Sin Tax Error

GAY

=

PORN

As I said last week in an article about a gay pageant in South Africa and the lack of mainstream (straight) media coverage for the event, "gay + controversy = mainstream media coverage". Now it seems somebody else has gone one better to publicly redefine the nature gay people. But then, it is an old accusation, one which has been made many times, and this certainly will not be the last. Just a pity it comes from "one of our own".

I postulated that it seems gay people being portrayed in the media as promiscuous stereotypes and parodies as a rule is just fine, but telling the truth about them or showing them in a good light is just not controversial or interesting enough. Now it seems there is some confusion about what is the truth about gay people, and right now, yes - I'm talking stereotypes. What makes a stereotype even worse is to fly in the face of everything we have been saying and doing to disprove that stereotype - and then inexplicably, just go and prove them right.

If you think newspapers really are in the business of truth, then you are more naive than I am - because truth doesn't always sell. Newspapers are businesses - and businesses are in the business of making money - and what sells better than truth or even blatant lies, is controversy. (This too is rather controversial, but anyhow, that's another story for another day.)

After receiving virtually no straight media coverage in the time leading up to its launch, or coverage of the semi-final events around the country - or the dazzling finale' - now the event is suddenly getting exactly the wrong kind of attention I was talking about before.

"The man crowned Mr Gay SA last weekend is a porn star."

"Mr Gay SA is Chad the stripper. An explicit video of Charl van den Berg, the 27- year-old manager of Cape Town's Cafe Manhattan, is available online on a ..."

If this doesn't prove my point?

My gripe here is about the lack of favorable media exposure of the event. Now the media, true to form has picked out a weakness or a bad point and has started hammering on it. What would've been helpful is if the selection process of the pageant had acted appropriately before the time. I can't think of any straight pageant winners who were porn stars, at least not openly so. That being said, it's not as if hetero pageants don't have their own sordid little secrets - look at that bigot (Carrie Prejean) who was thrown out of the Miss California pageant for speaking out against gay marriage because of her "Christian principles" - a very "moral" thing to say on live TV - however, she was subsequently exposed in a sex tapes scandal - very sound "Christian principles" there. Fortunately, the religious right, who had been using her as a poster-girl against marriage equality immediately dropped her like a hot potato. The point is, regardless of their "morality" - or the lack of it - the contestants in straight heterosexist pageants usually receive all the media coverage they ask for, and more. The issue of porn is not my gripe in this matter, but rather something said by Chad as he tried to put things into perspective:

In a post-event statement, Mr Gay SA tried to clarify his position by saying that he believes "porn is an integral part of the gay lifestyle".

Well, now... Just three things bother me here...

One - What other people do in their spare time and in their own space to get their rocks off, is their business. I certainly am not going to start hollering about the "morality" of the porn industry. While I think everyone is or should be entitled to porn (and I oppose efforts to criminalize it) I certainly don't like it myself, nor do I think it is "integral" to anything except poor taste and a waste of resources. I don't like it, so I don't watch it. Nobody said I have to, so I don't know what it is they are bitching about. Whatever this guy does, he is obviously good at it, and it may be that some are just jealous of his dashing good looks and physique. However -

The statement on his part that porn is "an integral part of the gay lifestyle" simply goes to affirm the view that porn and sex are all that being gay is about, and I simply have to disagree on that note. Is that all YOU think about as a gay man or woman? Is that what drives you to a relationship? Sex? Lust? I don't think so, it was never what propelled me into a relationship - but then I'm pretty much indifferent to sex in general and could probably live out the rest of my life without it. Regardless of the gender of my partner, I have always been motivated by a love attraction, and of course as you will note, those attacking us will never, ever admit to or give acknowledgment to that aspect of a gay person's existence. Being gay is about sex and that is all there is to it.

"Love is for straight people" they will claim, "just like marriage" - in the same breath, they will also assert that gay people are sexual perverts and deviants and "all they think about is sex". I hope Chad can also see now what kind of damage his statement does to the efforts of activists who are trying so hard to dispel that sort of image. He has played straight) proclaiming the "immorality" and "obsession with sex" inherent to homosexuality.

I don't know how you feel about this, but as an activist - a transgender woman fighting for GLBTI rights, I certainly am not fighting for sex, lust and porn. I am in this for love, freedom and equality. What is the difference, you may wonder? When I read statements like Chad's, so do I - and I'm sure, so do others. And believe me, that is not a good thing.

Two - I admit I tend to dislike the use of the word "lifestyle" because it panders to the propaganda of the right wing, suggesting that GLBT people "choose to be gay" and because it reinforces the misnomer that being gay or trans or intersex is somehow a lifestyle - and not a state of being, like having blond hair or blue eyes. It makes me cringe every time some misguided GLBTI person slips it in somewhere and thinks they are being very clever, when they are actually just shooting us all in the foot.

Three - I admire the organizers of the pageant greatly - their hearts are in the right place, and the effort, expense and lengths to which they went in order to bring us such a high quality event in such a short time were extraordinary - but I think the next time they should - as other mainstream pageants do - screen the contestants for anything which may detract from the positive image of an "ideal" gay man as Mr. Gay South Africa.

I think this screening process should filter out everything which detracts from the positive image which they are trying to portray. And yes, I think this should include porn stars.

A Purpose Driven Genocide

Uganda!

Finally this news breaks on SA media. Well it's about bloody time! And I do mean bloody. Another article also made it into the mainstream media, this time in the Citizen. I still have to gauge the SA public response to it, but I have an idea there will be quite a few comments in favor of the bill coming from the whack-jobs and wing-nuts.

It seems to me that current events in Uganda influenced by the US religious right are in fact no more than a virulent symptom of problems at home - that these things being said and used by proponents of this "Bill" and the genocide it would ignite, in fact have their origins in the backward deep south "bible belt" of the country most people naively think of as the most liberal and democratic place on Earth. Why would I say this? Let's take a look:

This "kill the gays" war cry seems to be a new turn in the US religious right war on human rights. How does it tie into Uganda? And then there was Jimmy Swaggert a few years back too, doing the same thing.

If you look at the things that are being said, and by whom, you will see. You need to ask whether this is the sort of thing a responsible leader would say? Aside from that, ask yourself whether this is the sort of thing a sane person, much less a Christian would say.

Consider these questions carefully and you will most likely reach the same conclusion as I have. A resounding "no!"

Some good work has been done by the US gay rights group "Soulforce", where they launched a campaign recently to facilitate “family visits" (GLBTI families) to some of the largest charismatic churches in the USA. This has been quite successful in trying get many anti-gay churches to see us as “people” and not just as nameless, faceless stereotypes painted as a "threat" to all they hold dear. There have been some interesting reactions, from many people who aside from the negative propaganda they have had access to, have had no personal contact with GLBTI people. Saddleback Church, Rick Warren’s church, was one of those that they visited.

Pastor Rick Warren recently made a press statement denouncing Martin Ssempe and the Ugandan Genocide Bill, and the political turmoil surrounding it - which many people feel he played a part in creating. It seems to me nothing more than an attempt to escape the responsibility for their influence and mentoring of genocidal maniacs like Martin Ssempe and other local Ugandan hate mongers. Like Warren, Exodus International also recently withdrew support for the Ugandan Genocide Bill, hastily backpedaling in case they got inextricably linked to a mass murder in the name of Christianity and their fine work in Africa. Too late I think, all that remains to happen now is the actual passing of the bill. Rick Warren who disavowed any connection to the activities of Martin Ssempe, one of the main architects of the Bill - and Exodus International are just passing the buck for when the blood starts to flow, nothing more.

Many "Christian" missionaries have started falling over each other to condemn the nature of the Bill which advocates death for gay people who test HIV positive, and jail terms for the rest, and which makes no discrimination between gay people and any other group in the GLBTIQ collective. Many others still have remained silent - and as we all know, silence gives consent.

I am amazed at the sudden "ex-gay" willingness to collaborate with out GLBT people on attacking this bill - but as I said earlier, I think it is to try and save their image. It seems that they have realized, too late, that the wording of the Bill for which they helped generate so much support, also includes "ex-gay" people such as themselves, along with those whom Ugandans would destroy. Oops.

They and other foreign "missionaries" have been supporting and even fanning the flames of the anti-gay crusade in Uganda - and the rest of Africa - for the past two decades. Much evil has been wrought in Uganda by people calling themselves Christians. I hope you will forgive me if I see no value or goodness in the works of such "Christians" who can defile other people with such hatefulness and praise God in one breath with the same heart.

It seems to me that the fight against this Bill in Uganda should have started by putting out these fires at home, don't you think?

Some notable "ex-gays" have come forward to take a stand against this ultimate expression of hatred and destruction, by campaigning, almost unthinkably, side-by-side with out and proud gay rights activists. While I laud their efforts, I have to wonder why they are doing so? I mean, didn't they know what they were doing when they were campaigning against the human rights of gay people in Uganda? Were they somehow detached from reality when they sat idly by, listening to Scott Lively reading from his hateful book "The Pink Swastika" and compared gay people to Nazi murderers? Did they really think inciting such hatred and throwing fuel onto the bonfire would be without any consequence?

One of them, on his own Facebook group designed to protest this Ugandan Bill, recently found himself confronted with accusations involving the "ex-gay" group Exodus International in Ugandan affairs leading up to the Bill. A rather angry gay rights activist (whom I tend to agree with, surprise, surprise) posted links to TWO and Box Turtle Bulletin articles detailing their involvement, and was quite angry at this. I must say he handled it remarkably well, so well in fact that I wonder if the side-step will become a new dance.

"I can appreciate that you are angry about the [Uganda] conference in the Spring. However, that was then and now Exodus has denounced the bill. There are many people in this group with many viewpoints who have come together to oppose the bill. This group cannot be a forum to bash other members of the group who want to see this bill withdrawn."

I agree with him on the latter, but not the former. "That was then and this is now" is not an excuse or a defense. It means that yes, Exodus was instrumental in setting the scene for the Bill to be formulated, and has now simply done no more than to flee the kitchen now that things are getting too hot for comfort. The "ex-gay" movement has helped the religious right to demonize gay people for decades now, lending them credibility and helping to reinforce every lie and propaganda ploy against the community - and to generate and incite hatred and intolerance in the process. It is simply unbelievable that they can turn around now and say something to the tune of "Yes, we said 'hate gay people', but we didn't mean actually kill them".

It must also be said that one cannot both oppose the Bill and simultaneously continue to support Exodus OR that for which it stands - as Exodus and the "ex-gay" lie are exactly what has fueled events in Uganda - and would do so anywhere else if given the chance.

Isn't it about time this changed? Surely such a change will prove that Exodus has been mistaken and is serious about its regret for its involvement in Uganda? It would be a start at least. "Exodus Web Site Says ‘Human Rights’ Don’t Apply to Gay People. A document on Exodus International’s web site has, since 1996, rejected the notion that the world’s homosexual or LGBT people are entitled to human rights."

"I think it is important to keep in mind that many factors -- cultural, political, historical, religious -- have led to this." These words from yet another Exodus International backer trying to divert attention from Exodus's complicity in Ugandan affairs despite clear evidence which implicates them directly in the formulation and generation of support for this Bill in Uganda.

In most western countries today, there are enough GLBTI people in social and political and even religious positions to counter this propaganda and misinformation. These countries have a voice that can speak out against this sort of insanity. This is absent in Uganda and in many African countries, where homophobia - and rising homophobic propaganda is rife. This is precisely why I have been encouraging GLBTI people to be out and proud, to get off their apathetic asses and to get involved with politics and every aspect of society. No - I don't feel one iota of guilt or hesitation in condemning them and giving credit where it is due.

Being ordained as a minister may not be a "human right" - but not being persecuted and criminalized for who you are certainly is. This obviously includes unfair discrimination. The whole misconception and misrepresentation of human sexuality as a "lifestyle issue" is EXACTLY what has resulted in this Bill! In fact, the Ugandan government, religious leaders and society are echoing that very sentiment - that gay rights are a "lifestyle choice" and not human rights.

It facilitates oppression and persecution.

We need to remember that Exodus operates on a religious premise - NOT a scientific or medical one. In other words, the ONLY argument they have to back them up is a sectarian religious bias which is wholly open to misinterpretation and is not shared by many others.

Exodus may not be the only party to blame in the global degradation of gay people's human rights, but they certainly seem to hold the lions share in Uganda.

Exodus, and the "ex-gay" mindset based on the personal opinion, religious fundamentalist self-persecution and junk science that powers it, are at the root of this problem, and simply saying "whoa, we may think gay people need to be forced into "ex-gay therapy" and sent to jail - but we didn't mean gay people should be killed for being gay" simply will not be enough to undo the harm they have played a large part in doing.

The truth is, it is their work as so-called "ex-gays" which has played a very large part in lending some authority to those who seek our destruction by legitimizing their claim that being GLBT is "a lifestyle choice" and in encouraging the oppression of the pink community worldwide. The fact that this is occurring in Uganda, half the world away from its base, proves how far Exodus and its dogma have spread.In short, it is the "ex-gay" material, pseudo-science and propaganda, promoted by public speakers and their various allies - coupled with religious fundamentalism and internalized homophobia which is directly to blame for the escalation of homophobia in Uganda to this point.

A land mine can lie in wait for decades, waiting for some innocent to step on it. Like the land mine, Exodus and the "ex-gay" lie need to be defused - and they need to be big enough to step up to the podium, admit to their failings and their actions, and then do no more harm.

To sum up, they need to stop doing what they are doing, or more Ugandas will be the result. Simple logic.

All else is meaningless and otherwise an insincere attempt to simply save face and avoid the consequences and responsibility for their actions.

Some gay people, who call themselves "ex-gays", claim that Exodus "helped" them. Interesting. It makes me think of an unlikely scenario where a predator would actually help its prey. In Germany the Nazis rebuilt a war-ravaged nation, restored national pride, rebuilt the economy and military strength. Likewise, I was helped too by the Apartheid government, they ensured me a safe home, a good education and a protected existence throughout my childhood.

In both cases, this came at the expense of human rights, dignity, liberty, equality, democracy and freedom - and for every "advance" or "plus" it came at the cost of some minority. In the above examples, it was Jews and Black folks - and us. In this case, it is just us.

Despite the positive results of their efforts (for some), it sure didn't make them right or righteous or acceptable - or absolve them of their guilt or responsibility for the other things they did.

I trust you will see the similarities and forgive me for my failure to see any good at all in groups such as Exodus International or NARTH.

As you can see in this case (Uganda) a largely ignorant and religious fundamentalist society has been overrun with paranoia and anger and hatred which was encouraged by outside influence - Exodus (and "The Family") which spoke with "authority" out of "quasi-religion" and junk-science, giving them license and justification to hate and to persecute - and its approval.

I sincerely hope Exodus and its cohorts have learned a vital lesson from propagating religious personal opinion and blatant lies as fact - that it generates blind hatred and blood lust - especially among people who know nothing at all about sexuality, or even their own religion.

I have to say, alarming and frightening as the potential for tragedy in Uganda is today, we have been warning of this danger for at least a few years already. Even so, it is still a little satisfying to point fingers at people like Warren, Lively, Schmierer, Chambers and Exodus International and to say "I told you it would end up like this".

It is more than satisfying to know that they are still human enough to be as horrified as we are at their own handiwork, like a frightened child who has just lost his eyebrows in a failed science experiment. We bloody told you so.

Simply going back on its earlier self-congratulation and "moral" convictions now after all it has done to facilitate and encourage events leading up to this entirely predictable outcome - simply does not absolve Exodus of its sins. Just claiming innocence is not enough - they need to exonorate themselves by trying to undo the damage they have done - and this retraction is evidence of their desperation to do so. But is it enough? Would it ever be enough?

My personal preference in this matter? That Exodus and other groups like it, learn this lesson and shut themselves down and leave the anti-gay hatemongering to the straight heterosexist bigots instead of doing their bidding for them. But will they do it? Do they have the honor and respect for human life to do it? In all honesty, the "ex-gay" industry is just that - an industry - a multi-million dollar franchise that charges a fortune for "seminars", materials, "courses" and "refresher-courses", camps and other tools designed to do the impossible - to supposedly turn gay people straight.

For many of them it is more than just an emotional crutch - it is their livelihood.

In all honesty, I don't want to help save their butts. I want Exodus and every "ex-gay" factory to fail and implode out of shame and guilt for what they have been doing to innocent people around the world in the name of the internalized homophobia brought about by their own religious fundamentalist intolerance and the outside pressure on the pink community to conform.

In fact, I may be wrong about this, but I think if the Bill didn't negatively affect so-called "ex-gays" as much as it did those who are honest about their nature, Exodus would probably still be backing it.

Religious intolerance, hatred, oppression, inequality, genocide... It has to end somewhere, and HERE is as good a place as any. Let it end HERE.

Media pressure puts pressure on governments to act. The more people, the more pressure. The more pressure, the better.

Trouble is, they have made such a scene about "not giving in to the West just because of money" they are "honor" bound to go ahead with it anyway. If they back down, they will lose face. Ironically they seem more concerned about "losing face" for showing decency, rather than joining the likes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and other historical genocidal megalomaniacs.

At the moment, Uganda is all wind and smoke - they are posturing themselves, wanting to pass the Bill and start implementing it - but the thought of losing all that funding, pride or not - probably makes them realize their economy will likely collapse. But will it? Or will the world hold off in return for whatever favor Uganda has to offer them?

It has been suggested that the need for oil recently discovered in Uganda will supercede the importance of human rights - least of all, GAY human rights, which have so often proved expendable in the past. "Anti-Gay Bill Likely To Pass As Oil Surpasses Donors For Influence In Uganda". As usual, it all comes down to money. Sad but true.

So what is really more important? Human rights? Or oil? Are human rights so conveniently disposable that they can be sidelined or discarded or betrayed because a country happens to be entering the oil industry and people are looking for a cheaper fix for their oil "habit"? So which way will it go? Will it pass as they seem to think or hope that it will? I hope not. I would rather go electric or ride a bicycle - or walk, than fill my tank on blood.

Seeing Is Believing

Last weekend we saw the first Mr. Gay South Africa™ pageant - or rather, didn't.

Those of us who were not fortunate enough to attend the main event, or the semi-final ocean cruise, or the other events which took place around the country, read about it. We saw articles and photos in local pink news services such as Gayspeak and Mambaonline - but that was pretty much the only mention the event received. Did we see any attention given to this event - which the gay community found to be of some import, in any mainstream newspapers or hear radio coverage or see any TV features? I certainly didn't. Apparently the Mr. Gay South Africa™ pageant (I keep writing it out in full because it is a completely different animal to the former "Mr Gay SA" pageant of years ago) did manage to make the News24 front page - online. Twice. It also made The Times once, but that was long ago, and somehow it made Die Volksblad in Bloem - I don't know HOW it got it in. But about the actual final event, only News24 - oh - and although displayed on the front page, the actual article was under "GoTravel" and not anything in the main news section. But otherwise, that was it.

Yet just this week alone, I have seen plenty of mention of the Miss World pageant (probably also with a "™") withheterosexist stereotype icons and card-board cutouts of "perfect" straight womanhood strutting their stuff in front of TV cameras with people like Jacob Zuma, and at community events around the country on the pages of various local community and national newspapers - and of course, in TV coverage.

I hate to grind axes, but this whole deal brings to mind the nit-pickers who go postal every time they see anything with a pink tint on the box and whine about having the "homosexual agenda" rammed down their throats - yet they are quite happy to ram their own "lifestyles" down ours.

I would like to remind these folks that the very definition of heterosexism is the belief that everybody is or should be heterosexual - and by pretending that this is the case, the media is sidelining and ignoring the existence of its non-hetero audience.

Apparently the modest selection of TV stations in SA were simply uninterested in airing any kind of coverage of this very classy and stylish event (Mr. Gay South Africa™) - featuring not even so much as a news snippet about the developments or outcome. I find this odd, considering they will cover the Pink Loerie Mardi Gras every year - even if only to show as many half-naked bodies as they can scrape together just to give it negative press.

It is old news that the media seems to ignore the pink community almost entirely, save for the occasions where they take time out to splurge the doings and the screwings of pink folk in order to stir up controversy or to lambaste us.

Take that disgusting article in the "Sondag" paper of last Sunday, (English translation here) where wannabe actor Dries Botha tried his level best to torpedo the gay equality movement in South Africa by declaring that he was "cured" of his homosexuality like it was some kind of disease, while also perpetuating almost every slanderous lie in the "ex-gay" manual. The comments made on his irresponsible statements were mostly of this order:

"Whats this traitors deal? Money? Publicity whore? Whats the price that's worth throwing the rest of us under the bus?"

While I couldn't agree more with this comment, I have to point out that this article, combined with the stony silence on positive issues (such as Mr. Gay South Africa™) is clear proof to me of the state of things. Pink community news simply isn't "newsworthy" to the mainstream unless it is controversial or negatively biased in some way. People don't seem to want to show the ordinary and respectable face of the pink community to the ignorant public, who might be mislead into thinking that gay people are just like them, and actually quite nice people with feelings - and hopes and dreams just like theirs.

What I also found interesting in the Sondag article was the reference to Erroll Naidoo. The Sondag being the birdcage liner it is, I can't help wondering if that is a direct quote - or a sample of "creative journalism", but if that isn't a blatant admission of hating gay people - so much, that unlike other "Christian" folks who "don't approve" of gay people - he won't even "pray" for them? No, he would much rather pray ON them...

This is the same Errol Naidoo who is leading the fight against marriage equality in South Africa, campaigning to overturn laws passed in 2005, and to criminalize gay rights – and who runs the US religious right backed “Family Policy Institute” in Cape Town. Somehow that bigot always manages to feature in the news, as if he is some kind of authority, wherever there is an article on gay people - even in this one. Oops. (I wonder how he does that.)

When there is sensation, they will certainly publish it. Take coverage of the Pink Jacaranda for example, Beeld placed a small photo-less article barely 10 sentences long on page 6 or something of the "PLUS" sub-section. When the neo-Nazi storm-troopers of the diminutive Pretoria Verkennersjeug complained about the Voortrekker drag queens desecrating the Monument with their presence, it appeared on page 2, main paper, with colour photo nogal - and remember, this was AFTER the event!

About 5 years ago a black lesbian's main neck artery was nearly severed by a broken bottle thrown from the flats in Braamfontein on the Pride parade (aside from the usual pot plants, old kettles and other missiles). Even this outrage made NEARLY front page news everywhere AFTER Pride. The point is, don't expect favorable media promotion or coverage of a pink event from general SA media.

The rest of the time, we are lucky if the usually more moderate English newspapers feature a picture of the ugliest drag queen at Pride, or some other outrageously dressed (or undressed) people that will reinforce conservative stereotypes - after the event on page 9 or 10, unless it includes friend Naidoo - or some other conservative champion vilifying the pink community or arranging a picket, counter-march or a protest against a Pride event somewhere, where it somehow makes it to the front page. Mainstream Afrikaans newspapers always ignore all of Pride as if Afrikaans gay people simply do not exist, even though 15000 people (many of them Afrikaans speaking) attended. But place 300 Afrikaners on Church Square with Steve Hofmeyer, or let Angus Buchan break wind or change hats in Loftus, and it makes BOLD letters on page 1 as if it is actual news. And so on.

It seems the pink news trend is ALWAYS controversial, NEARLY front page - and always AFTER the fact.

If it wasn't for pink news services on the web, our community would be blind and deaf to the goings on in the world around us. None of us would be aware of the threatening pink genocide in Uganda, or even be aware that the SA government has completely ignored our calls to condemn the Genocide Bill currently awaiting passing in the Ugandan parliament, or that they have refused to address various concerns of the pink community - including its refusal to sign the UN Declaration To Decriminalize Homosexuality in December 2008. I certainly haven't heard or seen any coverage of the Ugandan issue in any mainstream media - not even in a paper as liberal and pro-democracy as the Mail & Guardian.

It seems gay people being portrayed in the media as promiscuous stereotypes and parodies is just fine, but telling the truth about them or showing them in a good light - is just not controversial or interesting enough.

For once, it would have been nice to see a positive event (Mr. Gay South Africa™) given positive coverage for a change, after all, it was a classy and stylish event - something uplifting and affirming which would cast gay men (and the whole pink community) in a good light for a change - instead, the entire pink community got the usual treatment - a flat ignore.

Talk to the hand? Truth is, I feel like biting it!

This "failure to launch" on the part of the SA media highlights the lack of interest of the straight community run media in South Africa. It seems to assume that pink - or even open minded South Africans don't exist and could never be interested in an event like Mr. Gay South Africa™. I don't think their disinterest should just be ignored. It is a slap in the face of our whole community.

Maybe next year we can see it live on TV? Or a video snippet in the TV news? Or at the very least, a front page feature without some insulting quote by uncle Errol.

I live in hope.

False Witness

I would like to bring up a widely publicized case of a Ugandan man - a gay man, who was paid by the religious right to claim that he had been "cured of homosexuality" was feted across his country, and propelled to fame for his talks on how he had "recruited" children into a "homosexual lifestyle" at schools and otherwise made false claims which confirmed the rhetoric of his homophobic handlers - and helped fuel the fire which threatens to consume those for which he helped vilify.

Subsequently this mole fell from grace, as he was caught out while indulging his "unhealthy lifestyle choice" despite his claims. Surprisingly many people are still ignorant enough to believe that a person's sexuality is a "disease" or a "choice" - and that it is in anyway "threatening". We have already seen in Uganda how devastating this form of propaganda can be - supported and fueled by massive popular ignorance - resulting in an outrage against the so-called "threat" posed by a tiny minority of Ugandans - to the point where a country today teeters on the brink of genocide - while the world holds its breath - and does exactly nothing.

All of this while happening in Uganda, happened with the clear involvement of Exodus International - the biggest "ex-gay" lie factory in the anti-gay persecution industry. It seems the "ex-gay" lie, coupled with religious fundamentalism and ignorance have led Uganda to this treacherous place.

The reason for me bringing this up? Why, because the religious right in South Africa has now also started beating the same tired old drum. Just a few weeks ago, Erroll Naidoo started bragging in his online news bulletins about his new find - a new convert to his radical right wing version of the Christian faith - who happens to have been a prostitute madam - and an "ex-lesbian". It came as little surprise to me when I read that our friend Naidoo, who has been waging a personal war on the pink community for years, announced that he would be flying his new poster-girl around the country in order to tell people about the evils of prostitution and homosexuality, and that both can be overcome through prayer.

Over the weekend I also came across an article posted on the web from a local newspaper - granted, a low-class rag of a newspaper - but it was out there none the less. Seems some local Afrikaans b-grade actor I never heard of before is claiming to have prayed himself straight and was spewing the same bullshit and rhetoric that you can find on any "ex-gay" site.

Pray away the gay. Yeah, sure. You might as well try to pray away your eye-color. They are breaking their own religious laws by giving false witness.

I think this guy should think twice about what he said to the newspaper and he should correct what he said. But he won't. He's too far gone. He will have to learn the hard way that he may be bluffing other people but he can't fool himself - and it won't last. In the end he is making it harder for others, harder for him to accept himself - and for others to accept him and others like us. It is a result of his own internalized homophobia brought about by religious ignorance, intolerance and fundamentalism.

People like these are the reason I turned my back on religion. Fanatics. Pretty soon Errol Naidoo may snap him up and put him on his FPI payroll to tell the whole of SA that gay people "choose an immoral lifestyle" and can be "prayed straight" and use it as a base to launch his war on human rights for the pink community.

Having been in activism for a few years now, I have noticed a few things about our situation in South Africa. For one thing, most people are ignorant about what GLBTIQ people are, and what they are about - so if any group comes along telling them "the facts", they will be inclined to believe them.

For another, some of them are so ignorant and so prejudiced against the pink community, that they are actively fighting to destroy people they know nearly nothing about. Consequently I think the most important thing we can do is to educate the public about real GLBTIQ issues and facts.

As activists, we are in the business of fighting moves to deprive our community of equality and civil rights, and countering destructive propaganda which portrays us as a dangerous threat. The best way we can do this is to tackle the much needed process of education and dissemination of information and incontrovertible proven facts that show sexual orientation and gender identity are in-born, natural and immutable. These are readily available, if you know where to look for them - however there is also a plethora of junk-science and utter crap out there that is as dangerous as poison in a well - because not everybody knows the difference.

However, just getting statements from world authorities on the matter and posting the info on obscure websites or circulating it via widely inaccessible newsletters is not going to be enough. We must do more. We need to approach world health authorities (such as the APA and others) to partner with advocacy groups and media houses to participate in information drives and educational initiatives to debunk these lies and the propaganda for good.

When this is done, we will no longer have to entertain idiots who spew "ex-gay" rubbish with the intention of crippling the fight for human rights and equality and justifying oppression and spiritual violence.

One cure for religious fundamentalism is logic and knowledge. I personally have little time for fairy tales and flim-flam artists who try to unscrew the inscrutable with mumbo-jumbo and quoted religious rhetoric which nobody can understand or verify - and which flies in the face of science and common sense.

Being an agnostic is so much more honest - because it means "I don't know". I am always wary of people who are so completely convinced that they are willing to set the world on fire for it.

...No, not the world... just us.

Crying Wolf

"In a multiple-bias incident [of reported hate crime], two conditions must be met: (a) more than one offense type must occur in the incident and (b) at least two offense types must be motivated by different biases."

Sounds like the definitive intro to an episode of "Law & Order", doesn't it?

If there were no statistics to show the high incidence of hate crimes committed against GLBTIQ people specifically on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity, the Religious Right could go on making false claims that hate crime is "thought crime" and that the concept of hate crime was no more than a gay rights propaganda tool, and that it is their religion which is under attack, and not the pink community. In fact, this is exactly why they have been fighting tooth and claw to stop the passage of hate crimes laws. Why? Because without them, the FBI could not legitimately record such crimes - and the statistics would not be made available - and they could go on trying to obscure the fact that GLBTIQ people are indeed under attack - by themselves.

The recent passage of hate crimes laws in the USA have made such statistics valid and are currently available on the FBI website. To start off with, yes, these are American statistics - but as in America, the bigots and anti-gay activists in South Africa echo the very same rhetoric and follow the very same strategies as they do there, in fact to a large extent they have been influenced and even mentored by the American religious right. If accurate hate crime statistics were available in this country, there is no doubt in my mind they would reflect a very similar result demographically.

The FBI reported the following reported incidents of hate crime involving physical violence in the USA in 2008:

On the basis of religion:

Against Catholics, just for being Catholic:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 1, Simple Assaults = 3, Intimidation = 3.

Against Protestants, just for being Protestant:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 3, Simple Assaults = 3, Intimidation = 1

So we're looking at 14 victims who were violently attacked or intimidated, just for being Christian.

Let's take this a step further and compare anti-Christian incidents to other faiths:

Against Muslims, just for being Muslim:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 50, Simple Assaults = 30, Intimidation = 48

That's 128 victims. (A whole 114 more than the Christian total for the same period).

Against Jews, just for being Jews:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 25, Simple Assaults = 58, Intimidation = 201

Another 284 victims. (That's 270 more victims than the Christian total for the same period.)

That's their 14 Christian victims vs 128 Muslim victims and 284 Jewish victims of hate crime. Things don't look too good for the radical right argument, do they?

Kind of odd for the mighty Christian faith to be complaining that it is being "persecuted" and that Christians are "under attack" for their faith - especially when it comes to "defending biblical principles" and vending hatred against the pink community, don't you think? Perhaps it is more a case of "persecuted church syndrome"? But wait, there's more...

Against gay males, just for being gay males:

Murder = 3, Forcible rape = 1, Aggravated Assault = 152, Simple Assaults = 312, Intimidation = 238

Against gay females, just for being gay females:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 5, Aggravated Assault = 22, Simple Assaults = 58, Intimidation = 61

Against gay people in general, just for being gay:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 51, Simple Assaults = 111, Intimidation = 110

Against bisexual people, just for being bisexual:

Murder = 2, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 2, Simple Assaults = 12, Intimidation = 3

That comes to a total of 1143 victims of hate crimes on the basis of their non-heterosexual orientation.

Now let's compare that with one other sexual orientation - heterosexual people. (That's right, "heterosexual" is a sexual orientation too - and most of these bigots forget that when they complain about laws preventing discrimination on the basis of it.)

Against straight people, just for being straight:

Murder = 0, Forcible rape = 0, Aggravated Assault = 3, Simple Assaults = 8, Intimidation = 7

That's 18 straight victims vs 1143 non-heterosexual victims.

Wow.

Now let's look at the stats given per group - of all of the above, the only groups who were murdered for their sexual orientation were gay and bisexual people. That's 5 - 0.

Forcible rape on the basis of group hate - once again, gay and bisexual people: 7 vs 0.

Aggravated assault on the basis of group hate 227 vs 4.

Simple assault on the basis of group hate - 493 vs 14.

Intimidation on the basis of group hate - 412 vs 11.

It seems that any way you cut the cake, it still seems unbelievable that the group with the least to complain about is also making the most noise. In effect, crying wolf.

Incredible.

If data on hate crimes based on gender identity had been included, the tally would have looked even worse, fortunately the recent Federal Hate Crime laws in the USA were passed, DESPITE STIFF OPPOSITION. Until now, the FBI wasn't allowed to count hate crimes against transgender people, but we know just from US newspaper reports that at least 19 people were murdered simply for being transgender. It will be interesting to see next year's statistics, which will include a more accurate reflection.

Notice how the group with the biggest mouth about persecution (Christianity) has a figure so much smaller than the total for incidents of hate crime based on sexual orientation? AND on the basis of religion as well! So much for their "persecuted church" claims!

While religion is covered by hate crimes laws, sexual orientation and gender identity were not until recently. Now that it is, we can see why they opposed it.

This is the REAL REASON WHY the religious right OPPOSES HATE CRIMES LAWS intended to give EQUAL PROTECTION to the GLBTIQ MINORITY.

Preventing hate crimes laws prevents these incidents from being recorded properly, which prevents gathering accurate statistics, which conceals and covers up the direct results of their anti human rights agitation and campaigning - and makes it possible for them to claim that their religion is "under attack" and that gay people are lying when they complain about hate crime - when the facts (i.e. statistics) prove otherwise.

Because statistics show the facts, and in this case the truth - that the bigots are and have been exaggerating - and that the real reason behind their opposition to hate crimes laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity is to cover up the truth - that we really are a threatened minority - a minority threatened by them.

16 Days Of Double Standards

While I may commend the now traditional South African institution of the "16 days of activism against women & child abuse" campaign, I still see plenty of duplicity and ambiguity in it.

16 days of activism? I don't know about you folks, but I'm an activist every single day.

It is often said (to loud applause) that "real men" don't commit violence against women or children. This is all fine and well from a certain point of view - a largely traditional and 2-dimensional point of view - but exactly What is a "real" man? Anyone care to guess? A man with nuts and a ding-dong? A man who lusts after women? Does that make a "real" man?

If you castrate a man, does that change his status as a male member of society? Does having a sex change and getting rid of unwanted equipment correct a gender error and make a woman whole, or rather as some people claim - a "mutilated man"? What about an old man? Is he "past it"? Is he a lesser man than a "real" man? Is there an age limit which you pass and cease being "real"? What about those annoying beer ads on TV these days? "Keep it real" indeed.

What is a "real" man? Even in their noble efforts to protect women and children from violent males, these praiseworthy people - these fine, upstanding and obviously cis-gender and heteronormative people - who invented this campaign have committed a faux pax. They have pandered almost exclusively to the archaic gender stereotype. That - and of course, hypocrisy.

I would say a "real" man is a man who wants to be a man. Or who sees meaning or value in being a man. That, and no more. There is simply no honor attached to just being one gender or another - why should there be? I could say for certain that there is definitely honor in who people decide to be, and in how they decide to live.

The "real" man fallacy is what is so often used against gay males, stereotyping them as weaklings and somehow "lesser" men than straight males - and of course lumping them into a group of social "undesirables" along with the wife-beaters, rapists and child molesters, the latter which fits in perfectly with the religious right wing's propaganda ploy which claims that gay men are also more than likely to be everything from serial killers to pedophiles - something which they claim has been "scientifically proven" - and yet which has been consistently dismissed and proved false since bigots started manufacturing such propaganda more than a century ago.

How would one define abuse? How about discrimination? how about equal pay for equal work? Why is there still, after nearly a hundred years of "women's lib", a "glass ceiling" in place preventing women from rising above certain levels, jealously guarded by men - or is that "real men"? I wonder if we will see any mention made of the minor detail that women still do equal or better the work of a male while still being paid less on the same skill level. Why are women still being treated like cheap labor and second-class citizens? Funny, I thought we pink folks were the only ones "whining" about equality? What is wrong with the women in the world today, that they just keep quiet and accept this?

Ironic? You tell me.

During this annual campaign, much ado is made of the violence against women and children, while focusing on violent males, presumably husbands, lovers and fathers, but nothing is ever made of the abuse and prejudice against lesbians, trans-women and gay/trans kids. Nor is there ever any mention of violent women in abusive relationships, both hetero and homo sexual. In all fairness, they do exist.

Are lesbians not also women? Am I as a trans-woman any less female? There are those who claim so, although the first thing they point to is the obvious and rather pedestrian fact that I can't reproduce - while there are many cis-gender women who also cannot reproduce. Are they also "less female"? Is gender between the legs or between the ears? What about the gay and transgender kids out there? Are they not to be recognized? Does being gay or transgender exclude them from recognition as being in danger of abuse and persecution? Are they somehow "lesser" than other children for their nature?

The issue at hand is not gender identity or sexual orientation, or the age of the victims - it is violence and abuse.

I haven't heard any of the government ministers quoted in the press saying anything about the lesbians murdered because of their sexual orientation, or the transwoman who was murdered because of her gender identity. No, everything is just about the stereotype, the cis-gender hetero-normative female who is the "ideal" and darling of the conservative religious right. The devoted mother, the subservient wife, the obedient daughter. No mention of the lesbian or transsexual woman who works 8 to 5 7 days a week, pays her taxes, contributes to the South African economy and is an asset to society, and who faces discrimination and prejudice in the workplace and in the very same society on a daily basis.

"Women are often demeaned and dehumanized through sexually explicit billboards, advertisements and newspaper classifieds that commodify and exploit women as mere sex objects." Says Errol Naidoo, fearless leader of the FPI, in one of his regular Facebook newsletters, in which he whines about human rights infringing on his "God-given" religious right to condemn and discriminate as he sees fit. And who can forget his totally biased attacks on gay rights - and the bane of his existence (the Pink Loerie Mardis gras) and his continued misrepresentation of religious fiction and apparent inability to differentiate between fact and fiction?

Naidoo regularly makes reference to women and children, the bright shining knight in dull, plastic armor, waving his cardboard sword - omitting any mention of his relentless lobbying and attacks against gay people - which include women, trans-women and unavoidably - all those children who happen to be gay, bi, lesbian or transgender. But then, like those bigots in Uganda campaigning for the mass-murder of gay people, he also believes that gay people "recruit" in schools or are victims of "bad parenting" and can be "prayed straight" - and that gay rights are not human rights.

I also notice how expertly he has skirted the issue of intersex by completely ignoring the Caster Semenya issue, despite the fact that she is intersex and at 18, technically also still a child. Was he not concerned about her "protection"? Why not? Did the fact that she is intersex define her in his view as not needing "protection"? Or does addressing the issue of intersex in his mind signify a hot potato - an unwelcome admission that his precious religious scriptures do not hold all the facts, all the answers and that he is in fact not holding all the cards? Is this omission not an admission that not everybody conforms to his staid "biblical" stereotype of the gender binary - and that intersex (and non-hetero-normative sexual orientation and gender identity) is quite natural and as "legitimate" as his "ideal" stereotype? I think it does.

But then, hypocrisy is hardly a new thing when it comes to people like Errol Naidoo and Ray Mc Cauley who regularly drag religion - and the dignity of women and children through the mud by using faith as a blunt instrument to cajole people into seeing things their way and fund their misogyny.

For those who think like this, "protecting women" is all about keeping them in traditional gender roles - at home, popping out babies, "protecting" them from having the freedom enjoyed by males, such as freedom of expression - including sexual freedoms, the freedom of having control over their own bodies, and "protecting" them from having careers or independent, fully equal lives of their own.

To those who think like this, "protecting" children means preventing them from learning how to think for themselves by bombarding them with religious rhetoric from birth and in schools and "protecting" them from "turning gay" because they believe gay people "make a sinful lifestyle choice", are "recruited" and despite the abundant scientific evidence - even the plethora of examples of homosexuality (and even transgender) in the animal kingdom, showing that gay people are born - they stubbornly believe they aren't.

These are people who stubbornly deny logic in the face of fact, who preach the wolves of intolerance and persecution while dressing them up as lambs of "love" and "righteousness" - and then pass around the collection plate to help rob people of their civil rights and equalities. Hallelujah, amen!

Who is going to protect us from people like them?

Lemon Karma

Sometimes life hands us a lemon. This is just one of those things that happens in the run of our daily lives, a truth, an undeniable fact of our existence - a thing which defines our state as mortal, fallible beings, and which clarifies one particular aspect of life - something which humans spend their lives searching for.

Control.

Either you have it, or you don't. And as human beings - we don't. We may have the illusion of it, the temporary illusion where we may have power or influence over others, or a situation - but this passes, as do all things. Eventually the wheel turns, and those on top find themselves lying in the road - asking what happened and what the number of that bus was. Ain't karma a bitch?

Once burnt, twice shy.

The truth is, everyone gets run over - or run down at some point. Sometimes good things happen to bad people, sometimes bad things happen to good people - but my point is, regardless of what happens to us, it is up to us how we choose to handle it.

The obnoxious girl at the drive-thru who called you "sir" despite the obvious, the attendant at the department store who refused to help you, the stranger who called you "a queer piece of shit" in the street, the supervisor who criticized your appearance, the friends and family who turned their backs on you when you came out, the lover who betrayed you, the pastor who told you God hates you and ordered you to leave your church, the government minister who changed the law to exclude you - all provide examples of the illusion of power and those who think they have it. All of them crowning themselves with wreaths of violet pain and grasping scepters of golden authority, applying to others whatever they see fit.

So, life hands you a lemon.

Some people decide to do something with it, make lemonade or whatever - some people just sit there and look at the lemon.

Yes, I know. It sounds awfully preachy and condescending and might cause you to expect a little speech or pep-talk featuring words on the line of "winners never quit, and quitters never win", or "get back in that saddle, move it, soldier!" For me it brings to mind that little saying about "if you don't try, you've already lost".

It is a poor workman who blames his tools.

Yes, sometimes life deals us some blows - handing us the lemon. But in truth, either you can sit there and feel sorry for yourself and perpetuate the sentiments behind that blow, loss, attack or whatever - vindicating their actions - or you can turn it to your advantage, roll with it, harness it, and make the world - or that individual sorry for screwing with you in the first place.

Ever heard that other old saying that goes "nothing succeeds like success"? I want to go one better by adding to it:

Success, and being happy and complete, despite your pain and those who hurt you - is the ultimate vengeance.

Voila' - lemonade!