feminist blogs

Our party have really hit the nail on the head with their pledges to tackle the still endemic homophobia there is in society. Clegg has announced in his interview with Attitude, a number of political reforms that will help provide more rights for homosexuals and bisexuals in society, they include (the list is taken from here):

• Force all schools – including faith schools – to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”.
• Change the law to allow same-sex couples the same marital rights as mixed-sex couples, including the right to use the word “marriage” rather than maintaining the segregation of civil partnerships.
• Reverse the ban on gay and bisexual men, and female partners of bi men, being allowed to give blood.
• Guarantee any refugees genuinely fleeing a country because of persecution over their sexual orientation asylum in the UK.
• Review Uganda’s membership of the Commonwealth if its government was to bring in the death penalty as proposed in the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill”.

My only reservation is with the first proposal, as making faith schools have policies that directly contradict what they are teaching is problematic. Furthermore, it may be picky but arguing homosexuality is ‘normal’ is not the right discourse to be using either. Personally, I don’t think it is right to argue that any sexuality is ‘normal’ and instead sexuality should become increasingly associated with individual choice and whatever that individual wants to do, regardless of whether society sees it as ‘normal’ (within limitations of course, obviously I don’t support sexual abuse or other sexual activities that abuse the civil rights – thus, where one has not consented).

Other than that, Clegg has it spot on. I actually remember recently going to a public meeting at York and Clegg being asked about the ban imposed on homosexual and bisexual men and female partners of bisexual men that stops them giving blood because of the fear of AIDS. Clegg honestly admitted that he had not heard about it but promised to look into it, and that is what makes this proposal even better as it showed he listened and has acted. The other proposals are also very promising. Equalising the status of homosexual civil partnerships to marriage is an important move in the right direction. Why should it be called something different when it is exactly the same thing, two people consenting to be together in law because they love each other? I admit I have not exactly been a true supporter of marriage recently, but I support people being allowed the right to get married and support homosexuals and bisexuals being given the same rights that heterosexuals have. In addition, I do support the move on the Uganda, but I feel it could go a bit further such as imposing more wide-ranging sanctions. Killing anyone with the death penalty in my eyes is wrong, nevermind killing someone because they like the same-sex!

The research that these policies relate to, where the Liberal Democrats exposed the illiberal voting records of the Tories on homosexual rights, further helps illustrate how ideologically disconnected we are to the Tories. Furthermore, the polices we have outlined to improve the rights of homosexuals also shows how we differ to Labour, as whilst they have made important advances such as the introduction of civil partnerships, Clegg is right to refer to the problems around calling it civil partnerships and not marriage, and furthermore, they have failed to turn around discriminatory polices such as gay and bisexual men, and female partners of bisexual men not being allowed to give blood. Distancing ourselves from both parties is the right move, as it further shows how we need to withhold our ground in terms of maintaining our independent values if we do enter a coalition. However, at the same time, which is something I have stated before, it also shows how we are more ideologically closer to Labour.

Probably everyone has heard about Uganda’s attempt to pass a law that will impose draconian penalties on lesbians and gays.  The law will have a minimum life sentence for anyone convicted of having gay sex and a mandatory death penalty if the person is HIV-positive.  It is absolutely horrendous and, obviously, deserves the condemnation being heard around the world.

As often happens, Ugandan officials are portraying this as a “we can do this because it’s the way it’s done in our culture” situation.  They think that means that they have carte blanche to do what they want.  James Nsaba Buturo, Uganda’s “minister of state for ethics and integrity” (there’s a misnomer for you) said:

What we are doing is what the country wants. I see a clash of cultures here and the need for those who are not us to accept our culture. . .It’s abhorrent that homosexuality should be recognized as a way of life. We understand that in your country it’s normal. But we don’t do that. We don’t even talk about it.

Buturo also said:

If I told you how many foreign diplomats keep coming to me over the homosexuality Bill you would be shocked. But I keep telling them that the integrity of our country and our values are more important than their aid. We shall not allow those people from the Western to define our identity and destiny. In their countries Christ no longer matters. It is our responsibility to define our identity and defend it.”

Many people believe that simply because a country has a culture with customs that are different from customs in other cultures, people should shy away from criticism.  The Uganda situation is a great example of why “culture” and “custom” should never be allowed to be used as a shield against criticism when human and civil rights are involved.

By this, I am referring to the BBC poll that asked whether homosexuals should face execution, commenting on the situation in Uganda – who are voting on whether homosexuality should be ‘punished’ by death. Of corse they shouldn’t, and opening the question up provides legitimacy to the idea that it is a right question to even be asking. Imagine asking if it is ok for jews to face execution? – I am sure that wouldn’t even cross the minds of the BBC to ask.

The editor of the BBC website, David Stead said:

“We agree it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake. If Uganda’s MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they will bring legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.”

This misrepresents the need of debate however. Yes, debate is needed, but only debate around how to STOP this. Discussion even tending to support it should not be given the air to breath. It is simply disgusting to toy with the suggestion of whether homosexuals should be executed. On what premise do heterosexual people have to say that homosexuals should be killed? Absolutely none. Sexuality is a social construction, it is not some innate force – sexual acts and sexual identities are social constructed. What harm is homosexuality doing to the people of Uganda? Absolutely none, except from necessary blurring of the distinctions between ‘natural’ and ‘peversive’ sexaultiy. The BBC poll risks undermining the advances that people such as Peter Tatchell have actually put their life in danger to achieve (Tatchell has recently had to pull out of being a Green candidate due to brain injuries sustained campaigning on issues such as anti – homophobia in countries such as Zimbabwe and Russia).

The bill specifically proposes:

“the death penalty for those having gay sex with anyone under 18, or while infected with HIV/Aids, or with someone who is disabled, or for being “a serial offender”. Stating that “same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic” (taken from The Times.)

The discussions around sexuality being ‘innate’ relates to my comments above. Furthermore, there is further discrimination within the bill against those with AIDS and those who are disabled. The AIDS = homosexual rhetoric is clear, which is something our society has not successfully eradicated either (such as how gay men are unable to give blood, for example).

Trying to justify the bill, Uganda’s ‘Ethics and Intergrity’ (how ironic) minister claims that:

“I do understand in [the west's] case homosexuality is normal but here it is totally repugnant, it is repulsive, it’s not something you would want to do if you have your normal faculties functioning. But there you are, in other societies it is different.”

His ‘justification’ can be used clearly to highlight their flaws in their ‘innate’ argument. If heterosexuality was so ‘innate’, then why would homosexuality be a common practice amongst all societies? What would he do if his daughter or son (if he has any) was homosexual? Would he freely kill them?

And if that wasn’t enough, Rwanda are also set to hold a vote of whether to criminalise “”[a]ny person who practices, encourages or sensitises people of the same sex, to sexual relation or any sexual practice.” Where is the world going? I have several gay friends and to think of them being executed and criminalised for liking the same sex, makes me sick. The vote is supposedly occurring today, i have had a look around and have found nothing of yet, so i can only assume the debate is still taking place.

I would love there to be an easy way to produce an international law to protect people’s rights, not only homosexuals, but all minorities and majorities basic human rights. To hear talks of killing homosexuals is scary. I seriously hope that the bill will not pass, if not, I feel intervention by the UN for example, will need to be stronger then just saying they will stop building an AIDS research centre in Uganda. The international community would have to act tought to stop the inhumane killing of innocent people.

Mifumi is a Ugandan NGO, whose web page has the description: “Protecting Women and Children Against Violence.”  Evelyn Schiller, its director for information and communications, has written an article about the practice in Uganda and other African countries known as “bride price.”  The story has also been reported in The Guardian.

A bride is congratulated during a wedding in Katine. Mifumi, Dan Chung

For centuries in Uganda and other African countries, it has been traditional for the family of a groom to give a symbolic gift to the family of a bride, supposedly as a gesture of appreciation and to bring the families together.  However, now, the practice is known as “bride price” and it is demanded by families and “fiercely negotiated.”  Thus,

It has reduced young women to commodities and has made families see their daughters as a source of income. Today bride price isn’t a bag of potatoes, it’s a list of demands for money, animals or clothing made by fathers and older brothers, who might want to throw in requests for new shoes or school fees. The mother gets nothing because she was more or less purchased herself, and the sisters are ignored too as they are all set to be exchanged for commodities when they reach 12 or 13.  The impact of this commodification on young women is catastrophic.  It breeds misery and reduces them to chattels.

Mifumi says that the bride price practice is a leading contributor to spiraling levels of domestic violence.  Among other problems, “Because they have been ‘bought’, many teenage girls are forced to accept polygamous marriages, multiple pregnancies and have no right to deny their husbands sex even if they suspect he is HIV positive.”  In addition, there are many more child marriages and girls are removed from school so they can get married as soon as possible and obtain the “bride price,” which could be something like a few cows or sacks of rice.  (In Nigeria, one person claims that, to marry a Zulu woman, the bride price is 11 cattle.

As so frequently happens in other countries, Uganda has a constitution that accords equal rights to women, but it does not enforce those rights, as seen by the fact that

Ugandan courts continuously affirm that the dissolution of a marriage is dependent on full repayment of the bride price. Non-repayment is a crime punishable by imprisonment in many areas. If girls run away from abusive marriages, their fathers or brothers are often thrown into prison until they can afford to repay the cows they received for her.

Mifumi is trying to work through the courts to get women’s constitutional rights upheld and bride price banned.  However, it is a sign of how difficult change will be that Mifumi would also accept the almost defeatist step of at least having bride price regulated.

(See also an article from the Zimbabwe Sunday News that gives an example of the practice and the disputes that can arise, and a 2006 article from the New York Times.)