South Africa's Double Speak at the United Nations

There is growing concern among human rights organisations with the resolution tabled by South Africa at the United Nations to establish an intergovernmental process to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity. Jessica Stern at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) believes "South Africa is primarily collaborating with governments that refuse to acknowledge discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Jessica Stern, director of programmes at the New York-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, confirmed this week that South African activists had been trying to initiate a dialogue with the government on the joint statement. "Many of us from around the world think that South Africa has put regional political interests before human rights and is trying to appease other African countries," Stern said.

"There is an overwhelming sentiment within the African group at the UN that is opposed to recognising human rights violations based on sexual orientation. South Africa is primarily collaborating with governments that refuse to acknowledge discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Stern said that while South Africa is suggesting a single entity to deal with issues of sexual orientation, "no one knows what that entity is. It is suggesting one space that is purely intergovernmental, with no access for civil society, and that would undo decades of work." She said that while the joint statement which South Africa has endorsed is non-binding and has no immediate implications, the resolution will have binding implications, for example, for the allocation of resources.

Is Sexual Orientation Really Undefined?

In both the statement to the Human Rights Council and in the resolution to establish an intergovernmental working group, South Africa stated that the issue of sexual orientation needs to be clearly defined.

Statement:

In this regard, we would like to draw the attention of delegations to the statement that South Africa made during the adoption of the resolution on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions in the General Assembly on the 22 December 2010. We expressly mentioned in that statement that the issue of sexual orientation needs to be clearly defined.

Resolution:

Decides to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group to elaborate concepts, such as sexual orientation, and others which may emerge in this regard, defining such concepts and their scope and parameters in international human rights law prior to their integration into existing norms and standards of international human rights law;

South Africa's statement and resolution reflect the sentiments of the African Group which is overwhelmingly against including sexual orientation and gender identity in international human rights law.

In view of the African Group, some of the factors which account for the huge reluctance to join the statement are: A. The fact that the concept remains undefined in the international human rights system. B. The twining of another concept of, another equally undefined concept of gender identity to sexual orientation.

The notion that sexual orientation needs to be clearly defined does not square with the governments own press briefing announcing the intergovernmental process:

The Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations in Geneva, Ambassador J Matjila takes this opportunity to formally inform that South Africa supports ending violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. South Africa views this issue seriously from the standpoint that the South African Constitution addresses the issue of sexual orientation, especially as one of the grounds of discrimination.

Is the United Nations Really Out of Order?

In the resolution to establish an intergovernmental working group, South Africa stated that the United Nations was somehow out of order in how it was pursuing human rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Resolution:

Underlining the imperative need for the international human rights system to respect the established procedures and practices of the General Assembly in the elaboration of new norms and standards and their subsequent integration into existing international human rights law...

Again, South Africa's resolution reflects the sentiments of the African Group which is overwhelmingly against advancing human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons.

The African Group does not support the current haphazard and disjointed manner in which virtually the thematic special procedures of the human rights council have many references to the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity in their various reports without guidance of the council or even without assuring that there was at least a common understanding of these concepts.

The notion that the United Nations is somehow out of order in how it is pursuing human rights based on sexual orientation and gender identity does not square with the South African governments own participation in the process at the United Nations:

It is this constitutional imperative that obliged South Africa to vote for the inclusion of the references to sexual orientation in resolution related to Extra judiciary killings, which was adopted recently by the United Nations General Assembly in New York in December 2010.

(This was a U-Turn for South Africa as well).

The full transcripts of the statements made by the African Group and South Africa along with the resolution are available on African Activist.

MP David Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 Reportedly Dead

Uganda's Parliament

Frank Mugisha, Director for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), is reporting that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 is dead. Frank posted the following on his Facebook Profile:

Anti homosexuality bill should not be discussed not needed redundant and unnecessary says Ugandan Government...The government has spoken despite all efforts by Bahati to pass the bill , it will not be brought up for discussion in the 8th parliament.

Last week MP David Bahati and Parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee Chair Stephen Tashobya were interviewed about pursuing the Bill in the 8th Parliament. A series of Wikileaks from early in 2010 indicate that President Museveni is interested in seeing the bill go away.

David Kato Murder Case Moved to the Uganda High Court

Poster from NYC Vigil

During the 17 March 2011 hearing on David Kato's murder, the case was transferred from the Grade II Magistrate Court in Mukono to the Uganda High Court. Frank Mugisha, Director for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), reports that the request was made by police who have concluded the investigation. The court room was filled with activists interested in justice for David Kato.

The murder case of late gay rights activist David Kato has been transferred to the Ugandan high court during the third hearing on 17 March 2011, at the Grade II Magistrate court in Mukono, however the actual date for the next hearing is yet to be announced.

Frank Mugisha, Director for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) told Behind the Mask that the accused was brought to court for the hearing and that since police seemed to have finished the investigations they asked the court to forward the murder case to the high court and the magistrate approved.

Mugisha said that once again the court room was filled with activists who came to support and journalists.

He also explained that the accused was handed a “document with charges of murder” and was asked to find a lawyer or ask the government to give a lawyer, however the accused didn’t say anything and was further remanded in custody.

During the last court appearance in the case of the Republic of Uganda vs. Nsubuga Sydney Alias Enoch, the case was mentioned in court and adjourned without a hearing for further investigation. The first and second court appearances were held on 17 February and 3 March 2011 respectively.

Ongoing Questions About the Murder Investigation

Human Rights Watch released a report this week documenting the torture, forced confessions and killings by the Kampala-based Rapid Response Unit (RRU), the very unit that located and interrogated the suspects in the murder of David Kato.

The unit's mandate is to investigate violent crime...Human Rights Watch also found that the unit routinely uses torture to extract confessions. Sixty of 77 interviewees who had been arrested by RRU told Human Rights Watch that they had been severely beaten at some point during their detention and interrogations. In 2010, at least two people died of injuries from beatings during interrogations, and four people were shot and killed in the course of an arrest...Several former detainees told Human Rights Watch that RRU personnel forced them to sign statements under duress, while the detainees were being beaten or threatened with further violence.

We know that MP David Bahati, author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 about to be considered by Uganda's Parliament, and the supporters of the bill, Pastor Martin Ssempa, Giles Muhame and Scott Lively, provided motives for David Kato's murder to the world press five days before the arrest and interrogation of the prime suspect. The motives prefigure the confession of Enoch Sydney Nsubuga almost exactly.

In a 9 February 2011 editorial in The Monitor, Ugandan journalist Charles Onyango-Obbo wrote:

So, here comes the hard part. It is possible Kato was murdered by the anti-gay brigade. The Uganda Police is not famous for its great investigative skills, so any time they quickly parade suspects who confess to a crime, the public has every right to be suspicious that the whole show has been fixed.

In a similar vein, blogger Gay Uganda has consistently questioned the Kato murder investigation in the context of the Rapid Response Unit. He wrote today about the Human Rights Watch report:

This is common knowledge in Uganda. The beatings, the torture, the confessions. This is why I doubted the 'confession' of David Kato Kisule's purported murderer. I don't know whether he killed him or not. And, I don't know whether I can trust the police on a high profile case like David's murder became. Not with such outside pressure and interest...The people who do these things, the numerous security agencies that do these, are effectively immune.

The European Parliament has called on Ugandan authorities to investigate individuals who publicly called for the killing of David Kato:

Calls on the Ugandan authorities to carry out an in-depth and impartial investigation into the killing and bring the perpetrators to justice, and to do so in respect of any act of persecution, discrimination and violence against LGBT people and all other minority groups; calls on the Ugandan authorities to investigate individuals who publicly called for the killing of David Kato, as well as their organisations, role and funding.

The Uganda High Court

With the police investigation concluded, it is an excellent development that the case has been moved to the Uganda High Court which recently issued a permanent injunction against the Rolling Stone for publishing David Kato's picture under the caption "Hang Them."

Perhaps the Uganda High Court can sort through the evidence in an unbiased way so that David Kato receives justice.

In Depth: Statements by African Group and South Africa on the UN Joint Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Human Rights Council Photo

After Colombia delivered the UN Joint Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to the Human Rights Council there were interventions from the African Group and South Africa. They are transcribed in full below along with the resolution tabled by South Africa to establish an intergovernmental working group on sexual orientation and gender identity.

While the African Group opposed the Joint Statement, it did state, "We do not want any discrimination against anybody under any condition whether sexual or otherwise...If the issue is a question of discrimination, that is addressed on the law. If any law criminalises sexual orientation, and otherwise, those laws should be expunged."

South Africa endorsed the Joint Statement and introduced a resolution to "establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group to elaborate new concepts, like sexual orientation, and others which may emerge in this regard, defining such concepts and their scope and parameters in international human rights law prior to their integration into existing norms and standards of international human rights law."

Nigeria (African Group)
Mr. Ositadinma Anaedu | Watch Statement (Real Player)

Transcript:
Madame President, thank you very much. The Vienna Declaration set out to address all fundamental rights, all fundamental human rights without exception and without consideration. We believe that civil and political rights are intertwined with social, cultural and economic rights and mutually reinforcing and remain inseparable. To that effect I have this honour to present the statement on behalf of the African Group.

The issue of sexual orientation in the United Nations human rights system has not yet mustered consensus. All the previous attempts to integrate sexual orientation into existing universally recognised human rights have not been successful. There were strong attempts at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to establish and accept sexual orientation as related intolerance to racism and racial discrimination which the conference uniformly rejected. The outcome of the Durban conference, namely, the Durban Declaration and Program of Action has no reference whatsoever to the mention of sexual orientation. The eastquire? commission on human rights at  in 2003 could not gain sufficient consensus to adopt a resolution on this matter.

All the subsequent group statements on the issue presented to previous sessions of the commission, council and United Nations General Assembly are indicative of the fact that there are a disproportionately high number of States have not joined the group statements on the issue.

In view of the African Group, some of the factors which account for the huge reluctance to join the statement are:

A. The fact that the concept remains undefined in the international human rights system.

B. The twining of another concept of, another equally undefined concept of gender identity to sexual orientation.

C. The proponents of the concept of sexual orientation and gender identity have themselves not defined these concepts in their domestic jurisprudence. In other words, these countries have not adopted any administrative, legislative and judicial measures criminalising discrimination based on these concepts. 

As it will be recalled, the heads of states of governments of the African Union adopted by consensus a decision on shared values during its summit in Kampala, Uganda on July 2010. In terms of this decision, African leaders on the lines resolved not to accept or integrate concepts which have not been universally defined and accepted in international human rights law. The African leaders thereby rescind the obsession by other regions or groups to impose their own value system on other regions which are not shared by such regions. For their parts, the African political leaders remain sensitive and respectful of the choices of other regions and do not have the intention to make their value system the predominant value of the international system.

The African Group does not support the current haphazard and disjointed manner in which virtually the thematic special procedures of the human rights council have many references to the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity in their various reports without guidance of the council or even without assuring that there was at least a common understanding of these concepts.

Having read the statement of the African Group, I do want to clarify a number of things here.

Number one, the concept here has clarity here in the sense that we do not want any discrimination against anybody under any condition whether sexual or otherwise. But we have to state clearly and forcefully that this concept stands against everything we stand for in Africa. Our own concept of God is Christian? imperatively we believe in God and we believe that he ordained everything. For the Western countries it may be that it does not matter anymore because going to church here means preparing to die and not for the living. It touches on our own concept of women. For us a women is the greatest resource of God’s creation and to the ? and we don’t believe that any simulation of any kind, scientifically or otherwise, will bring forth anything called women, other than we know existed by God’s creation. Our own concept of children, that children come from the combination of the man and the wife, under the family husband and wife. It also touches on family of what we regard as family because for us family stands at the heart of everything we will do. We live for the family. It is also imperative to state, that this issue also touches to us on the issue of poverty and health that are so predominant in Africa that right now every issue, every mandate holder, every discussion reduces the problem of Africa just to sexual orientation. It is unforgiving and unfair. And finally, we have to state clearly, that our leaders as African heads of State and governments clearly stated that every nation has the right to protect its culture and issues of life. That is every nation, particularly the African regions has the right of their culture and religions. And finally, no culture of that group should be imposed on the other. In effect, we do not hold for those that want sexual orientation to be a way of life in their cities and villages, any construct, but what we are emphasising is that maintain your way of life while we maintain our own. If the issue is a question of discrimination, that is addressed on the law. If any law criminalises sexual orientation, and otherwise, those laws should be expunged. But beyond that, all citizens in our countries face the same rules and laws. I think you Madame President.

South Africa
Mr. Luvuyo Ndimeni | Watch Statement (Real Player)

Transcript:
Thank you Madame President. Yesterday South Africa celebrated Human Rights Day, a day that has been declared an international day for the elimination of racial discrimination, in honour of and in remembrance of South Africans who were massacred in Sharpville in South Africa on the 21 of March 1960 for campaigning against the law that compelled them to carry pass documents whenever they entered areas that had been segregated for Europeans. Such was the brutality of Apartheid, a policy which was declared a crime against humanity by the General Assembly. South Africa continues to be inspired by its constitution which was crafted such that the principles of human dignity, equality and nondiscrimination underpin the constitution including the issue of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

We are thus taking the floor under this agenda Item 8: titled Follow-up to Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and we have decided as a government to support the statement which has been presented by a group of countries titled Joint Statement on Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. We would like to however provide the following few comments. This joint statement has procedural concerns which we as South Africa have indicated to some of the sponsors which was similarly mentioned previously in other statements in 2006 and 2008 at the level of the UN General Assembly in New York.

At the national level, South Africa…at the national level, sexual orientation is not a new issue for South Africa, it was already addressed in the 1955 Freedom Charter which indicated that South Africa should be a non-racist, non-sexist society amongst others. We believe, therefore, that discussion on such a sensitive issue should done in an inclusive and transparent process as the current joint statement being presented lacks the vision on how to protect the victims and the processes of ensuring their promotion and protection. As Nigeria on behalf of the African Group issued a statement the issue of sexual orientation is sensitive and impacts on a whole range of issues including culture and religion. South Africa firmly believes that this issue should be addressed in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. It is for this reason that we have called for an intergovernmental process both at the level of the United Nations General Assembly and in the Human Rights Council. In this regard, we would like to draw the attention of delegations to the statement that South Africa made during the adoption of the resolution on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions in the General Assembly on the 22 December 2010. We expressly mentioned in that statement that the issue of sexual orientation needs to be clearly defined.

In this regard, we have followed up and tabled a resolution during this 16th session of the Human Rights Council titled “The imperative need to respect the new established procedures and practises of the United Nations General Assembly in the operation of new norms and standards and their subsequent integrations into existing international human rights law." The draft resolution by South Africa seeks to address the concerns that we have. I thank you Madame President.

Draft Resolution by South Africa
The imperative need to respect the established procedures and practices of the General Assembly in the elaboration of new norms and standards and their subsequent integration into existing international human rights law.

Based on the fact that "African Group" is crossed out in the original submission, South Africa faced some resistance in tabling this resolution.

Original Submission | Submitted Resolution

See Also:
Webcast of Human Rights Council Discussion of UN Joint Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Starts with Colombia's statement)

UN Human Rights Council: A Stunning Development Against Violence, IGLHRC

South Africa to Lead on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity within African Group at the UN 

Botswana's Pink Debate

Mini-Bus Taxi

Caine Youngman's law suit against Botswana's government for violating his fundamental human rights by criminalising homosexuality has generated a huge amount of debate in Botswana. Tigele Mokobi's editorial in The Botswana Gazette documents a heated discussion he overheard in a mini-bus taxi ride to his home. As Mokobi reflects on the discussion, he asks an important question: "We are a secular state, with an elaborate Bill of Rights that is enshrined in the Constitution and we pride ourselves with the values of Botho, where then do we get off maligning and criminalising consensual same-sex sexual activity?"

Here is a snippet of the conversation in the mini-bus taxi:

“The Holy Bible and the constitution of Botswana proclaim homosexuality sinful and illegal. Just how do these girls hope to live in a country that prohibits homosexuality?” yells the driver with a strong North-Eastern accent.

“It is a sad day when we start identifying groups of people by how they choose to have sex,” chips in the soft spoken bespectacled passenger. “I find it amazing that a country like Botswana still treats members of society as second class citizens based on their sexual orientation.”

“We have no right to impose our morals on others. Gays and lesbians have a right to identity. They are Gods creation and we must love them as we love ourselves,” declared the elegantly dressed young lady.

“If homosexuality is natural then why is it only human beings that show this blatant disrespect of all natural laws, that even animals respect with their very lesser intelligence?” shouts someone from the rear seat. “The Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Human beings believe they are superior to animals, why then do they go below them through behaviours like homosexuality? God help us! The birds and wild animals know how to do it better, I have never come across a gay cow or chicken.”

“This perverted practice is un-African!” retorts the elderly woman in disgust as she disembarks at the Taung bus stop.

“But what do you say of the body of folklore and documented evidence of same-sex sexual relations among men in a number of pre-colonial societies. How do you think herd boys and regiments released sexual tension?” a passenger with dreadlocks in a khaki coloured Yankees base-ball cap shouts after her.

He proceeds to relate how it was only after the arrival of the white man with the Bible in one hand and his laws in the other, that this largely ignored or suppressed practice among African societies became viewed with shame and dishonour. “Isn’t it ironic that the same white man who demonised homosexuality in the Bible and statutes is now propagating it as an acceptable and legitimate lifestyle!?” he asks. “The way I see it, it is ignorance and fear that fuel this irrational aversion and hostility towards homosexuality,” he proclaims.

After reflecting on the discussion, Tigale Mokobi provides his own conclusions:

Later in the evening at home, I’d reflect on the encounter in the mini-bus taxi and was struck by the extent of how the conversation was a metaphor of the broader debate on same-sex sexual relationships. Especially revealing is how much of the stigma, belligerence and chauvinistic ultra-repressive attitude towards homosexuality is justified by opponents on broad religious, cultural and legal grounds. These attitudes are underwritten by powerful cultural norms and institutions such as the Church and the State whose combined might have come to bear on a citizenry who simply pray for the recognition and protection of their inalienable rights to self expression.

I am taken aback by the religious zealots, cultural hypocrites and the statutory abuse of the rights of people inclined to same-sex sexual relationships. This hostility and resentment flies in the face of our national values of Botho and the national vision 2016 which espouse tolerance, compassion, equality, justice and peace. I feel that as a society it is time we looked ourselves in the mirror and see ourselves for who were really are and what we are achieving with our widely accepted prejudice against sexual minorities.

We are a secular state, with an elaborate Bill of Rights that is enshrined in the Constitution and we pride ourselves with the values of Botho, where then do we get off maligning and criminalising consensual same-sex sexual activity? Why do we allow ourselves to be hoodwinked by the selective scriptures quoted by some deceptive ‘men of the cloth?’ What business do we have in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms? This I find to be the height of bigotry! 

Former Botswana President Festus Mogae recently participated in the BBC Debate: Is Homosexuality Un-African? and concluded that not only was homosexuality African but that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons are worthy of human rights.

-----
Botho is Botswana's fifth National Principle and it defines a process of earning respect by first giving it, and to gain empowerment by empowering others. Botho includes positive attributes expected of a human being such as respect, good manners, compassion, helpfulness, politeness and humility. This principle plays an important role in the way the people of Botswana interact in society.

85 Nations Endorse UN Joint Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Eighty-five nations endorsed the UN Joint Statement on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity presented by Colombia to the UN Human Rights Council, an inter-governmental body within the United Nations made up of 47 states. The statement was signed by the Central African Republic, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Seychelles. Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council, made the following statement:

“We are proud to have taken a leading role on the statement issued today at the Human Rights Council, signed by 85 countries, entitled “Ending Acts of Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.”  Human rights are the inalienable right of every person, no matter who they are or who they love.  The U.S. government is firmly committed to supporting the right of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals to lead productive and dignified lives, free from fear and violence.  We look forward to working with other Governments from all regions and with civil society to continue dialogue at the Council on these issues.“

The Washington Post interviewed Suzanne Nossel about the lead role the United States took on the resolution:

“We are very concerned that individuals continue to be killed, arrested and harassed around the world because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Suzanne Nossel, deputy assistant secretary of state for international organizations. “This statement sends a strong message from across the globe that such abuses should not be tolerated.”

The U.S. document calls for nations to end any criminal punishments against lesbians, gays and bisexuals, and asks the global body to review how governments treat them in the U.N.’s human rights assessments. It acknowledges that “these are sensitive issues for many,” but the document insists that people must be freed from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Ms. Nossel said the United States was proud to be taking a leading role in promoting the idea that gay rights are human rights — among the sharper foreign policy redirections that occurred after President Obama took office.

The following nations endorsed the resolution:

Delivered by Colombia on behalf of: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Central African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala,  Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the former-Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Uruguay,  Vanautu and Venezuela

Outspoken Radio 21 March 2011

Outspoken is Africa's only lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) radio show and is broadcast from Johannesburg, South Africa.



The 21 March 2011 Edition: 

21 March is earmarked as Human Rights Day in South Africa. Why Human Rights? How far are we with gay rights in Africa?

We also feature the BBC World Debate bringing us the topic, Is Homosexuality Un- African? This is conducted by Zainab Badawi.

Challenging the Religious Fundamentalism Behind MP David Bahati's Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009

MP David Bahati

As Uganda's Parliament reconvenes on Tuesday and legislators begin consideration of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, Gaaki Kigambo wrote an insightful editorial in The Observer about lead sponsor MP David Bahati's participation in the BBC Debate: Is Homosexuality Un-African? Kigambo does a good job of challenging a core belief behind the bill, that homosexuality goes against Uganda's ethos as a Christian nation.

Bahati also holds that homosexuality, and especially in Uganda, goes against our ethos as a Christian nation and, on that basis, is sin. Article 7 of the constitution, however, states that Uganda shall not adopt a state religion.

Uganda’s claim then as a Christian nation – as Michael Kyazze, the pastor of Omega Healing Centre noted – is only derivative from the fact that a huge percentage of people have been raised and socialised as Christians, which has, consequently, informed the nation’s moral basis.

Yet, how much of that moral basis exists to challenge homosexuality is debatable in a country where corruption, for instance, as the Inspectorate of Government 2008 integrity survey indicated, is an accepted way of life.

Ugandans, the survey noted, “seemed to glorify those who acquire wealth through graft, while they ridiculed those who upheld principles of integrity and moral values”.

Kigambo exposed the lack of evidence MP Bahati brought to the debate for his assertions that homosexuality hurts population growth and is a danger to children.

Baited by host Zeinab Badawi, Bahati emphatically stated, as his second main thrust against gay people, that the existence of homosexuals in Africa certainly compromises population growth even if he could not supply statistics to back such an assertion...

Bahati also premises his bill on the need to curtail the promotion of homosexuality, which he says is endangering the lives of young children. According to him, “we have a number of children in Uganda who have been traumatised by the fact that they have been adopted by gay couples and they have been forced to call a man ‘mum’ or a woman, ‘dad’”.

He, however, could not offer concrete evidence to back this up, just as he would not when challenged to back up his sweeping statement that gay people were investing money to indoctrinate children into homosexuality.

“We have evidence and we are not obliged to present it to this audience,” Bahati claimed.

Much of MP Bahati's rhetoric during the debate about procreation and the risk homosexuality poses to children mirrors the rhetoric of religious fundamentalism in the United States--spin conceived in ideological hate. Kigambo highlighted this connection very well.

A Lutheran pastor, Pieter Oberholzer, then cut in. “I’m hearing you speak from one side only – the religious Christian fundamentalism – and, I’m sorry to say, the words you are using are identical to [the ones of] the three American pastors who went to your country to talk to you and your President and many leaders with their agenda, saying [homosexuals] were trying to recruit the whole world. I haven’t heard you say anything new. So, you want to be African, voicing right wing American religious fundamentalists,” Oberholzer said.

While Bahati admitted that most of what he had said was not new, he defended this apparent lack of originality, saying it was “because the problem hasn’t been solved”.

However, he said the piece of legislation he is proposing is a Ugandan legislation, proposed by Ugandans. It is a strange coincidence, however, that the bill was drafted shortly after Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer spoke at a conference in Kampala organised by the NGO, Family Life Network.

All three not only hold strong views against homosexuality, but are involved in efforts to discourage it.

Kigambo ends the editorial with a concern: "To Bahati’s advantage, though, such scrutiny will be absent both in Parliament and the general public over the next six weeks when the bill is up for debate."

Hopefully this is not the case and that the public hearing phase of committee meetings will provide a forum for those concerned about human rights and separation of church and state.

See Also:
Debate on Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 Begins Next Week in Uganda's Parliament

Celebrating South African Human Rights Day 2011

Zanele Muholi

The 21st of March 2011 is Human Rights Day in South Africa. African Activist would like to celebrate the work of visual activist Zanele Muholi on this day. The South African constitution includes sexual orientation in the bill of rights, but the achievements of queer activists are often sidelined and hidden from view. In the introduction to her book Faces and Phases, Muholi writes, "I embarked on a journey of visual activism to ensure that there is black queer visibility. It is important to mark, map and preserve our mo(ve)ments through visual histories for reference and posterity so that future generations will note that we were here."

Zanele Muholi's book Faces and Phases was published in August 2010. Difficult Love, a film by Zanele Muholi and Peter Goldsmid, was shown at the 17th Out in Africa Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. Reviewer Nadia Sanger had this to say about the interplay of the two works.

In my view, the book Faces and Phases can be simultaneously read against Zanele Muholi and Peter Goldsmid’s recent film, Difficult Love, which was recently shown at the 17th Out in Africa Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in South Africa. In the film, the viewer is provided a lens into Muholi’s personal life that informs her work as a queer photographer. We are given the opportunity to see and hear her experiences as a lesbian woman who was reared in a black South African township, the importance of her relationship to her mother - who recently passed away - and the commitment to her work as a visual producer in the communities she has invested in through photography and sharing her skills. The film includes conversations with a number of people, all who make Zanele’s work possible. Some people appear in Faces and Phases, others work in the area of gender and sexuality, and others are family and friends who continue to play a significant role in Zanele’s always evolving coming-into-being...

The multiple photographs taken by Zanele over the years are shown throughout the film, and these provide a critique of the South African social context by revealing positive images of black lesbians that document black queer existence.

Both Faces and Phases and Difficult Love tell the stories of those who make these productions possible. They are deliberate attempts by Muholi at documenting black queer visibility that will lodge themselves in South Africa’s history and archived for decades to come. It is my hope that, as feminist producers of knowledge in Africa, we will continue to build on what Muholi has created.

Difficult Love is now available to view on The Internet Movie Database. Many of Zanele Muholi's photographs are woven into the narrative. Take 45 minutes and watch Difficult Love for Human Rights Day.

The portaits of Penny Xoliswa Nkosi and Siza Khumalo.
Both photos taken in Berea, Johannesburg, 2007.

Yvette Abrahams wrote a very personal review about the impact of Faces and Phases on her own life.

It is at such times that I turn to Zanele's work like a thirsty KhoeSan in the desert...She is the kind of person who goes out there into the townships and the places where the homeless people live, and puts cameras in people's hands. “Express yourself!” she says. Her greatest ambition is to exhibit her photographs on six-foot billboards at the taxi ranks, and indeed she is not afraid to go out there and use the street as her gallery. When she is not doing that, she is bussing the township into the established galleries, claiming spaces and making places for her people without apology. Those of you only familiar with her artwork might not know her as an indefatigable documenter of LGBTIQ and women's activism...

Faces and Phases Cover

In supporting activists to take a breather and love one another a bit, Zanele's work performs a profoundly political act. After all, when we forget about the love, we miss the whole point about being lesbian. Zanele's work, at its best, has always been to me a pure celebration of women loving women. It is an act of homage which no woman can resist. Reminding us what it is all about is in itself a form of activism, and a desperately important one.

The fundamental political impact of Zanele's work lies in resisting stereotypes. No, I cannot even say this is what she does. Let me rephrase: for many years I have believed that the only answer to objectification is to present myself as a full subject. To aspire to no one's values but my own, to seek the respect of no one but myself and Godde, to love my community in all their many failings and supreme wonders, to live life well regardless; these principles have been my only answer to epistemic violence. I have often said that there are two types of struggle: the anti-struggle (as in we are against homophobia) and the pro-struggle (as in what are we really for? What does a free world actually look like?). Zanele's work transcends these categories to stand proudly on its own. Her subjects, volounteers all, come to us fully as themselves. Marked and scarred by the world they live in, they move beyond simple platitudes like the triumph of the human spirit. They just are. Only when one knows the conditions of their lives is it possible to understand what an achievement this is. Elsewhere I have written:

“As I write I am going to try to cease to use the word “lesbian”. This is because I am trying to create a space where women loving women is normal, that is, where we do not need the qualifier “lesbian” because it is so obvious that we do not need to mention it. How often do you read an article on heterosexual relationships which uses the word “heterosexual”? It is the sense of a love we can take for granted that I need to evoke in this space which is my writing.”

This is the kind of emotional work that Faces and Places does for me. It is an affirmation. As I sit and go through its pages, picking out my favourites, sharing them with my family, admiring this one and smiling at that one, this book creates for me a sense of love we can take for granted. It brings me a foretaste of a future when we are truly free. We need more art like this.

You may visit Zanele Muholi's website at http://www.zanelemuholi.com/.