you think you are completely unaffected by taxonomies, think again. Everything from the law to art to Medicine is neatly categorised. Medicine made criminals of people, and to this day where criminality has been waived the social implications, ramifications and stigma still remain and these do have the uncanny ability to influence every aspect of your life right down to economics.

Medical taxonomy decides how your doctor will treat you, or mistreat you, depends on the doctor. Classifications imply certain things and impose a set of features on your personality, which might otherwise not have been there. An official (though unwarranted) diagnosis might mean you cannot get that apartment. It might mean that you could be fired from your work. It might mean you could be harassed, defamed, assaulted and killed. One only needs to look at Uganda, Jamaica, Iraq and Iran as worst case scenarios.

Before 1973, homosexuality was in the DSM, which basically made all lesbian, gay and bisexual people mentally ill and in many societies, criminals. The APA declassified homosexuality as an illness and now goes a step further and clearly states that conversion therapy/reparative therapy (pray-away-the-gay) is unfit for medical practise and causes much harm.

While the DSM might prevail over America, the rest of the world uses the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems - 10th revision, or more commonly known as the ICD-10. The current tenth version does not contain “homosexuality” as a mental illness effective from 1990. In fact the current text of the ICD-10 explicitly states “sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder” at the introduction to F66 (Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation).

While the steps taken by the APA and WHO are definitely beneficial to a large number of socially rejected individuals it still to this day stigmatises and vilifies transgender, transsexual and other gender variant individuals. The ICD-10 includes Gender Identity Disorder (GID) as elaborated on in section F64. The DSM-5 seems to be no more progressive and classifies GID in section 302.85 - Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults.

The ongoing work on the DSM-5 was and still is not without criticism and controversy. It was reported that 70% of members on the DSM-5 task force have clear conflict of interest being puppets of Industry. The DSM-5 is also marred by the appointment of Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard. Dr. Zucker is infamous for utilising reparative therapy to cure gender-variant children. Dr. Blanchard conjured up a derisive diagnosis called Autogynephilia which further vilifies transgender people and classifies some as having a paraphilia (sexual perversion). How uncanny is it that these two are responsible for things related to Gender Identity Disorder? Uncanny is perhaps better replaced by abhorrent.

There was a petition to remove the two “esteemed” doctors from the task force and another article Bitterness, Compulsive Shopping, and Internet Addiction - The diagnostic madness of DSM-V by Christopher Lane ridicules the propositions in the DSM:

The American Psychiatric Association risks losing sight of that distinction by grimly—and rather inexpertly—debating whether avid shopping should be considered a sign of mental illness. The fifth edition of the association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is expected in 2012. The APA isn't just deciding the fate of shopaholics; it's also debating whether overuse of the Internet, "excessive" sexual activity, apathy, and even prolonged bitterness should be viewed, quite seriously, as brain "disorders." If you spend hours online, have sex more frequently than aging psychiatrists, and moan incessantly that the federal government can't account for all its TARP funds, take heed: You may soon be classed among the 48 million Americans the APA already considers mentally ill.

Also take into account that the whole process of drafting the DSM-5 is cloaked in secrecy as members of the task force had to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Robert Spitzer, the head of the DSM-III task force went mad at learning about this and said: “When I first heard about this agreement, I just went bonkers. Transparency is necessary if the document is to have credibility, and, in time, you’re going to have people complaining all over the place that they didn’t have the opportunity to challenge anything.”

Do you trust a process and an imminent publication like this?

The only positive is the input by Dr. Drescher according to the New York Times:

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York psychoanalyst and member of the sexual disorders work group, said that, in some ways, the gender identity debate echoed efforts to remove homosexuality from the manual in the 1970s.

“You had, in my opinion, what was a social issue, not a medical one; and, in some sense, psychiatry evolved through interaction with the wider culture,” Dr. Drescher said.

France is leading the way by declassifying transgenderism as a mental illness.

One might say that South African law protects us from discrimination brought on by these taxonomies, but neither section 9 of the Bill of Rights nor The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act explicitly mentions gender identity as a prohibited discrimination criterion, it is inferred or implied via gender. This needs to be rectified.

You see, the cosmic irony is that taxonomy might stigmatise and vilify you but another is necessary to protect basic human rights of equality and dignity. Could taxonomies be a shining example of a necessary evil?

Minister of Intolerance and Prejudice storms out of art exhibition

2010-03-03T22:41:00.001+02:00

In an obscene turn of events reserved for pasquinade the dear Minister of Arts and Culture (residing in the Ministry of Intolerance and Prejudice), Lulu Xingwana, stormed out of an art exhibition held on Constitution Hill. The dear Minister was so indignant that she called the artworks "... immoral, offensive and going against nation-building."

Now that’s pretty rich coming from an obvious plebeian only in official title by virtue of bestowment by the Moral Compass of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, and probably owning a matching flashy car (probably a BMW 7 series as is precept and precedent) holding the sceptre over Arts and Culture.

“While viewing the artwork, Xingwana appeared most upset by the work of Muholi and Mntambo, which deals with intimacy between women.”

The artworks which scarred our dear Minister for life and caused all the brouhaha that the she couldn’t even read her speech was “... a series of photographs by prominent artist and lesbian activist Zanele Muholi, of naked, black women embracing each other, Xingwana slammed the work as "pornographic", spoke to her aides, and left in a huff. Her personal assistant read out her speech.”

Yes indeed, the pious Minister cannot stand visually stunning and tasteful photographs of women which in fact does not even show societal taboos such as certain parts of breasts and “below the belt areas”. Those were all cleverly and indeed artistically covered. The Minister thinks it amounts to pornography. Now I wonder if the porn label only relates to the assumed gay imagery...

It is especially ironic and terribly regressive that this happened in very close proximity to the much esteemed South African Constitutional Court, hence why the precinct is known as Constitution Hill. This is the same Constitutional Court which scrapped old discriminatory statutes and effectively ordered Parliament to legalise same-sex marriage otherwise the old Marriage Act would have been amended by means of their pronouncement to be non-discriminatory. This same Court gives ultimatums to Government yet the Minister of Arts and Culture provides a nice symbolic desecration in return and tramples all over the Bill of Rights with her tantrum. Uncannily this Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and provides freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t grossly violate another group’s rights.

The Minister was sweet enough to throw in the What-About-The-Children card as some kind of substantiation for her theatrics. This is quite odd when one considers that none of the imagery amounts to pornography. The artist says to the Times of South Africa in rebuttal that "...children need to know about these things. A lot of people who have no understanding of sexual orientation, people are suffering in silence...”

A constitutionally protected minority apparently has to be swept under the rug and children should preferably be protected from this constitutionally protected minority. A plethora of comments on articles covering this national disaster make complete fun of the supposed moral superiority of the new nationalists. The more things change the more they stay the same indeed – from one bunch of nationalists to another. Is anyone else seeing the pattern here?

This hideous event caught some attention beyond the South African borders as well when the Guardian in the UK reported on it. The Guardian states the delineating statement which should have tipped off Her Piousness:

In the exhibition's catalogue, Muholi's artwork is described as being "without precedent in South Africa, where there are very few instances of black women openly portraying female same-sex practices."

The Minister however strongly denies it was the implied sexual orientation which caused all the ire as the Mail & Guardian reports that “[The Minister’s personal assistant] denied that the minister objected to the fact that the women were lesbians. ‘I don't think it's based on sexual orientation. It's more to do with the fact they're not wearing clothes and engaging in what looks like sexual acts. The minister stands by what she did.’”

The Minister should have expected very substantial fallout. But then again maybe this is the direction the regime under Jacob Zuma is going. Just before the April 2009 general elections Mr Zuma played lay preacher at the Rhema Bible Church which is spearheaded by former World Iron Man wannabe Ray McCauley. Not long afterwards we learnt that Jacob Zuma in distinct demagogue fashion placed same-sex marriage rights and abortion on auction for the loudest sycophant when the earth-shattering news broke as elaborated on by the Mail & Guardian in Zuma's new God squad wants liberal laws to go.

In February 2010 we learnt of the looming national debate on morality as envisaged by none other than Jacob Zuma. This came literally days after the discovery of the president’s umpteenth child and lover (the latest one being illegitimate). Some now rightfully wonders what practice what you preach means in modern day South Africa.

Annelie Lotriet of the official opposition party in South Africa, the Democratic Alliance (DA), released a very critical statement on Xingwana’s hissy fit calling the Minister a bigot with no capacity to uphold the Constitution and suggests that Xingwana should rather tender her resignation. The statement by the DA also states the history of Jacob Zuma’s bigoted utterances: “same sex marriage is a disgrace to the nation and to God. When I was growing up, 'ungqingili' [homosexuals in isiZulu] could not stand in front of me, I would knock him out.” Lotriet also reminds the reader that Jacob Zuma recently appointed the rabidly, anti-gay Jon Qwelane as ambassador to Uganda.

The DA further raises some concerns:

It would appear that, below the surface bigotry and prejudice run deep in the ANC. It is disgraceful.
If this government is serious about creating a genuine democracy built on a foundation of human rights, it needs to act against the kind of prejudice the Minister espouses. One would hope the Minister has enough perspective to sanction herself and resign, should her pride prevent her from doing so, President Jacob Zuma needs to take action.

Lastly it would only be befitting to get the opinion of a renowned South African artist and professor of fine arts, Penny Siopis.

Siopis tells the Times of South Africa that:

"The fact is, as a minister she is a representative of our Constitution. It does not matter if she has a personal distaste for what she sees."

If this kind of atavistic behaviour is a sign of things to come and some indication of the Zeitgeist within the ANC, I see a very gloomy future for the LGBTIQ community in South Africa. One can only hope that the Constitution is protected from the nationalists’ prejudice and conservativism. Bigotry knows no boundaries and symbolic gestures are often a taste of things to come.

Whose morality is it this time?

2010-02-25T21:28:00.000+02:00

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

2010-02-09T08:51:00.000+02:00

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...

2010-02-04T20:12:00.000+02:00

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...

The all-seeing I

2010-01-31T22:50:00.000+02:00

I have a tendency of very often having an overwhelming urge to write but no subject matter. Sure there’s a plethora of things going on but other bloggers have already written about it, and much better. So – my writing only happens when I am overly emotional or drawn into a subject or event. If it has an impact on me I tend to not be at a loss for words, otherwise I just stare at the MS Words white page. It is quite horrifying and normally either leads to feelings of profound apathy/despair/agitation or angst.

I acquired a contentious topic a week ago, did considerable research and gathered quite a lot of academic sources. The problem: I have to piece together an article which is an amalgamation of sources and syntheses of hypotheses. Meta-analysing the process should not be encouraged – especially to those with a tendency to be a tad bit over-analytical and employing psychoanalysis and feasibility studies on basically much of what they do. Damn those lecturers, textbooks written by smug academics, and pedantry. Had I not meta-analysed I could have been much more productive.

Then again it acts as a quality control filter and had I not purposely switched off these cerebral faculties this commentary would have never seen the light of day. I cannot write on demand – many other things I can. I am quite adept at writing pompous wannabe dissertations on pharmacology. It is normally lost on I’d say 99% of any audience in general. Anthropology and social dynamics coupled with psychology I find very interesting and I like to muse at it at length.

At around 01:00 I thought about the scenario and wrote this status update:

I am essentially a frustrated writer, ideas fleeting and rife but consummation rare, boredom quickly sets in; nonconformity, nonchalance stifles and formality abundant; modafinil or hypomania usually conducive to creation though usually utterly self-amusing or sardonically deprecating

I might not be a prolific writer but I read a lot. And with “a lot” I mean hours of reading every single day. LGBT advocacy groups’ blogs, my fellow executive’s blog, news in relation to all matters Pink and continually researching some item from the pharmacopoeia. I might not write that much but I am pretty much up to date.

I scan a lot of usually irrelevant Google Alerts – one might just see something in all the clutter. When I find something that I find to be in the ambit of our organisation I send emails and mobile text messages as an alert. We have an online conference and decide on a strategy and we pounce on the issue in a matter of a few minutes in a feline fashion.

Information is ubiquitous nowadays and according to some veneered academics wants to be free. We will thus see whatever happens and react on it.

The all-seeing I is watching, reading and occasionally writing. The all-seeing I might not be in the press all the time, the all-seeing I prefers relative anonymity and is acutely aware of his personal safety and thus vigilant. But the I still sees. Everything.

15 Minutes of fame – through “suicide”?

2010-01-16T18:42:00.000+02:00

The famous words by the Pop Art extraordinaire Andy Warhol really manifest itself in the age of so-called Web 2.0 – the social networking hegemony.

In the future everybody will be world famous for fifteen minutes.

In February 1968 Warhol exhibited his first international retrospective exhibition at the Moderna Museet gallery in Stockholm. The exhibition catalogue contained "In the future everybody will be world famous for fifteen minutes." It is far and away the best-known of the many quotations attributed to Warhol; in fact it is probably the only comment of his that most people know.

The line began to bore Warhol in later years when interviewers kept asking him about it. In 1979 he did repeat it though, claiming that the line had truth - "my prediction from the sixties finally came true: In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes."

As things have turned out the rise of celebrity culture and reality television in the Western world since then has shown Warhol to be quite prophetic.

Warhol did one of his signature screen prints titled Shot Red Marilyn in 1964.

Marilyn Monroe died of a "possible suicide" in her home on 5 August 1962. Her death is still shrouded in mystery and conspiracy theories a plenty. Was she murdered? Was it a suicide? To this day in January 2010 we still don’t know so I’ll take the official report as truth (for now).

Uncanny it is that so many urban legends arise from suicide. I saw an article insinuating that James Dean also committed suicide. I wonder who else did. Kurt Cobain did. Or didn’t he? I guess only clairvoyants know. I might ask his wife, but she might throw me with a shoe.

A certain gay 18 year old Pieter Rossouw committed suicide, on either Sunday 9 January 2010 or the morning thereafter, after a coming out to his parents. His parents apparently did not react well and his friend Sean Cronje announced his death to his 1000+ friends on Facebook on Monday 10 January 2010. Quite a flurry erupted and a fan page created in his honour commiserated the passing of a young gay guy because of the evil of heterosexist prejudice.

After a day things didn’t seem to tie up and the online magazine Gayspeak.co.za initiated an investigation which was subsequently reported in Beeld of 16 January 2010.

No person by the name of Petrus of Pieter Rossouw was born on 7 April 1991 in South Africa. None of his 1000+ friends ever met him in real life.

Strangely enough Sean Cronje’s profile was only created one day before Rossouw’s alleged suicide. It became evident from the investigation that the photos on Rossouw’s profile were manipulated.

Anecdotal information has come to the fore that nobody by that name died in Cape Town on the dates mentioned from either suicide or any other cause.

The press is calling it a cyber joke. A lot of people are extremely upset, especially in the gay community because of the very sensitive nature of the issue. Gay teen suicides are a pressing issue compounded by social bias, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and even more serious criminal offenses.

We still do not know for sure if this was an elaborate cry for help or an outright sick joke. If it is the latter it plays right into the hands of the anti-gay propagandists who claim things such as “suicidal lifestyles” and declare gay people “mentally ill”.

If this is a horrid faux pas I would like to tell Mr Rossouw or whatever his name is that it is a deplorable scam which not only destroys the image of the gay community but invalidates the severity of suicide, depression, suicidal ideation, and rejection. Suicide is no laughing matter. Perhaps this fraudster should be taken to an ER or psychiatric hospital to see firsthand what pain and anguish he mocked and exploited.

If it is indeed an elaborate cry for help someone has to make an appointment with a healthcare professional, preferably a psychiatrist. The South African Society of Psychiatrists is a non-homophobic organisation and their website lists psychiatrists all over the country. Please seek help.

http://www.sasop.co.za/

Gay Californians should be able to marry – everyone has the right to be miserable

2010-01-15T19:54:00.000+02:00

The sardonic title aside, herewith a rough dissection of the issues pursuant to the very contentious federal court case currently underway in San Francisco, CA.

The United States Ninth Circuit Court is currently in session with both sides of the aisle fiercely debating marriage equality in Perry v Schwarzenegger. The federal trial is to determine whether Proposition 8 was in contravention of the United States Constitution. The scope is further expanded to ask the question if individual states have the right to ban same-sex marriage under the Federal Constitution.

For the uninitiated – Proposition 8 was a ballot measure brought about by a plethora of religious organisations (a huge Mormon influence) and other social conservatives. During the 2008 US Presidential Elections Proposition 8 was passed with 52% to 48% much to the dismay of Californians, Americans and the entire world. Effectively Proposition 8 amended the Californian Constitution to declare marriage a union between one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others. Sorry Mormons, no chauvinist polygamy here...

The foundation of the modern American collective psyche was mapped out by the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

This document is of great significance to Americans and underpins the core values on which the independent America was formed. The salient quote applicable in this instance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note that Jefferson unambiguously mentions that there are certain unalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Is it not the unalienable right of same-sex partners to be treated equally in the eyes of the law? Is it not their pursuit of happiness that is immensely cramped here as the underdogs and underclass of America are denied happiness central to enjoying their rights to liberty without fear of prejudice?

Thomas Jefferson also engraved a very central element in the ethos of the American State: the separation between church and state. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801 Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

It is thus uncanny that in our day and age the religious convictions of the slight majority are able to trump individual liberties and deny citizens very basic rights. Aforementioned latter was written centuries ago yet it seems Americans completely forgot their basic founding principles and documents.

According to John C. Eastman of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange County, California the trial of Perry v Schwarzenegger is weighted slightly in favour of the LGBT community:

The trial to determine the constitutionality of California's same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8, is being held in San Francisco, one of the most pro-gay marriage venues in the country. This is a decided home-court advantage for those challenging the law and, by implication, the nation's marriage laws.

The constitutionality of Proposition 8 does not hinge on the views of the sponsors of Prop 8 about marriage and sexuality, nor does it depend on the TV commercials and other communications put forth by the campaign in favor of the measure. Yet Walker has not only ruled that these issues are relevant, so are the private thoughts of backers never communicated to voters.

Eastman further supplies some information on the arguments of the first day of the trial:

Perry co-counsel David Boies has said traditional marriage is nothing but "the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing." The plaintiffs will argue that gays and lesbians are a politically powerless class of people who are entitled to the highest degree of legal scrutiny of a law that applies especially to them.

In this regard, they say, Prop 8 should be viewed by the same legal standards that are used to evaluate claims of racial discrimination. They'll argue that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. And they will argue that Prop 8 was passed because of "improper" religious views. They say that there is no rational basis for Proposition 8 and that it could have been adopted only because of voter "animus" toward gays and lesbians.

In my personal opinion there is no difference in the premise and justification of discrimination and inequality that the LGBT community suffers than the justifications of discrimination and inequality people suffered in the form of racism and slavery. The same holds true for the oppression of women who only very recently acquired the right to vote.

Many of my counterparts all over the world have said this and I stand by it: one day we will look back at where we are now in shame and disgrace as a period akin to the Dark Ages.

(first published: Litnet: Gay)

Doctors For Life – South Africa’s ex-gay medical propagandists

2010-01-02T00:37:00.000+02:00

It was towards the end of June 2009 that an activist colleague of mine discovered an anti-gay and ex-gay organisation based in South Africa which purveys junk science under the name Doctors For Life International. After I did some digging in the South African companies’ registry I found that this organisation was truly wholly South African and owned two section 21 companies which provide them with tax exempt status. The two companies were also registered Non Governmental Organisations and the government records provided the names of the fiduciaries.

Several official complaints were lodged at the South African Department of Health and the Health Practitioners Council of South Africa for what I labelled malfeasance. It took considerable and relentless lobbying before action was assumed to be taken though this was kept in camera. I first noticed the completely rewritten statement on homosexuality on the Doctors For Life website on the last day of 2009 as I did some research.

Legally all medical practitioners are bound by a code of conduct and these organisations fall within in the ambit of these conditions. The two companies were in contravention of the Equality Act and the Constitution, and did not keep to proper medical practice by deviating from accepted standards. Note also that Doctors For Life isn’t a statutory body and not at all akin to the South African Medical Association which represents medical practitioners.

The most worrying was that vile propaganda was spread under the auspices of medical credibility when there was really nothing to substantiate the outlandish claims.

Herewith excerpts of the original text:

Homosexuality is an attempt to get a normal need met in an abnormal way. Homosexuality is not about sex, but is about a need for love and acceptance in a person who through circumstances or conditioning often did not receive or perceive to receive love or acceptance as a child and/or was sexually abused as a child. Homosexuality is not genetically based, but nurture-based, and therefore treatable. Homosexuality is unnatural and no society or religion has ever endorsed it as an ‘acceptable norm’. This behavior pattern is contrary to the God-ordained state of marriage between one man and one woman, and is not conducive to a stable family environment to raise children.

Medically, some homosexual acts are physically harmful because they disregard human anatomy and function. These acts are associated with increased risks of tissue injury, organ malfunction, and infectious diseases. These and other factors result in a significantly shortened life expectancy. Among those involved in homosexual acts, there is an increased incidence of drug/or alcohol dependency, compulsive sexual behaviour, anxiety, depression, and suicide.

Socially, men who commit homosexual acts have a high incidence of promiscuity, child molestation, and sexually transmitted diseases. Homosexual behaviours burden society with increased medical costs, increased disability, and productivity loss. Legalizing or blessing same sex marriage or civil unions is harmful to the stability of society, the raising of children, and the institution of marriage. If the only criterion for marriage were mutual consent or commitment, there are no grounds to prohibit bestial, paedophilic, sodomous [sic] or incestuous unions.

It is thus not uncanny that Doctors For Life was one of the amici curiae in the landmark Constitutional Court case of Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs of 2005 which led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in South Africa.

Herewith excerpts of the completely rewritten and more politically correct version of the statement on homosexuality (it is still propaganda though):

The discussion of sexual orientation is complex and emotional. It is complex because it encompasses a wide range of scientific fields such as behavioural genetics, neuro-anatomy, psychiatry, psychology, sociology and many others. And it is emotional because sexuality is such an integral part of our identity as individuals. Homosexuality has undoubtedly been one of the most debated socio/political topics in the west over the past few decades.

It is necessary to mention that even though the idea of a so called, ‘gay gene’ has been popularized by the media, that there is not a shred of scientific evidence showing that homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore immutable (unchangeable). That is not to say that studies to prove a genetic cause have not been undertaken. Many studies have been undertaken by research professionals from respected academic institutions. Here are three famous ones:

1. Geneticist, Dean Hamer, author of the ‘gay gene’ study tried to link homosexuality to a string of DNA on the X chromosome called Xq28.

2. Simon LeVay, a neuro scientist, studied the differences in the front hypothalamus (INAH3) part of the brain of homosexual and heterosexual males.

3. Bailey and Pillard did studies on identical twins that had 100% the same DNA, non identical twins, siblings and adopted siblings of the same sex.

In reviewing the research, psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction.

Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up.

While it is a new toned down piece of propaganda the use of the Masters and Johnson study is truly flabbergasting. Truth Wins Out reported on the refutation of the Masters and Johnson study quite a while ago already.

Laying complaints of medical malfeasance is not a matter of gagging free speech but rather a matter of law enforcement. Medical practitioners have the obligation to steer clear of conjecture, misinformation, propaganda, and prejudice. The Constitution as supreme law of the land may not be subverted and individual liberties have to be protected at all costs especially by those in positions of power or influence including doctors.

First they came

2009-12-14T22:01:00.001+02:00

The title might sound familiar to readers and many versions of this modern day profound apotheosis-like statement appeared literally almost everywhere post World War II.

Pastor Niemoller, like many German intellectuals, declared their effective though non-intended complicity in the holocaust by remaining silent.

The text as it probably first appeared provided by The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust:

First They Came - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialist
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

One version of the profound statement appeared online by Behind the Aegis as the incognito blogger laments the Republican Party in 2004 in the US and the need to stop the growing fascism which can be seen in the Patriot Act.

Find Law: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/hr3162.pdf

Epic.org: http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/text-usa-patriot-act

If [George W] Bush were to remain in power, we could see a new version of Pastor Niemoller’s poem. It may go something like this:

First they came for the “liberals,” by eliminating the right of dissent through “free-speech” zones that continued to get further and further from the administration and grew smaller and smaller.
But I am no liberal! So, I grumble at the TV and on the Internet.

Then they came for the media, by allowing the “Fairness Doctrine” to continue to be non-existent and creating a propaganda machine run by the ruling party.
But I am not a member of the media! So, I grumble at the TV and swear off the “news.”

Then, they get brazen, and come for the gays, by appointing right-wing judges that reinstate the “crimes against nature” and “sodomy” laws; thereby, turning consenting adult relationships into criminal acts, costing people their jobs, homes, and lives.
But I am not gay! So, I grumble at the TV and vow to send money to gay rights groups.

Then they come for immigrants, by making asylum impossible and closing off our borders through legislation.
But, I am no immigrant (at least not a first-generation one)! So, I grumble at the TV and vow to join Amnesty International.

Then they come for me and I can’t speak up for myself because I am not in a “free speech” zone. I can’t get the news to cover my arrest except as a dissident. I find the laws that the right-wing judges have created, now apply to me through vague and unconstitutional language. I can’t even flee the country because the borders are closed!

Leaving me wondering…how did this happen? I didn’t see any “signs!”

Some human rights and Pink rights advocates have been deploring the greater public’s nonchalance and the apathy in the Pink Community for a very long time and many had the bittersweet (mainly bitter) moment to do the “I told you so” dance. History has a special characteristic of repeating itself – it is inexplicable and we are by the look of it inextricably linked to the fatalism.

First came Zuma’s God Squad as I reported on it before in Gay marriage is not up for auction.

Then came the Ugandan Genocide Bill of 2009 as reported under the title The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Then as the pressure of global disgruntlement increased and protests proliferated at Ugandan Embassies and High Consulates the Religious Right in America who has been behind this insidious piece of legislation had to quickly do some PR work...

It was reported by Truth Wins Out that the “underground” militant and extremist “Christian” organisation called “The Family” or “The Fellowship” was behind the draconian measures as they fought their proxy war in Africa by exporting homophobia.

Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church (one of the most influential clergymen in America and although not complicit) sent a letter to the clergy of Uganda to denounce the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 and also posted a YouTube video, below as reported on Pinknews.co.uk

He said: "While we can never deny or water down what God’s Word clearly teaches about sexuality, at the same time the church must stand to protect the dignity of all individuals – as Jesus did and commanded all of us to do.

"The potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals... all life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God."

He also urged Ugandan pastors to publicly condemn the bill.

Flabbergasting it was to see the Holy See also more commonly known as the Vatican to release a statement deploring the Ugandan Bill. Truth Wins Out reports:

As stated during the debate of the General Assembly last year, the Holy See continues to oppose all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons, such as the use of the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The Holy See also opposes all forms of violence and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, including discriminatory penal legislation which undermines the inherent dignity of the human person.

As raised by some of the panellists today, the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State. While the Holy See’s position on the concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity remains well known, we continue to call on all States and individuals to respect the rights of all persons and to work to promote their inherent dignity and worth.

Now this is a remarkable statement by the same body that said a year ago “that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction...”

No wonder that I am so flabbergasted. It took the looming second holocaust to change the tune of the Holy See. I wonder what they would have said if this Ugandan Genocide Bill already passed...

Yet, Bahati, the Member of Parliament who brought this putrid Bill before the Ugandan Parliament, is not of any intent to back down or “water the bill down” as reported by Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out

Bahati continues:

Bahati also rejected Rev. Rick Warren’s plea to eliminate the bill after the televangelist called it “unchristian.”

“It’s unfortunate that a man of God who has inspired many people across the world can give into pressure and disappoint them,” said Bahati.

All those Americans who are complicit in the Ugandan Genocide Bill should step up and undo their horrid onslaught on humankind.

I stand by Edmund Burke’s profound statement, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

The Gaystapo

2009-11-15T01:26:00.000+02:00

I have often been very amused by the idea of the Gaystapo. People in the local entertainment industry have been calling the so-called "gay mafia" by that name for more than a decade. It sounds more sinister than it is funny.

At least in one industry we've got people working for the cause, never-mind the profiteering...

And at least the nepotism is in favour of the LGBTIQ community which I assume is hardly ever the case.

Having caught the label of strident self-appointed activist by some insolent types in the gay community and militant homosexual activist in the bigot community I know that labels as such are hardly ever flattering.

If one were to take into account the aetiology of the term "Gaystapo" the induction is that the term might be construed as an insult. I, however, see things in a light-hearted way and with the aid of my vivid imagination the term conjures up images of hilarious gay-power and mafia style leaders clad in Prada, Gucci and D Squared... I'd kill to be a fly on the wall in one of "those" insidious board meetings. Screw the broederbond, illuminati and freemasons, the Gaystapo kicks ass.

Next time you happen to find yourself in Oak Street, Randburg at the Multichoice and MNet HQ do not be surprised if you accidentally walk into one of the Gaystapo members. I have it on good authority that the Gaystapo is primarily based in Johannesburg with a small contingent in Cape Town.

Pretoria of course has its own version of the Gaystapo called by some the Brooklyn Mafioso. The reference to the suburb is intrinsically linked to a notorious establishment there and the Head Quarters of the Brooklyn Mafioso. Technically the HQ is not in Brooklyn but in Nieuw Muckleneuk. I have resided long enough in the Jacaranda City to know this.

To quote the masterful Bran Van 3000 and their pre-millennium hit "Drinking in LA"

"Hi, my name is Stereo Mike

Yeah, we got 3 tickets to the Bran Van concert this Monday night at the Pacific Pallisades. You can all dial in if you want to answer a couple of questions, namely, what is Todd's favourite cheese. Jackie just called up and said it was a form of Roquefort. We'll see about that...

give us a ring-ding-ding! It's a beautiful day.

Yeah Todd, this is Liquid ring-a-ding-a-dinging
want those 3 Bran Van tickets man
waddya think?
Todd, you there?

I woke up again this morning with the sun in my eyes
when Mike came over with a script surprise
a mafioso story with a twist
a "Too Wong Foo, Julie Newmar" hitch
get your ass out of bed, he said:
I'll explain it on the way

but we did nothing
absolutely nothing that day
and I'll say
what the hell am I doing drinking in LA
at twenty six?
I got the fever for the flavour
the payback will be later
still I need a fix

and the girls on the bus kept on laughing at us
as we rode on the ten down to Venice again
flaring out the g-funk
sipping on juice and gin
just me and a friend
feeling kinda groovy
working on movie
*yeah right!*

but we did nothing
absolutely bubkiss that day
and I'll say
what the hell am I doing drinking in LA
at twenty six?
*with my mind on my money and my money on my, beer beer!*
I know that life is for the taking
so I'd better wise up
and take it quickly

*yeah one more time at trader vics*

some men there wanted to hurt us
and other men
said we weren't worth the fuss
we could see them all bitching by the bar
about the fine line
between the rich and the poor
then mike turned to me and said
what do you think we got done son?

we've got a conclusion
and I guess that's something
so I ask you
what the hell am I doing drinking in LA
at twenty six?
I got the fever for the nectar
the payback will be later
still I need a fix

*we need to fix you up
call me monday
and maybe we'll fix it all up*

L A
L A
L L A
L A
L A
L A
L L A
L A
L A
L A
L L A

so I ask
you what the hell am I doing drinking in LA
at twenty six?

*these are mine, are mine!*

L A
L A
L A
L A"

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

2009-11-13T22:10:00.000+02:00

Aforementioned is becoming my favourite adage. It is so true it is unreal. My other favourite which often ties in with aforementioned is “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (The more things change the more they stay the same – for the non-francophone).

A lot has been written about the looming LGBTIQ genocide in Uganda with its hideously named Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. There are even a couple of Facebook pages and groups dedicated to the support of the Nazi-esque draconian legislation.

You can read the nauseating contents of the Bill here brought to you by Box Turtle Bulletin.

The groups and pages are of course invaded largely by South African human rights activists and the odd American and Brit. A South African LGBTIQ rights organisation was one of the first to denounce Uganda long before this draconian legislation was proposed and the media liaison has said her famous words “I told you so”. The whole brouhaha was of course spurred on by the American pray-the-gay-away group Exodus International at a conference in Kampala

The discussion and utterances, should they have happened on South African soil, would have been illegal and immediately declared hate speech and in contravention of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (act 108 of 1996) and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Act 4 of 2000). Yet, after reporting the content as hateful ad nauseam Facebook has done diddly-squat.

The god-fearing and self-righteous champions of hate on the groups and pages mention the devil and their Christian intent (however convoluted, deranged and misguided) so many times that I am this close to induce haematemesis. It seems in their view what they are doing is right. I guess it was the same with the mass murder of Protestants by the Roman Catholic establishment of the seventeenth century or the atrocity of Apartheid propagated by the church. Uganda even has a Minister of Ethics and Integrity, my my my, it seems compassion has fallen by the wayside and the Ethics and Integrity Minister is actually a Minister without Portfolio. Since said minister is a proverbial co-sponsor of the bill; I seriously doubt that he understands the concepts of ethics and integrity. Uganda is just another banana republic which produced the ultimate deranged tyrant called Idi Amin; it should thus come as no surprise.

The deranged bigots actually think they are being moral and following the word of god when they propagate genocide. I am sure Adolf Hitler thought the very same thing. Ditto for the slave traders a couple of centuries ago.

I do not comprehend how people who have been oppressed and manhandled could turn their scope on a scapegoat and do exactly what was done onto them. Have they learnt nothing? At least in South Africa the venerable former president Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu could see that the adage still holds true: those who do not know their past and learn from it are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Common sense is actually not so common at all...

A couple of heartening articles surfaced recently though which basically lambaste the government of Uganda. Yet, the government of South Africa’s silence is deafening. It seems JZ inherited the lacklustre “quiet diplomacy” which is basically just a euphemism for ignorance, complacency, tacit approval and shoddy governance.

The government of France has issued the following statement:

“France expresses deep concern regarding the bill currently before the Ugandan parliament,” the French foreign ministry said in a statement sent to AFP in Kampala on Monday.

“France reiterates its commitment to the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The government of Britain also followed suit:

In a statement given to PinkNews.co.uk, a spokeswoman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: "We are concerned by the introduction of a private member's bill on anti homosexuality in Uganda.
"Adoption of the bill could do serious damage to efforts to tackle HIV and its criminalisation of organisations that support homosexuality could, in theory, encompass most donor agencies and international NGOs.

"The UK, alongside our EU partners, has raised our concerns about the draft bill and LGBT rights more broadly with the government of Uganda, including with the prime minister and several other ministers, the Ugandan Human Rights Commission, and senior officials from the Ugandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"We will continue to track the passage of the bill and to lobby against its introduction."

A couple of American politicians wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also denouncing the Nazi-esque bill:

U.S. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Howard Berman (D-CA) wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act which has been introduced in the Uganda Parliament. Citing the significant U.S. aid to Uganda provided in the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), they ask Sec. Clinton to “use every means possible to convey to Ugandan leaders that this bill is appalling, reckless, and should be withdrawn immediately.”

The US fundamentalist religious right have been lobbying for many years to get to this stage. Truth Wins Out opens this can of worms:

Sadly, this witch-hunt has the blood stained fingerprints of leading American evangelicals. The Fellowship, (aka The Family) one of America’s most powerful and secretive fundamentalist organization’s, converted Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni [...] to its anti-gay brand of Christianity, which is the “intellectual” impetus behind the anti-gay crackdown. The clandestine organization’s leader, Doug Coe, calls Museveni The Fellowship’s “key man” in Africa.

The hate forum also featured Don Schmierer, a board member of the “ex-gay” organization Exodus International, and Caleb Lee Brundidge, who works with discredited ex-gay “reorientation coach” Richard Cohen. These American “ex-gay” activists clearly left their stamp on this evil legislation, giving Ugandan officials a way to justify the abuse because they can claim that “sinful” gays can choose to change.

The American bigots have their eyes set on South Africa as well. Do not be surprised if something similar yet tamer gets introduced here. I can supply reams of proof of the links between American hate groups and so-called Christian South African groups.

The government of Uganda is in process of promulgating this putrid bill because they have been proselytised by American bigots and are convinced that they are following god’s word. So here again the supposed “well-intentioned” bill turns out to be a tool for genocide.

The path to hell is indeed paved with “good” intentions.

The gay ghetto

2009-11-04T21:42:00.000+02:00

I received a rabidly negative comment by a rather delusional Facebook (ex) friend. He has an enormous gripe (well that is a euphemism – he was beyond strident and acerbic) with the fact that the organisation I am a founding and board member of includes transgender and intersex people.

He used some of the worst profanities and lamented that “homos” are excluded – he being gay himself. He also asked a rather daft question of what intersex has to do with homosexuality. I decided to keep to the adage that there’s no use arguing with a fool – he was drunk as well in any way. I de-friended him, an action I should have done a long time ago. Surely there are gay or lesbian intersex people based on their orientation and taking into account their gender identity – gender reassignment surgery or not (gender identity is vested in the mind – not the body) [well, in my humble opinion].

I have less and less time for the gay exclusionists. The most prominent group is probably Stonewall UK. They unashamedly usurped the name of the 1969 protests and now espouse to act in the interests of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities only. They are probably also the biggest sycophants in the gay NGO industry and it seems that they are more an extension of the Labour government than an independent body.

I was horribly indignant about the insolent’s awful comments and complete lack of understanding. I am basically debasing “my community” here as I am a gay man, but how can any gay man expect equality, non-discrimination and societal acceptance if they themselves cannot accept the “other”?

I often wonder why I do what I do, spend countless hours fighting for the cause of full egalitarianism and the fostering of a sense of community in the entire LGBTIQ community. Most people are not worth the effort frankly. They will wake up one day in a totally different world after the sun has gone down over the nude bars, sleaze fests and gay clubs and wonder why anyone didn’t do something about it.

I am afraid the vast majority of the gay population will have to realise that our rights are not cast in stone and that the constitution is not the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments carried around in the Ark of the Covenant. Pardon my analogy here but is an apt one.

It is totally unfathomable to me that a group that knows how discrimination and equality feels like would perpetuate the same kind of discrimination against the other letters in the LGBTIQ acronym. It is the most appalling of hypocrisy.

Or is the abused becoming the abuser and thereby completing a vicious cycle?

All I know is that I simply had enough.

Will South Africa enact the “Eudy Simelane Hate Crimes Bill”?

2009-10-25T03:36:00.001+02:00

I had the opportunity to meet with the CEO and legal department of the South African Human Right Commission (SAHRC) on 4 December 2008. Advocate Thipanyane, the CEO of the SAHRC, spoke about the pending hate crimes bill and I posed some questions about the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (act 4 of 2000). Advocate Thipanyane seemed an esteemed defender of human rights and it provided for some hope to get “inside information” on proposed legislation.

Now recently it seems the US Congress has agreed to approve the so-called Matthew Shepard Bill. This bill will would expand federal hate crimes laws to include protections and redress for victims of crimes based on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability. This bill would also provide a mandate for the federal agencies to intervene and prosecute in states where inappropriate prosecution or no prosecution happens.

Matthew Shepard became the proverbial figurehead of the more than decade long struggle for the federal government to have hate crimes legislation which would protect the LGBTIQ community.

Shepard was tortured and murdered in Laramie, Wyoming, for being gay, and whose murder in 1998 became a focal point for a call for hate crime legislation to be passed.

His mother Judy has since become a gay rights activist and is to speak at this weekend's [10 and 11 October 2009] equality march on Washington.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/09/us-house-approves-matthew-shepard-hate-crimes-bill/

We are all but immune from hate crime in South Africa. It is quite rife actually and utterly worrying and nauseating.

At the 2008 Joburg Pride there was a wall of remembrance for the four well-known victims of homophobic hate crimes. There are of course many others but we paid homage to those four slain women.

Sizakele Sigasa, Salome Masooa, Zoliswa Nkonyana and Eudy Simelane were pictured on the wall of remembrance and Pride participants wrote messages, draw pictures and made memorabilia to be kept by the Gay and Lesbian Archives (GALA) to preserve South African LGBT history. It was a sombre but essential experience and opened the eyes of many to the mainly hostile society.

ActionAid, a global humanitarian organisation, released the report Hate crimes: the rise of 'corrective' rape in South Africa on 12 March 2009.

The report is a poignant exploration of this South Africa problem and the victims. It features case studies of aforementioned women and many others thereby telling the stories that so urgently need to be heard. The report also elaborates on aetiology and the dismal failure of the South African justice system.

Jody Kollapen, chairperson of the SAHRC notes in the foreword:

Our new constitutional order is based on the powerful principle that recognises the inherent worth and dignity of each person – violence against women on the basis of their sexual orientation violates that principle and threatens the promising, exciting, but fragile human rights system we have put in place.

We all have a responsibility – institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission, the police and justice system, civil society and each individual – to stand in defence of both the constitution and the rights of all. Hate crimes of this nature require decisive action and those responsible must be held to account. The criminal justice system needs to develop more effective strategies in this regard.

The many individuals who have come forward to share their stories in this report have done so partly in the hope that their testimony will move a society to action. One of those actions would be to ensure that hate crimes are recognised within the criminal justice system.

We should use this report as the basis for public education and law reform and ultimately to ensure that we advance the promise of the constitution in recognising the equal worth and dignity of each person.

The conclusion transcends a mere summary and makes the following recommendations inter alia:

Uphold the South African constitution’s prohibition of discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation, including by tackling the rising tide of violence against lesbian women.

Demonstrate its commitment to action in this area, by signing the UN’s declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity condemning violence, harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatisation, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Recognise hate crimes against lesbian and transgender women as a specific crime category supported by the necessary resources to investigate and bring these crimes to court.

Include sexual orientation as grounds for protection against hate speech in the proposed Prohibition of Hate Speech Bill.

The much delayed trial of the murderer and rapist of Eudy Simelane finally came to a lacklustre end on 22 September 2009 when the assailant was sentenced to 32 years imprisonment.

Mvubu, wearing a hooped brown and cream sweater, sat looking at the floor with hands behind his back for much of the hearing. Questioned by reporters, he muttered "I'm not sorry" as he was led from the dock to jeers from the public gallery. [...] Phumi Mtetwa, executive director of the Lesbian and Gay Equality Project, said: "This judgement is extremely important. It doesn't state that she was killed as a lesbian but because she was known.

Simelane's mother, Mally (65) said: "I'm happy. I'm released. My life will come right again."

South Africa has probably the most progressive constitution in the world and the relative closure as attained above should be the impetus and driving force behind the promulgation of a much needed hate crimes law.

The hate crimes bill is though disturbingly absent from all documents up for debate soon as hosted by the GCIS government service. The religious right is currently spreading fallacies that the hate crimes bill would make it a criminal offense for a reverend to read sections in the bible that “condemn” gay people. They conveniently forget that religious freedom is on par with all other freedoms and that they are using patent lies as propaganda. Until such a statute is not enacted we will be relentless and work without respite because these laws should protect those most vulnerable amongst us. How many more people have to be raped, tortured and killed before our dear government opens its eyes?

Maybe one day the tide will change, maybe the bigots will lose their meagre support and maybe we will remember our slain sisters and name the law the “Eudy Simelane Hate Crimes Bill”.

Revolution, evolution, disillusionment – a reflection on the gay community

2009-09-25T21:04:00.000+02:00

I was fortunate to attend a glitterati event recently as a VIP guest and saw some local “people-who-appear-on-TV.” To call them celebrities would be a hyperbolic statement. So this person stands next to me with attaché scouring the territory for the meat of the day that will probably be flaunted on the show in a couple of weeks. I will rather not reveal identities or any cues but luckily I do not know the person personally.

Some few metres away stood a couple of Afrikaans gays. They aren’t hard to spot. Actually they were all around so I looked around for a more diverse table and sat at an ethnically mixed table. I think I have more in common with the two ladies and the affable Jozi-native Anglo-Saxon guy. I loathe labelling race ergo going about the issue stealthily.

I heard in the distance: “Vrouuuuu, vat dit jou soooo lank om jou bolla te klits?”

I just chuckled discreetly. For those who do not understand, it is Afrikaans gay lingo translating to: Woman, does it take you so long to do your hair?

I have always been bemused and amused by gay lingo. I wonder about aetiology. Some of the words are strange derivatives of Afrikaans or English and even a confluence. I wonder why this patois is being used. Is it still relevant?

I understand that in the past it would have been an identifier or used to make a statement in a defiant kind of way towards the status quo of the time. I just do not think it serves any purpose at the moment. I find it both funny and annoying.

Okay, we are now more or less equal citizens of Afrique du Sud and although while Zuma and his god squad are plotting their next move to stymie equality and rescind same-sex marriage we live in probably the most progressive country in the world. That is for now.

The revolution came in the guise of act 108 of 1996 better known as the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and further statutes such as the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Act 4 of 2000. The legal foundations were in place alas our dear society is socially conservative and thus in my humble opinion a tad bit backwards.

The evolution came in the “normalisation” of homosexuality. This is open to all kinds of interpretation but refers here to urban society’s acceptance of the LGBTIQ community in some way, be it nonchalance or earnest acceptance and lack of prejudice. Marriage of course being the bastion of heterosexual culture was imported in gay culture as well post-2006. In a sense, mainly in large urban areas, attitudes changed and the gay population was accepted.

The disillusionment came with the post-Apartheid era newbie gays. Nonchalant is a euphemism, I doubt they know the aetiology and even less probably the meaning. Having already written Mean Girls the Gay Phenomenon dealing with the Lindsay Lohan wannabes in our little community I think after some introspection I can declare that I am not especially proud to be associated with most of the gay population.

I have not seen such sheer shameless ignorance in a population as in our dear newly beleaguered one. I am by self-association also one of the post-Apartheid gays as I was 12 years old when Nelson Mandela was elected our first democratically elected president. Yet I harbour an entirely different set of core values.

On 24 September 2009 a guy decided to slate the Joburg Pride board and its involvement with its media sponsor: 94.7 Highveld. The storm in the teacup proved rather more annoying than flustering. Do we really need infighting in our little community? Methinks we can hardly afford it being a soft target.

Another insolent and disturbed human slated another organisation wantonly. Said organisation is one of the few in this country that fights tooth and nail for continued equality and raising public awareness regarding issues that directly affect us as a community. The utterly nonsensical and profane comment was left without a second thought, without taking into consideration that some of “those” people actually dedicate their existence to the betterment of not only themselves but other victimised people as well. So much for empathy, and so much for common decency...

The ignorant amongst us often attack others for being vigilant. Ignorance is bliss indeed and it would take a serious rattle of their cages to get them out of the grip of indifference and self-centredness. Alas I am afraid then it will be too late to salvage what we might have left.

I was horribly shocked in 2008 when an LGBT Internet news service ran a poll just before Joburg Pride and the vast majority rated that the raison d’être of Pride is the after parties. Have we become so apathetic and complacent that we do not care to know our own history and celebrate it? Are we so cosy that we could not care less about current affairs or politics?

Some are so uninformed as to believe that laws are written in stone. All the while we bask in nonchalance the religious right is rallying and gaining an enormous velocity. One has only to look at Uganda and its ties with the U.S. religious right to get a sense of what is quietly happening. Make no mistake, we are all but immune – look at Errol Naidoo and his crusades against the Pink Loerie. Tip of the iceberg...

Alanis Morissette’s 1995 song Wake up (Jagged Little Pill) has a memorable verse applicable to this specific matter: “There's an obvious attraction to the path of least resistance in your life. There's an obvious aversion no amount of my insistence could make you try tonight.”

The disillusionment makes one wonder why we are putting our wellbeing at risk for those who frankly do not deserve an inkling of sympathy. Or am I being harsh?

“Die Beloofde Land” – my little gripe

2009-09-06T01:30:00.000+02:00

I arrived a wide eyed young adult in Pretoria in 2001 and commenced studies at the University of Pretoria. I was of course inducted in the crowd of instant liberals who defied the culture of the heteronormative. I quickly examined and experienced the prevailing culture in the city. In retrospect I see it as a large Afrikaans colony and maybe this has lead to the topic. I am happy to report that I no longer reside there, but I did long enough to know its ins and outs.

I started jokingly calling the New East of Pretoria “Die Beloofde Land” as a mass exodus happened de rigueur as the former Old East residents crossed the N1 Eastern Bypass to get to the land of the Fake and the Conservative – the sad substitutes of the proverbial Milk and Honey. The areas of Lynnwood, Brooklyn and Waterkloof became inhabited with foreigners (Pretoria has purportedly the most embassies second to Washington DC) and of course the massive influx of the new so-called “Black Diamonds” ensued. I hate that term and see it as patronising but had to refer to the demographic to demonstrate my point.

Sarah Britten wrote about the great “Northern Wastelands” of Johannesburg in her brilliant article called “Why oh why do I hate Fourways so?” She examines the total dishonesty of the architecture in said area and rightfully states that there is nothing authentic about it, nothing. Some comments on said article were priceless, especially this one: “aaah Fourways, where architecture and good taste went to die.”

I have heard many an affluent from the Old North in Jozi referring to the “Tuscan slums” of the “Northern Wastelands”. A friend of mine claims that he actually coined the phrase “Northern Wastelands”. Nevertheless, “Die Beloofde Land” is Pretoria’s quaint yet much stuffier version of the “Northern Wastelands”. I herewith bestow ownership of that geographical parody of a name (“Die Beloofde Land”) upon myself before some shrewd competitor uses it.

The east of Pretoria has expanded so much that the Netcare Pretoria East Hospital (well, almost everything east of Hans Strijdom Road) is not technically in Pretoria anymore but part of the Kungwini Municipality of Bronkhorstspruit, now part of the greater Metsweding Municipality. This is a rather sizeable area which consists of the “Tuscan slums” of Silver Lakes, Woodhill and the plethora of others to the really far east.

Now to tackle the horrid architecture, first my little preamble - I am a philosophical contradiction in terms as I fervently dislike postmodern architecture but concur with postmodern philosophy however chaotic, contradictory and futile people may view the philosophy of Derrida et al. I think I have read Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead too many times than I would like to admit.

I drove through “Die Beloofde Land” recently and it has expanded even more since I left the city four years ago. It is LA-esque in the sense that it is a vast expanse of utterly depressing monotonous prêt-à-porter housing developments for the average Afrikaans young professional. There are endless theme parks of cluster homes, townhouses and duplexes all dull as hell. Then there’s the “esteemed” golf estates which are in effect just oversized versions of the theme park housing developments. I wonder if this is just lingering Pandemic 2009 Influenza A(H1N1) “swine flu” delirium, alas it is not. That place is just plain disgusting. I wonder what European tourists must think when they see this smite-inducing manifestation of our beleaguered Zeitgeist. The unfathomable and flabbergasting part was that I saw a KFC with a Tuscan roof! Now, do you get anything more deranged than that?

If Ayn Rand had to witness what I have she would have had an instant aneurism. What happened to decent Modernist architecture? Who do we have to blame, the calculative architects or their equally deranged clients?

A prominent radio personality has said that you can build a wall around Pretoria and charge people money to the entrance of the theme park. I must concur with that sentiment.

If “Die Beloofde Land” is a manifestation of the prevailing spirit and core philosophy of its inhabitants I cannot help but to feel very sorry for them and now I understand why half of them are on antidepressants and tranquilisers in any way. If you want to peek into the dysfunctional East take a trip to Denmar Psychiatric Hospital in Garsfontein where I guess most of the delusional and despondent end up.

The disillusionment and cognitive dissonance is nothing new; I guess the Uhuru-mongering conservative populous just suffers more from the emancipation of the new South Africa. It must be very hard to live without nationalist demagogues telling you what to do with your life, what to think and sans the indoctrination of your children. Poor souls, keep taking those Prozac. If they keep on migrating east soon they will end up in Mozambique.

Fake Plastic Trees by Radiohead (The Bends, 1995, Parlophone/Capitol) is a poignant narrative of disillusionment and a sad reflection of our disposable consumer culture. It is also an apt analogy describing this uniquely South African context.

Biological determinism – some introspection

2009-08-23T22:30:00.000+02:00

I have since a very early age known that we are the product of our biological processes, expressions of our genes, manifestations of our neurochemical interactions. We are by no means somehow elevated to a living theory-in-vivo concept of self-consciousness.

Some might profusely deny the postulation and produce arguments for a plethora of esoteric and spiritual/religious dogma as substantiation that humans are somehow wholly superior and should rule the world as per ancient instruction.

An acquaintance mused that she thought that a large part of our brains are involved in fooling us that we have a consciousness and are self-conscious. The statement made me think about how we see ourselves and how we construct our realities. The poststructuralists like Foucault have postulated that language is used to construct our reality and I tend to agree with them. The often chaotic and tongue in cheek self-contradictory nature of Derrida as the ultimate Postmodernist makes for interesting and frustrating reading. The Postmodernists deliberately rejected the Modernist notion of the sublime or ultimate truth.

Rang, H et al. 2003. Pharmacology. 5th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone was my real in depth introduction to pharmacology and physiology as the book is targeted at medical students for first and second year Pharmacology. The emphasis is thus greatly on physiology as pharmacology as a science is rapidly evolving. Today’s miracle breakthrough might be desecrated a year or less later. The substance paracetamol (known in America as acetaminophen) is almost ancient and there is still much debate over its exact mechanism of action. Even the leaflets of most medicines bluntly state that the exact mechanism of action is unknown. Should we be content with that?

After having had a transient friendship of sorts with a psychiatrist and made his little protégé and reading Stahl's Essential Psychopharmacology for fun I knew I needed an introduction first. I was a self-indulgent student with a completely different degree towards which I was studying to but was far more interested in my new pastime. Having read Pharmacology by Rang et al thrice I came to the conclusion that we as a highly evolved species still know so very little about the functioning of the human brain. I could of course cite a superfluity of neurotransmitters, their receptors, its functions, the differentiation of function based on location and the even more convoluted so-called second messenger systems. Would it make this hermeneutic more impressive if I cite the excess of academic journals out there which support my core philosophy?

I have a theory that whenever humans do not comprehend something they tend to manufacture almost mythical and esoteric rationales. Calling it a rationale is actually a contradiction in terms (an oxy-moron paradox?) since there is nothing rational about the esoteric. Descartes might have said his famous “Je pense, donc je suis” but then again he performed vivisection on animals which I see as utterly cruel and disgraceful.

Fight it as you wish but every time you lift a finger or have a fleeting or persistent thought, emotions, reactions, if you speak, do, comprehend — quite a few million neurons polarise, depolarise and repolarise via opening of sodium, potassium and calcium channels, release a multitude of neurochemicals which relay “messages” via a synapse to a receptor which is either voltage gated or G-protein coupled, which in turns signals second messenger systems like cAMP, DAG, IP3 etc which in turn activate various protein kinases and DNA/RNA encryptions which all have negative and positive feedback systems. (Condensed and paraphrased from Rang, H et al. 2003. Pharmacology. 5th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone)

On a lighter note (well less academic-esque) we might think we are the only species that have superior intellectual prowess and have the intellectual property rights to self-consciousness akin to how the taxi drivers in Johannesburg maintain that the routes and roads are their intellectual property and the BRT system infringes on this. I am purposely mentioning the taxi fraternity as an analogy not to derogate them purposefully but to illustrate that I do not care who says what, have they not empirical evidentiary proof it is plain fodder. So do not fool or flatter yourself by thinking that you are a living concept. Your mind/psyche is not separated from your body as some ubiquitously incomprehensible construct which defies every precept of science and rests in mythology alone.

I think of my brother’s ginger cat called Quila (after tequila) and its expressive meows and I cannot but wonder that we see animals as lacking self-consciousness simply because we do not understand them. I wish I could understand Meow — it would make my life easier. I have now to rely on guesstimates to figure out what Quila wants. Often Quila will come fetch me and show me that his bowl is empty or that he wants fresh water. He cannot be that intellectually disadvantaged.

It is time to ditch all those a priori assumptions and do some research and not indulge in charlatan science: par example — avoid “Dr” Paul Cameron et al at all costs.

References:

Rang, HP, Dale, MM, Ritter, JM & Moore, PK. 2003. Pharmacology. 5th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone

Segal, EA & Kilty, KM. 1998. The Resurgence of Biological Determinism. Race, Gender & Class, v5 n3 p61-75 (for substantiation)

Towards a label free society

2009-08-16T22:36:00.000+02:00

We have a rather clumsy and long acronym for our beleaguered community: LGBTIQ. I propose that henceforth we refer to ourselves as the Pink Community. The acronym perpetuates division through the use of language and if you read some of the works of Foucault you will see how linguistics is an existential tool used to construct reality – I am of course a huge follower of the post-Structuralists.

During the weekend of 15 of 16 August 2009 a rather strident war of words were exchanged on Facebook. The issue: some transgender persons regard themselves superior to other transgender persons and the basis for this: sexual orientation. To make it very clear (and there has been much research done on this issue) sexual orientation vastly quantitatively differs from gender identity and they are by no means mutually exclusive.

Some charlatan psychiatrists came up with a term which would divide the transgender community into two groups. The so-called ‘true transgenders’ who are heterosexual and then the so-called ‘depraved ones’ which are gay, lesbian or bisexual/pansexual.

This division is a simple ploy to cause divisions in our community, and the right wing knows very well that when we do not stand together as one we are a far lesser force to be reckoned with.

It saddens me greatly if members of the LGBTIQ/Pink community fight amongst each other. We should stand together as one. Otherwise we gay males will have the upper-hand because statistically we present the vast majority of the pink community. Now imagine we run a gaystapo type of regime and renounce the rest of the pink community cause numbers wise 'we don't need them'. I have more humanity and compassion to ever allow that and promote the rights of the entire community. I once took on a popular 5fm DJ after he cracked a few horrid and distasteful jokes at the expense of the transgender community. Some might ask why I did that. I will answer I'm bound by my conscience. I don't do it for glory or money, in fact, it just costs me, and I don't want a medal.

The classification as debated does nothing but promote division and reminds me of that website where the so-called straight transgender people declared their superiority and went about with much strident trite about how lesbian or gay transgender people are an abomination. It is absolutely no different than racism and Nazi eugenics.

What if I was half-transgender like bisexual people are neither exclusively straight nor gay? Enough with these evil heteronormative dichotomies that have been imposed on us by the patriarchy! Why on earth do we entertain their taxonomies and elaborate on them? This infighting is exactly what the patriarchy wants. United we stand divided we fall.

Enough with these pigeon-holes, should I be content by being labelled cisgender and gay? I am most definitively not. I am who I am and I may decide what that is and reserve the right to alter it at any time. I am not my body, I am not my sexual orientation and neither my heritage. I am henceforth just pink. No more divisions. Who will join me in renouncing these labels; it is in any case a heteronormative notion?

Even my first year Psychology textbook displayed the notion very cleverly by using a graph (and it is a widely shared school of thought) that sexual orientation is not a black/white dichotomous issue but that exists in a continuum ranging from exclusively heterosexual on one side and exclusively homosexual on the other side and several degrees of bisexuality in between.

“...sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual. These orientations exist along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexual to exclusive homosexual, including various forms of bisexuality in-between. The continuum between heterosexual and homosexual does not suit everyone, however, as some people identify as asexual.^”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

Jim Burroway from the venerable Box Turtle Bulletin wrote this on 13 August 2009:

“The eleventh annual Reykjavik Gay Pride parade... attracted about 80,000 people to the middle of Reykjavik on Saturday. Involving roughly a quarter of Iceland’s entire population, the sheer size of the party is tribute to Iceland’s leading equal rights legislation and the citizens’ inclusive nature.

“Iceland does not have a gay village. It does not even have many gay bars and clubs at all. But that has nothing to do with Iceland being a strict, conservative society… quite the opposite in fact.

Peek into a Reykjavik gay bar on a Saturday night and you will see a clientele anything but exclusively gay. And if you think all the dozens of other bars in town are straight-only, think again. People in Reykjavik go partying in places dictated by their taste in music, their taste in décor or simply by their bossy friends. They do not need to choose a venue based only on their sexuality.”

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/08/13/14019

Hopefully one day this counterproductive infighting in the Pink Community will stop and the supremacists and their ideology die off. The Reykjavik article makes for a prime example of how a society could transcend social divisions and I would like to use it as an example for South Africans to strive for.

If you take Iceland into account, their Prime Minister (de facto president) is an out lesbian woman and the country has no gripe with that. Looking at the extract above by Jim Burroway, one day we too will transcend labels and categories and be seen simply as people.

“The Heterosexual Agenda”

2009-08-15T22:05:00.000+02:00

In a basement of an unusually inconspicuous building an intrepid bunch of militant heterosexuals plot their next move. The gays are taking over they say. Yes and they prey on our children someone else says. All nod in self-righteous agreement.

They close ranks. Of course they don’t close information highways – it is an efficient method of spreading nefarious fallacies and to recruit gay people because they are not content with just ninety per cent.

***

Here is where my anti-nausea medication taken as prophylaxis wears off and I feel deeply disturbed. Yet, the short text above is just a tiny peek into what propaganda is disseminated against the LGBTIQ community en masse every single day. Millions of gullible people feed on this fodder and charlatans like “Dr” Paul Cameron churns it out with the fervour you will never see in this world. America has long ago lost it title of home of the brave and land of the free – it is now mainly seen as the land of the origins of great bigotry. A sad sentiment since a few million very commendable persons live there and they are confronted with this tripe. The other sad fact is their First Amendment makes it impossible to seek redress in such cases of hate speech and defamation and enticement of violence and hatred. We all know hatred kills.

The venerable Wayne Besen, founder of the American group Truth Wins Out wrote a thought provoking piece on incitement of violence through words on 12 August 2009:

Stirring The Pot Until It Boils Over

“Sometimes, words can kill. A vocabulary carefully crafted into lethal lies almost always foreshadows fatalities.”

“... let’s not pretend such irresponsible words and behavior does not have casualties and consequences. We can best celebrate free speech and assembly by freely choosing not to incite or assemble irate mobs that lack control or any normal sense of inhibition.”

In South Africa the most hateful, morbidly logic-defying, morally reprehensible and, nefarious book was published called THE PINK AGENDA: Sexual Revolution in South Africa and the Ruin of the Family", by Christine Mc Cafferty with Peter Hammond. This was of course published ‘in house’ by Christian Liberty Books for Africa Christian Action since no other reputable publisher will publish such blatant hate. The Film and Publications Board (FPB) came very close to banning this piece of trash which would have made it the first banned book in the New South Africa. The FPB decided to rate the book R18 – restricted for sale for over-18’s only, in my humble opinion that nefarious junk in the guise of religion should never have seen the light of day, and were I a preacher I would have condemned the authors for dragging my faith into the most abysmal cesspit. And their nefarious gripe goes on and on ad nauseam.

It seems these fundamentalists are hell-bent on proselytising everyone to their brand of merciless spiritually, and of course they need a scapegoat...

Jim Burroway from the equally venerable Box Turtle Bulletin wrote a 36 page parody called THE HETEROSEXUAL AGENDA: EXPOSING THE MYTHS.

It was clearly indicated as a parody and social experiment. His booklet makes for fascinating reading and is blissfully tongue in cheek. The LGBTIQ community has a sense of humour alas the bigots really believe the reprehensible claptrap they write often under the guise of science – I call it pseudo-science.

During an Exodus International attended “ex-gay” conference in Uganda as extensively covered by Box Turtle Bulletin the roots of homophobia as an export product became increasingly apparent – we have the Americans to blame (who else?)

“And all of this began when three Americans — Exodus board president Don Schmierer, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, and Richard Cohen Protege Caleb Lee Brundidge — spoke at a conference in Kampala in early March and endorsed proposals to strengthen Uganda’s criminal code which bans homosexual acts with a lifetime sentence, with the penalty of compelling gays and lesbians into forced therapy.”

The story makes for disturbing reading quite reminiscent of a nightmare.

Information on Scott Lively will make this a ravishing read:

During the conference in Uganda “Lively added a new twist, blaming the 1994 Rwanda genocide on gay men”

Scott Lively, the ultimate half-wit came to prominence with the publishing of his hate-ridden book called ‘The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party .

“In it, he contends that ‘the Nazi Party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history.’ A brief outline of his book is presented on the LeadershipU web site. His book is also available for free online in its entirety, and it was also offered for sale at the Uganda conference, with Lively referring to it throughout his talk.

The essence of Lively’s thesis is this: The Nazi party’s idealized view of masculinity was a significant draw to “butch” homosexuals. He cites as his principle evidence the rumored homosexuality of Ernst Roehm, the leader of the early Nazi paramilitary group known as the Brownshirts. Lively claims the Brownshirts trace their origins to the Wandervogel youth movements, which he says was ‘dominated and controlled by the pederasts… and its leadership was rife with homosexuality.’ Lively also claims that Adolph Hitler was probably gay and a homosexual prostitute while in Vienna (the unsubstantiated phrases like ‘probably homosexual,’ ‘almost certainly homosexual’, ‘may well have been homosexual,’ and ‘it is assumed’ pop up with astonishing regularity in his book) — while elsewhere say Lively concludes that Hitler was ‘probably not’ gay. But in either case, he concluded that Hitler ‘knowingly and intentionally surrounded himself with practicing homosexuals from his youth.’

Lively adds that ‘There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust,’ saying that German gays were eager to target Jews for extinction because of Judaism’s traditional prohibition against homosexuality. He doesn’t explain why Christianity’s traditional prohibition against homosexuality — which held a far greater moral influence throughout Europe — was ignored.

As for the estimated 15,000 gay men who were sent to concentration camps under Germany’s notorious Paragraph 175, Lively contends that the Nazis almost never used the law against actual gay men (the law was silent on lesbians), claiming that most of those who were convicted weren’t gay, but political enemies. Or if they were gay, then it was because they were effeminate. He writes, ‘There is evidence to suggest that only the effeminate homosexuals were mistreated under the Nazi regime — and usually at the hands of masculine homosexuals.’ In fact, Lively is very fascinated by what he considers ‘the enduring Butch/Femme conflict among German homosexuals.’

The very few historians who have bothered to take his book seriously have dismissed it out of hand. They point out that most of Lively’s source material comes from Nazi political opponents, and that it was a common practice in Germany’s political culture to charge that one’s political opponents were overrun by homosexuals. Before coming to power, Nazis themselves used this tactics against the Wiemar Republic as well as against their Bolshevik and Socialist opponents. And they weren’t alone. Social Democrats, Conservatives, Bolsheviks, Socialists, Liberals and Centrists all used the same charges against the Nazis, as well as against each other, often with little or no reality behind the charges.

Lively however used only one set of those charges — those against the Nazis — and ignored the political context to maintain that the Nazis were overrun with homosexuals, specifically ‘Butch’ gay men. He only raises the specter of ‘baseless charges’ when discussing the evidence that the Nazis themselves persecuted gays throughout their reign of terror.

Lively’s book also goes beyond Nazi Germany, claiming that Nazis’ murderous tendencies wasn’t an aberration of homosexuals’ power, but a natural consequence of it. ‘From the ashes of Nazi Germany,’ he writes, ‘the homo-fascist Phoenix has arisen again — this time in the United States.’ He claims that ‘eight of the top ten serial killers in the United States were homosexual, and that homosexuals were responsible for 68% of all mass murders.’

Need I even talk about the aftermath of that horrid anti-gay conference of March 2009?

SA GLAAD denounced the conference but as far as I know no other single African or South African LGBTIQ organisation for that matter said a word.

As one would expect a massacre sprouted from the hate-ridden conference. The already beleaguered LGBTIQ community live under much strife and mobs maim and kill many LGBTIQ people and our South African government is blissfully ignorant and silent.

Does it come as any surprise?