UGANDA - ON THE CUSP OF INTRODUCING DEATH PENALTY FOR GAYS
The draconian anti-gay laws being introduced in Uganda seem to have received very little attention in the Western press. This will widen the current legal definition of homosexuality, which involves a lengthy prison sentance, and introduces a new offence of “aggravated homosexuality” which would be punishable by death.
The lack of media interest is particularly surprising due to the role of conservative evangelicals in laying the foundation for the law. According to the Changing Attitudes blog ”evangelicals Rick Warren (USA), John Stott (England), Douglas Carew (Kenya) and the Association of Evangelicals in Africa (AEA) ” have helped whip up hostility, and the intervention of American right-wing evangelicals has been a deliberate attempt to “ destabilize mainline Protestant denominations and their LGBT rights programs and policies in the United States.”
Sadly the Ugandan episcopalian Church has backed the law, though not supporting the death penalty. The French government has condemned the new law.
According to Pambazuka:
The Ugandan Clergy have appealed to the government to scrape the death penalty in the Anti-homosexuality Bill 2009 currently being debated in parliament. The clergy said the government should rather opt life imprisonment.
Earlier this month, the homosexual groups expressed rage over the tabling of the Anti-Homosexuality bill, saying it was in violation of their human rights.
The Clergy from dominant religious groups in the country said killing homosexuals does not serve the purpose of signaling the wrong doing, but the government should rather leave them to rot in jail.
The clergy made it clear that they support the Bill, saying homosexuality is an evil and is anti-godly.
The tabling on the Bill on 15 October sent mixed reactions in Uganda, including from the international rights groups.
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission expressed concerns about ongoing detentions in Uganda based on charges of homosexuality, and called for the dismissal of a bill that would severely curtail the rights of homosexuals.
The Ugandan minister for Ethics and Integrity, Dr James Nsaba Buturo said once the bill is passed into law, it will rid Uganda of the vice that has continued to be a menace in secondary schools.
Once the bill is passed into law, anyone found practicing homosexuality will face 14 years in prison whereas those found guilty of operating brothels where homosexuals meet will also be liable to 14 years imprisonment.
Parliament yesterday begun public debates on the Bill, conducted by the committee on presidential affairs.
And I suppose objecting to this would be Gay Imperialism.
Comment by RMS — 3 November, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
thanks for posting this Andy
Comment by Derek Wall — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Just a question really - what is the average life expectancy of someone sentenced to a long term in a Ugandan jail? Is it just a slower form of death sentence>
Comment by Francis King — 3 November, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
I guess we should be bracing our selves for a new wave of Ugandan LGBT refugees and the Daily Mail campaigns against them - can you imagine - Gay and Foreign - their worst nightmare!
(An aside - relevant to the discussion below, it was Peter Tatchell that first alerted me to the issue of homophobia in Uganda at a public meeting in Edinburgh some years ago. He is a man that is uncompromising in sticking to his principles - some thing that has frequently landed him in hot water, but has ultimately earnt him respect - not to mention been at the forefront of the biggest turn around in values and perceptions in a generation (i.e. making homophobia unnacceptable))
Now we need the same kind of turnaround in values about refugees
Comment by Tim Gee — 3 November, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
For a Third World begging-bowl semi-despotism to irritate enlightened opinion in the First World is a reckless step; if there’s an aid cutoff, President-for-Life XXXXX and Field Marshal YYYYY will have to keep their old Mercedes running without much hope of a replacement.
Meanwhile, the ever-hospitable Finns offer persecuted homosexuals refuge without too many questions.
Comment by Otto — 4 November, 2009 @ 2:53 am
Andy
This is a story that we will cover at HP - we’d like to guest post this piece with your permission. I hadn’t appreciated that it had reached this stage.
Part of the problem is that these cases become “issues” rather than merely “stories” because campaigning groups take them up. By an large, the campaigner who takes these stories up is Peter Tatchell.
However, as you can see from the thread below, such campaigns are inevitably met with extremely vicious personal attacks, accusations of racism, liberal imperialism, and so on. You’d think that this would be so only in relation to countries like Iran etc..
But Peter is attacked in relation to his campaigns re Africa and the Caribbean as well.
Look at the thread below, and you’ll see why people shy away from campaigning on this issue.
One of my colleagues will probably write about this problem today, if I can persuade her.
Comment by David T — 4 November, 2009 @ 9:47 am
No doubt kevin and rob are ghosting a piece for Galloway now defending Uganda against liberal imperialism. If not why not? What is so different between Uganda and Iran?
Comment by Paul Ross — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Uganda is a friend of Imperialism. Where is the outrage about this? Its always Iran, who don’t execute gays by the way, who gets demonised by liberals and their fellow travellers on the left whose ultimate aim is to support another imperialist invasion on the pretext of bombing gays out of the closet.
Comment by paddy garcia — 4 November, 2009 @ 10:42 am
“By an large, the campaigner who takes these stories up is Peter Tatchell”
Nonsense. As you can see from the statement below, African gay rights and human rights groups are perfectly capable of “taking these stories up” without any help from Tatchell, who most of them would not touch with a bargepole. The same is true of genuine international human rights groups like Human Rights Watch, who work with people on the ground with sensitivity and tact rather than shrill denunciations from thousands of miles away (recall that Tatchell denounced Nigerians as “savages”, which was not very helpful). Of course HRW could probably do a lot more if it did not continually have to deal with slander campaigns orchestrated by the likes of David T and his scummy website, for the crime of defending Palestinian human rights.
“Kampala, Oct 16 (DPA) Human rights groups have blasted Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which includes a section that would introduce the death penalty for the offence of “aggravated homosexuality”.
The bill proposes stricter penalties for homosexual acts, already illegal in the East African nation, and the death penalty for anyone who engages in same-sex relations with children under 18 and disabled people or who is HIV-positive while having gay sex.
“This bill is a blow to the progress of democracy in Uganda,” David Kato of Sexual Minorities Uganda said in a statement Thursday. “Its spirit is profoundly undemocratic and un-African.”
The joint statement by the rights groups, which include New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the bill would “criminalise the legitimate work of national and international activists and organisations working for the defence and promotion of human rights in Uganda.”
Read more: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health1/human-rights-groups-blast-new-ugandan-anti-gay-bill_100261410.html#ixzz0VtLKvylI“
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
#6
Sure David, you can repost this with my blessing.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
#6
Rather disgracefully David, what you actually did was run an article that was not in the spirit of solidarity with Ugandan gays, but was simply another boring and predictable attack on the left!
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/04/how-to-make-something-a-pressing-issue/
According to your idiotic correspondent, the press don’t report this becasue peter tatchell is too intimidated to take the issue up becasue of the hostility of the left.
You couldn’t make it up.
Not only is it very hard to see any evidence of Peter Tatchell being intimidated by anyone; but there is no evidence offered that the left are hostile to LGBT rights in Africa being raised, nor is it self evident that the mainstream media get all of their stories from peter tatchell.
How about this for a more ocnvincing narrative.
The mainstream press don’t think this is a very importnat story becasue it deals with Africa.
Peter tatchell does his own thing regardless of what anyone wlese thinks
The left support LGBT rights in Uganda, but sadly generally sahre the mainstream lack of interest in Africa.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Ugandan minister for Ethics and Integrity, Dr James Nsaba Buturo
He’s a piece of work - I blogged him here.
I’ve also got stuff on the role of Rick Warren here.
By the way, at least one conservative evangelical has spoken up against the proposed new law.
Comment by Bartholomew — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Thanks Bartholomew
The article you quote from conservative evangelical Warren Throckmorton is very interesting.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
“Rather disgracefully David, what you actually did was run an article that was not in the spirit of solidarity with Ugandan gays, but was simply another boring and predictable attack on the left!”
But in your own thread, Andy, you’ve got one of your commentators explaining that:
“Uganda is a friend of Imperialism. ”
Complete and utter nonsense, of course. But precisely the sort of gibbering that passes for analysis on the shrill end of the far Left.
Just below this post, you also have a post defending Peter Tatchell from precisely the sort of loonies who have decided to attack him in exactly the way described.
Then you have somebody claiming:
“Nonsense. As you can see from the statement below, African gay rights and human rights groups are perfectly capable of “taking these stories up” without any help from Tatchell, who most of them would not touch with a bargepole.”
Well, here’s the thing.
Peter actually gets these stories picked up by the press. It is something he is very good at. That’s because he is very dedicated, and works extremely hard.
But if you’re convinced that, actually, there’s no connection between supposed LGBT campaigners putting their energies into attacking Tatchell, and the concomitant failure to get these stories picked up… well, go ahead.
Comment by David T — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
“supposed LGBT campaigners putting their energies into attacking Tatchell”
How about those supposed LGBT campaigners who put their energies into attacking Human Rights Watch, which does infinitely more valuable work in defence of LGBT rights than Tatchell?
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
I see that Peter Tatchell has responded in the thread to our piece:
“I am not scared off by these slurs, but many other people are.
It is now very difficult to mobilise people to oppose the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill and to oppose the reported death sentence against a young gay man in Iran.
So many people fear being denounced as racists and imperialists, which is what happened to OutRage and me when we last responded to requests for help from Ugandan and Iranian LGBTs. They asked us to campaign with them, which we did. We were then vilified by sections of the left and by some twisted academics as “imposing western values”, having a “racist agenda”, and being “agents of US and British imperialism.”
Have these people never heard of internationalism and solidarity?
BTW: Our critics never lifted a finger to help the LGBT victims. They ignored their pleas for help. By their inactions, they were content to let the homophobic persecution continue.”
Feel free to call him a liar, an imperialist, or what have you. He’s been called worse.
And look to your own blog for evidence that he is right about this.
Comment by David T — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
I have seen Scott Long at work, and he is an utter menace.
Scott Long intervened to rubbish solidarity work being done with Iranian LGBT group - I assume because he regarded that as the correct “anti-imperialist” thing to do.
However, earlier this year, Scott Long backed an Iraqi LGBT group, which produced at a press conference, photographs which they claimed showed American soldiers rounding up and killing Iraqi gays. It was complete rubbish, and Long ended up looking like an idiot.
The claim about “liberal imperialism” is that human rights are used as part of the argument for intervention in the “internal affairs” of other countries. There’s an argument to be made there, certainly.
The flip side is also worth considering. There are those who masquerade as human rights activists, who are only interested in human rights when it can be turned into a stick to beat the US, the UK or Israel.
Comment by David T — 4 November, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
#17
There are those who masquerade as human rights activists, who are only interested in human rights when it can be turned into a stick to beat the US, the UK or Israel.
- And there are those like David T, who masquerade as opponents of antisemitism and racism but who are, in fact, rabid supporters of zionism and the racist war crimes of Israel and its pals.
Comment by joe90 kane — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
“I assume because he regarded that as the correct “anti-imperialist” thing to do”
I assume it was because he regarded it as the professional and responsible thing to do to find out what had actually happened rather than publishing hysterical nonsense. I note though, that although you expect others to refrain from criticism of Tatchell in the cause of LGBT solidarity, you apply no such rule in relation to your own betes noires. Do you ever consider that your relentless rubbishing of human rights groups and activists because they have criticised Israel might rebound on you in relation to other campaigns you might wish to support - that people might say in relation to HRW’s attempts to raise the Ugandan issue “oh that HRW is composed of Nazis and anti-Semites and utter menaces so I am not going to listen to what they say”. Unlikely, admittedly, but I assume you would wish people to take the smears you publish seriously and if they did that might be the reaction.
Comment by lone nut — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
19
David T, you have to admit that “lone Nut” has properly nailed you with this
:o)
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 November, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
Just in case David T and Peter T haven’t got the message about first consulting local LGBT’s about strategy:
“We fear that Peter Tatchell’s sudden call for a campaign to pressure the Nigerian government regarding the proposed same-sex marriage prohibition might backfire and cause the oppressive homophobic bill’s passage.
After being warned that the advice of Nigerian activists is to refrain from putting attention on the dormant bill, Outrage! looked for some individual in Nigeria to support them in the course they had already chosen to take. To serve this purpose, Leo Igwe’s comments were quoted in George Broadhead’s recent press release and are being taken out of context. While Leo is a very courageous friend and ally of the movement, Outrage! should have contacted and requested advice on strategy from the LGBTI Human Rights Defenders who led the original campaign against the bill from Nigeria.
Over the past ten months, Human Rights Defenders from the region and elsewhere have exercised a lot of formal and informal pressure on Nigerian law-makers to make sure the bill did not get passed into law. Until Outrage!’s action was issued, the bill was dead. By calling on people to begin a campaign at this stage, interest could be awakened in the bill. Outrage! is acting irresponsibly and in direct contradiction to the advice of leaders of the Nigerian LGBTI movement.
BACKGROUND
Just five months ago, a similar situation was evolving in Uganda. Outrage! had included unverified information in a press release on Uganda and was refusing to listen to the concerns of Ugandan LGBT Human Rights Defenders. After many conversations about the importance of accuracy, fact-checking, and consultation with genuine African activists, Ugandan Human Rights Defender Juliet Victor Mukasa, finally wrote directly to Peter Tatchell:
“You have included unverified information in your press releases and those allegations against the government are going to come back to us. You will sit safely in London while our activists in Uganda pay the price for your deeds . . . We have many people in the West who support our struggle, but they would not do anything to jeopardize our safety. . . . You have shown a blatant disregard for the reputations and safety of legitimate activists in Uganda . . . I know what effect your press releases have on my country. Please put a stop to all your press releases regarding my country. It must stop.”
Immediately following the receipt of this message, Outrage! issued yet another press release on Uganda, and helped organise a demonstration against the Ugandan High Commission in London.
These examples from Nigeria and Uganda are just two out of many instances of breaches of trust and disregard for the work, wisdom, and lives of African Human Rights Defenders. We have repeatedly asked Outrage! to retract their calls to action and to restrain from any further action regarding LGBTI issues in Africa. Outrage! has refused. As we would do in the case of any person or organisation acting out of such blatant disrespect for the truth and for the people they claim to defend, we urge the public not to participate in LGBTI campaigns led by Peter Tatchell or Outrage! which pertain to our continent, Africa.
Signed:
Dorothy Aken’Ova
INCRESE, 1E,Bosso Road
G. P. O. 3684, Minna
Niger State Nigeria
increse@lycos.com, darlyndotty@yahoo.co.uk
08065488417, 08034500714
Juliet Victor Mukasa
Chairperson of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG)
julie.mukasa@gmail.com
+27 79 194 9561
Fikile Vilakazi
Director of the Coalition of African Lesbians (CAL)
Johannesburg, South Africa
Wendy Landau
Human Rights Researcher, Behind the Mask (BtM)
Johannesburg, South Africa
Kasha N. Jacqueline
Chairperson of Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG)
jnkasha@gmail.com
+256 772 463161
David Kato
Integrity Uganda
Samuel Ganafa
Chairperson of Spectrum Uganda
Danilo da Silva
LGBTI Mozambique
Judith Ngunjiri
Minority Women in Action, Kenya
Emmanuel Kamau
Chairperson of ISHTAR Kenya
Peter Njoroge
Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Kenya (GALCK)
Joel Gustave Nana
Human Rights Researcher, Alternatives-Cameroon
Ayesha Imam
Human Rights Defender
Nigeria/Senegal
Sokari Ekine
Human Rights Defender, Black Looks
sokari@blacklooks.org
Carlos Idibouo
Consellor at TAGL
Advisor at AfriCar Project
idibouoc@yahoo.fr
famillegay2006@yahoo.fr
+1 647 261 3214/ +1 416 922 4226
Mac Darling Cobbinah
Centre for Popular Education and Human Rights Ghana
Kanuma Georges
Leader of LGBTI group ARDHO, Burundi
Linda Baumann
The Rainbow Project (TRP)
Namibia
Thuli Madi
Director, Behind the Mask
Johannesburg, South Africa
Oludare Odumuye
Alliance Rights, Nigeria”
Comment by Ray — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:59 am
And you’re surprised that people, you know, kinda feel a bit nervous about raising non-European LGBT issues?
“that people might say in relation to HRW’s attempts to raise the Ugandan issue “oh that HRW is composed of Nazis and anti-Semites and utter menaces so I am not going to listen to what they say”.”
There is a very simple solution to that concern.
How about not hiring - for example - Nazi memorabilia collectors as your staff.
Comment by David T — 5 November, 2009 @ 7:47 am
“And you’re surprised that people, you know, kinda feel a bit nervous about raising non-European LGBT issues?”
Are they? I certainly hadn’t noticed any nervousness from your own site in raising these issues, at least in the sense of printing some Tatchell press release and using it as a sprngboard for sounding off about how “the Left” should be campaigning around this instead of Palestine or Iraq, while needless to say never doing any campaigning yourself as you are far too busy digging up dirt on 17 year olds in Bradford. If you mean that genuine leftists would feel uncomfortable about white middle class Londoners spouting off about situations of which they know nothing, and would feel a need to consult with the actual forces on the ground and coordinate with their actions - if that is what you mean by nervousness - you would have a point. But as I say that is not a problem for the people at HP who scornfully reject such “anti-imperialism”.
“How about not hiring - for example - Nazi memorabilia collectors as your staff.”
I think refusing somebody employment because they were a collector of military memorabilia would probably be actionable. In any case it would make little difference to you. If HRW was to ignore Israeli abuses, it could happily employ Dr Mengele for all you cared. But HRW has been critical of Israel, and therefore you and your pals will devote yourself to circulating baseless smears on the organisation and its staff until the end of time. As I say, you may find that systematically smearing human rights organisations because they have criticised your favourite country will rebound on you later, but then you are a malignant fishwife rather than a visionary thinker.
And if Tatchell wants to convince us that he is an “anti-imperialist”, do you really thank that his case is helped by having you plead it?
Comment by lone nut — 5 November, 2009 @ 8:34 am
“I think refusing somebody employment because they were a collector of military memorabilia would probably be actionable.”
I think that if, for example, a man who made his living criticising African governments turned out to collect racist memorabilia, you’d be slightly more troubled.
“As I say, you may find that systematically smearing human rights organisations because they have criticised your favourite country will rebound on you later, but then you are a malignant fishwife rather than a visionary thinker.”
I think it is the human right organisations which have fatally compromised trust in their mission.
When the founder of HRW points this out, that’s hardly malignant fishwifery.
In particular, HRW has been holed beneath the water by the revelation that its top staff went to Saudi Arabia, not to criticise its utter disregard at every level of government for human rights, but to raise money by claiming that it needed to take on the Jews.
You might not think all this has damaged its mission, but believe me, it has.
This is what happens when you let the extreme Left take over organisations.
This is - for example - why UAF no longer has any ability to take on the BNP, and why most of the running is being done by HnH and NBATBNP.
“And if Tatchell wants to convince us that he is an “anti-imperialist”, do you really thank that his case is helped by having you plead it?”
Ah, and now we get to the bottom line. It is all about personalities and alliances.
If - like most of the extreme Left - human rights are of no concern unless it can be used as a stick to beat the US, UK, or Israel with, then this is where you end up.
Comment by David T — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:11 am
David T
‘If - like most of the extreme Left - human rights are of no concern unless it can be used as a stick to beat the US, UK, or Israel with, then this is where you end up.’
Of course, the Goldstone Report is part of an extreme Left conspiracy to marginalise Israel.
A deft attempt to paint Israel as victim yet again, despite the overwhelming evidence in the form of dead bodies, violated UN resolutions, and stolen land to the contrary.
David T you really are a disgusting little man.
Comment by Anonymous — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:16 am
#24
David T
there are of course those who are only interested in human rights if they can be used as a stick to beat up Iran, or the palestinians.
But I suppose that is somehow different.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:24 am
Here, for example, is an example of how extreme Left politics compromises the mission of groups like Amnesty
http://www.bosniak.org/open-letter-from-ed-vulliamy-to-amnesty-international/
Amnesty has invited Chomsky to give a keynote lecture.
Here’s Ed Vulliamy’s letter of protest:
“Noam Chomsky has been invited to give the annual Amnesty International Lecture in Belfast. This is second time in four years that Chomsky has been invited to give an Amnesty International Lecture (following Dublin in 2006). To celebrate Chomsky’s forthcoming Lecture appearance Amnesty gives him a respectful and uncritical platform for his views over three pages of the latest Amnesty (UK) Magazine.
Amnesty appears oblivious to the controversies that surround some of Chomsky’s views on human rights, and in particular the support that he has offered and continues to offer to polemicists who deny the substance, scope and authorship of the worst atrocities perpetrated during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war.
In recent years Chomsky has caused particular controversy through his support for the author Diana Johnstone, known for her “revisionist” views on Bosnia concerning the Prijedor concentration camps, the Srebrenica genocide and the existence of the Bosnian rape camps. Chomsky salutes her “outstanding” scholarship and defends her “serious, honest work”.
He represents his support for Johnstone as a defence of her right to freedom of speech while at the same time he denigrates the eyewitness testimony of The Guardian’s reporter Ed Vulliamy whose account of the reality of the Omarska and Trnopolje camps forced the horror of what was happening in Bosnia onto the attention of the rest of the world and in so doing saved the lives of many of the prisoners detained in them.
Without explanation Chomsky characterises Ed Vulliamy’s description of Omarska and Trnopolje as “probably” wrong while at the same time he endorses the claim by Thomas Deichmann and LM magazine that Vulliamy, Penny Marshall and Ian Williams gave a false account of the situation in the Prijedor camps as “probably” correct. Chomsky disregards the finding of a High Court libel action which - following the evidence of a doctor detained in one of the camps - confirmed that Vulliamy and his colleagues had told the truth.
When asked why Amnesty offers a platform to a man who challenges the reporting of human rights abuses that Amnesty itself substantiated and champions the seriousness and honesty of individuals who try to deny those abuses, Amnesty’s response was to observe that invitees are not representatives of Amnesty International nor expected to deliver an Amnesty International policy position within their lecture, but rather they have been invited as having something interesting and thought-provoking to say about human rights in the world today and Amnesty International does not necessarily endorse all their opinions.
When Ed Vulliamy was asked to comment on Amnesty’s invitation to Chomsky he wrote the open letter below. The language expresses his depth of feeling, not only on his own behalf but also on behalf of the friends forced to suffer “the ghastly, searing, devastating impact” of Chomsky’s denial of their experience.
Anyone who shares these concerns can express their views for the attention of Irene Khan, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, at www.amnesty.org/en/contact or Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK (AIUK), at sct@amnesty.org.uk.”
How about that?
Comment by David T — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:39 am
#27
Your interest in the matter is unconnected to Chomsky’s passionate opposition to Israel?
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:49 am
Chomsky is a two stater, like me!
I think, however, he is a nihilist loon, who in his career has backed a fascist (who he knew full well at the time to be a fascist), tried to undermine attempts to bring the Cambodian genocide to public attention, and rubbished similar efforts in relation to the Bosnian genocide.
All in the name of “anti-imperialism”.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Comment by David T — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:51 am
David T
When you say that Chomsky is a “two stater” like you, that si a bit disingenuous.
Chiomsky’s scathing contempt for the actually existing state of Israel shines out from every page of his otherwise virtually unreadable “the fateful Triangle”
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:55 am
As you know, he is widely attacked as a two stater - as is Finkelstein, for that matter.
Comment by David T — 5 November, 2009 @ 9:57 am
But I have never heard Chomsky criticised for being an islamophobe, which is where he parts company with you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:03 am
“Your interest in the matter is unconnected to Chomsky’s passionate opposition to Israel?”
David T will use anyone’s suffering to justify Israel. The contradiction is that his boundless sea of compassion for the human rights of the oppressed doesn’t extend to the Palestinians.
I’m wondering when he’ll blame the Palestinians and the Left for global warming. It’s in the news so there must be a way he can twist it for propaganda purposes.
Comment by Ray — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:05 am
Which is odd, because you’d think that somebody who did so much to undermine exposure of the Serb slaughter of Bosniak Muslims would ordinarily be accused of Islamophobia.
But, strangely, he isn’t. Because there is a part of the far Left that uses such accusations dishonestly and instrumentally to promote “anti-imperialism”.
Comment by David T — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:09 am
“I think that if, for example, a man who made his living criticising African governments turned out to collect racist memorabilia, you’d be slightly more troubled.”
Indeed I would. But if I hired a military analyst, which was the case with this guy, I would not be surprised if he collected military memorabilia. In the same way, if I was to hire a professional twat, I would not be surprised if he collected expensive suits to “bring out his inner peacock”, or campaigned against Muslim dominance of his local swimming pool.
“In particular, HRW has been holed beneath the water by the revelation that its top staff went to Saudi Arabia, not to criticise its utter disregard at every level of government for human rights, but to raise money by claiming that it needed to take on the Jews.”
I don’t think anybody in their right mind will need to be told that this is a demented distortion of what actually happened, but anyone interested should go to http://justworldnews.org/archives/003678.html
where they will also find some background on the Israeli government’s ongoing campaign to smear NGOs involved in defending Palestinian human rights - a campaign which, needless to say, has no more faithful handmaid than David T.
Comment by lone nut — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:22 am
In the same way, if I was to hire a professional twat, I would not be surprised if he collected expensive suits to “bring out his inner peacock”, or campaigned against Muslim dominance of his local swimming pool.
Comment by applause — 5 November, 2009 @ 10:51 am
I would draw a distinction between Peter Tatchell, who is honest but naive as to the consequences of his actions, and David T of Harry’s Place, who cynically uses issues of women’s rights / gay rights within oppressed countries as an excuse to support imperialism and bash the left. It is David T, not Peter T, who has the ‘mens rea’ here (no pun and no offence intended Peter!!).
The idea that the left doesn’t challenge socially reactionary ideas and practice etc is rubbish. What is the most socially liberal country in Africa by a mile? It’s South Africa, where unique in the continent gay rights and marriage are now on the statute book. Why? Because the left, and in particular the country’s pwerful Communist Party, had earned enough respect in the ANC and wider society to make it happen.
And which country supported in every way the racist apartheid regime (even at one point toasting their ‘common ideals’)? Yes, it David T’s embodiment of enlightenment values, Israel.
Last week I was having a beer in Soweto with one of the local ANC Youth League leaders, and I asked him about gay rights in South Africa. He was a christian, so unsurprisingly he told me that he believed homosexuality to be immoral. I asked if he would defend the rights of gays, and he replied that he would because it was ANC policy and he was a disciplined member of the movement.
Who in Venezuela has prioritised rights for women and gays? Yes, Hugo Chavez (and the left), who even tried to enshrine these rights in the constitution. Who opposed the constitutional package which included these rights? The Venezuelan right wing and Harry’s Place, whose anti-working class and anti-socialist ideology trumped their professed support for gay rights.
Comment by Calvin — 5 November, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Same goes for Cuba who have recently enacted similar progressive legislation, was a bit overdue though!
Comment by paddy garcia — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
“was a bit overdue though!”
Really, I thought that liberalisation towards gays had taken place in Cuba around 30 years ago?
Certainly there are speeches from Fidel from around 1980 defending gays.
There has certainly been a more pro-active attempt by the Cuban government i the last three or four years to actively combat the homophobia in wider society, that is embedded with a culture of machismo. But Cuba is relatively progressive on this issue compared to other countires in the Americas, certainly progressive compared to the USA.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
#38 Quite.
Penalty for homosexual relations (I’ve got one of those!! lol) in Cuba: Zero, cos it’s legal.
Penalty for homosexual relations in Trinidad & Tobago: 25 years jail. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: 10 years jail. Saint Lucia: 10 years jail. Jamaica: 10 years hard labour
etc, etc.
Social acceptance of gays in Cuba is very high. Not so in the rest of the region, even in countries which do not outlaw homosexuality.
Comment by Calvin — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
Something I wrote on gay rights in Cuba for Cif:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/28/thestreetscenewasentertain
Comment by Calvin — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Hmmmmmm.
David Toube:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/06/04/Calvin_Tucker_140×140.jpg
Calvin Tucker:
http://www.jewcy.com/files/pictures/picture-3070.jpg
Shurely shome mishtake?
Comment by SteveF — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Homosexuality is legal in most of the Latin American mainland meaning that there is no specific laws against it. It doesn’t mean that the state doesn’t harass gays though and some public attitudes are quite frankly neanderthal. I have a gay cousin in Argentina and his mother (my aunt) who was a life long communist and was imprisoned and tortured by the military regime in the 1970’s sent him to a psychiatrist to be “cured” she and my uncle who was also a communist and a well known doctor and writer both thought the correct place for gays was some Stalinist re-education facility! These attitudes are sadly quite common even on the left in some countries, so well done Castro and Chavez. Nicaragua also had progressive policy on gay rights after the revolution.
Comment by paddy garcia — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
#42
Only their mother can tell them apart
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
More details on the situation in Latin America here, its getting better all round:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4713
Comment by paddy garcia — 5 November, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
#42
hahahaha… I’ve gotta change that Guardian pic of me!! A cousin of mine added horns and posted on facebook!
Comment by Calvin — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
#46
At least you only have similar features to the execrable Mr T. Imagine if you shared his politics as well?
Comment by Anonymous — 5 November, 2009 @ 4:09 pm