Marching to be Equal

Dining with Lesbians

And so we went, together, holding hands. Marching for gay rights might sound ordinary to many of you but it’s very special to us, to me. My partner has never, I say never, joined a rally, march or demonstration of any sort. The closest she ever got was dropping me off two blocks away from the site I was going to hold IDAHOT at, and she was very shy about being seen even at that distance.

The rally itself was alright, about 1,000 people turned up.  I loved how one sign said “I am straight.  I support Gay Marriage” (too bad I couldn’t get it clearly on camera).  It was peaceful along the way and the police were nice, too (we had to ask for directions and were politely shown the way by a middle-aged policeman who showed no signs of negativity towards the gay rally).

On the way to…

View original post 232 more words

Sanctuary lost

Religion is a pretty tenuous thing at best to seek sanctuary in, but most people seem to find comfort there, and as much as I speak out against this aberration, I realise that it is going to take a long long time to totally rid the world of its hold, if ever. So imagine how despondent it must feel to those seeking sanctuary in its bosom, to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

Far be it for me to claim to know how women feel about being discriminated against, but at least I can relate, having endured victimization under apartheid in South Africa. So I do know that it must feel rotten.

Just about every religion I’ve come across, has discriminated against women, some more so than others. All on the basis of interpretation of obscure and archaic religious texts, written in a time when men had not much more knowledge than garden snails. And let’s be clear about it; it’s men (99.99% of the time) who are the perpetrators of this discrimination.

It’s shocking and disheartening to learn on a daily basis how religiously inspired men around the world, treat women with contempt, even going so far as to maim, mutilate and kill them, because of some insignificant act committed, which is deemed to be in violation of a religious doctrine.

Just the other day, I read with utter dismay how the number of women imprisoned in Afghanistan in the last 18 months has risen by 50%, to 600. Their offenses which range from running away from abusive husbands, family and forced marriages, to being the victims of sexual abuse, are regarded as “moral crimes.” What kind of mindset can turn the victim of sexual assault into a moral criminal?

Afghanistan is a shit hole, but this kind of thing happens in many other countries which are considered advanced, even civilized by modern standards. A proposed Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law in Afghanistan is being blocked by religiously inspired lawmakers who argue that some sections are un-Islamic. That is incomprehensible and utterly devoid of sane or rational thinking.

In the Middle and Far East, women are subject to other forms of discrimination such as limitations on basic freedoms like free movement, enforcement of dress codes, and being prevented from driving vehicles. We are told by self-appointed moralists that these basic rights infringe on certain religious tenets. It’s however by no means any different in the highly advanced West where lesbians face the threat of violence, and discrimination against termination of pregnancy, or Africa where female genital mutilation is still enforced.

No amount of cuss words can describe how utterly deprived these beliefs are.The common denominator is religion, and patriarchal men who hide behind it, spreading their hatred… and fear of women.

If this is the treatment meted out to god-fearing women, I can only shudder in disgust at what non-believing women have to go through.

The year of dressing dangerously

Over the years there were probably many isolated incidences around the world where a person’s dress, appearance and style of living attracted unwanted attention from a few loons, mostly from one type of religious persuasion or the other. But in 2013, these incidences started making the news.

In January, the same religious extremists who had earlier banned women from wearing jeans and tight trousers, inspired the mayor of Aceh, Indonesia, to propose a ban on women straddling bicycles and motorcycles when riding pillion. Then in February a Saudi cleric raged about forcing babies and young woman to wear burkas, which he claimed would prevent rape.

In March Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood opposed a UN Declaration on Woman’s Rights saying that granting them any basic rights would destroy society. They  proposed among other more absurd things that woman should not be allowed to travel freely, work, use contraception and control the household finances.

Earlier this month Hamas, the ultra-conservative government of Gaza passed an education bill mandating separate classrooms for boys and girls. This week in another act of pure madness Hamas lap-dogs who pass for Policemen were reported pulling young men off the streets, loading them into jeeps, insulting them and then cutting off or shaving their long or gel-styled spiky hair.

Now lest you think I’m singling out a particular religion by exposing this insanity, let me assure you that I’m not. If an adherent of [place your religion or political organization of choice here] compels me to dress or behave in a certain way, or inhibits me from exercising certain basic human rights, because it infringes some stupid law from their archaic religious texts, then I’m most certainly going to tell them to kiss my ass.

It’s not so much the religion that concerns me, as the jackasses that try to impose their understanding of it.

No religionist (or political organization) will ever prescribe to me how to dress, what to eat, how to live or what to believe.

*****

This just in…

Seems the madness has spread to Uganda too. Simon Lokodo an ex-Catholic priest, a misogynist and homophobe who is now masquerading as the Ethics Minister [fancy that?] is proposing legislation that will govern what women wear in public, including on television.

This same government-appointed keeper of the public’s morals was at the forefront of persecution and discriminatory laws against Uganda’s homosexual community not so long ago.

In response to a bigoted Christian politician…

It’s not often that men of the cloth admit to the follies of the Church and religious scripture. But when such a man does speak out against the crass wrongs perpetrated on society by the religious or political establishment, he deserves praise, not condemnation.

So you can imagine my consternation at reading this disgusting letter by one Thamsanqa Enoch Bam in an online publication, in response to Archbishop Desmond Tutu who spoke out against the vile and draconian anti-gay bill being proposed in Uganda. Tutu earned the ire of Bam by likening the hateful legislation to South Africa’s apartheid laws.

Bam, who also proclaims himself as the President of the People’s Party (a recent addition to the absurdly long list of insignificant South African political parties), asserts that the Archbishop was “going against” God’s Laws by condoning homosexuality. His conviction, unsurprisingly comes from the bible and is backed up by the quotation of a few hand-picked scriptures which I won’t repeat, such is my revulsion.

Is there a more revolting blend than a politician and a religionist?

Bam asks how the Archbishop could miss such clear scripture [referring to the revolting quotations I earlier sidestepped like a pile of steaming horeshit]. Off course, we would not be allowed the courtesy of asking how this cretin [Bam, and others of his ilk] misses with unerring conviction, all the other contradictory and hateful biblical scriptures that don’t confirm his/their prejudices.

This letter in the Times Live appears to be an extract from a lengthier blog he wrote, which also condemns gay marriage, and confoundingly professes support for the dreadful ANC [ruling party], if they “made an about turn and ended their duplicity, corruption, mismanagement and disregard of the poor masses.” And to add further insult, he concludes that the ANC’s manifest incompetence would be solved if the “country goes back to God.”

And like all fundamentalists he is off course intimate with God’s will:

As a Christian, I pray that gays and lesbians will eventually see their folly, repent, and turn away from their abominations. That is the will of God.

What a slimeball? The will of this atheist is that you change the name of your political party to Asshole’s Party, because you will never represent the people, just bigoted assholes like yourself.

Zuma’s zizi

I’m pretty certain that news of the well hung painting in the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg by artist Brett Murray of President Jacob Zuma, is spreading like wildfire and causing great consternation and anger in certain circles.

Well that’s to be expected, but beyond the issue of freedom of speech which this whole episode has evoked [yet again], is the deep-seated anger that resides in an artist who was inspired to depict the President in a manner that is shocking, but yet speaks of an alarming truth about the political nature and moral character of the man, that many South Africans share.

Art is meant to elicit strong emotional responses; shock being a prized reaction. This particular work titled The Spear very effectively portrays the foreboding that is playing on the minds of many disgruntled South Africans at the moment.

Opinion is divided on this issue, with liberals generally agreeing that it should stay hung, citing freedom of speech as the determinant, to genuine Zuma-haters buzzing with absolute glee [and who could blame them] and the conservative types expressing shock and disgust. I imagine that there are some who are unsure about this one, but nobody takes fence-sitters seriously. By and large freedom of speech is winning.

However one of government’s spin doctors waxed disingenuously about rights and dignity and other claptrap, saying that the painting:

…perpetuates a shocking new culture by some sections of the artistic world, of using vulgar methods of communicating about leading figures in the country, including especially the president.

But Mac Maharaj, who’s been known to lose his foot in his mouth on more than a few occasions, is clearly forgetting the shocking culture of rampant corruption, incompetence, arrogance and bigotry that his government, represented by Jacob Zuma, perpetuates with gay abandon since coming into power.

Yes Mac, we hear you, but please go hang yourself next to the painting of your master.

zizi, French for penis.

Human Rights Day? What for?

South Africa celebrated Human Rights Day today. Well actually, some of us just celebrated a free holiday and took time to do stuff that had nothing whatsoever to do with human rights.

Personally, I can’t see the point to Human Rights Day – in South Africa, that is. It was put in place by the post-Apartheid government to commemorate the shooting of 69 people by the police in Sharpeville, South Africa in 1969. The same police kill many more people in post-Apartheid times – their Commissioner is a member of the ANC, so I guess that makes it all RIGHT. Is the government going to give us a holiday for every 69 people his policemen kills?

Why bother commemorating Human Rights? This government supports some of the worst violators of human rights across the African continent and abroad. They are friendly with and openly indulge in the favours offered by the slimiest politicians to sully this planet – Robert Mugabe, Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Jong-il, Obiang Mbasogo, Omar Al-Bashier and Paul Biya, to name a few. This government’s own conduct in the general administration of its mandate is not far off from that of the evil tyrants already mentioned – it is only just picking up steam.

And today, they used the Human Rights platform to pay lip service to Human Rights, and perform the more pressing task of electioneering in the Western Cape; the only Province they don’t control politically, the only one in South Africa functioning reasonably well.

How about talking about and showing some responsibility for a change, instead of beating that monotonous RIGHTS drum every time you need to seize the attention of the people?

It’s only a matter of time when that tune goes out of favour with the people, and you need to dance to the sound of anger.

Duvalier laughed…but I rolled on the floor

As soon as I caught a glimpse of this news piece, I nearly bust a gut laughing:

Former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier laughed at the notion he was a tyrant and claimed in a television interview on Tuesday that he had introduced democracy to his troubled homeland.

“I was the first person to start a process as such in Haiti, a democratic process, it was me who started it,” Duvalier said in an interview conducted by Alicia Ortega and broadcast by the Spanish-language Univision network.

Yes, you started it all right – your country’s slide into decay.

This lunatic’s delusions about democracy may actually be catching: the African Union (AU) has a really crackpot idea about what peace means .  They have called for Sudan’s tyrant-in-chief al-Bashir, to be exempted from prosecution by the Haig for crimes against humanity because he apparently played a role in sustaining peace and allowing a referendum to take place, as if that was something extraordinary for a leader to be doing. Pretty soon all tyrants will be claiming indemnity for such piffling considerations.

Whatever next? The ANC claiming that this sick system of nepotism, kleptomania and deceit we have in South Africa is a democracy too!

A note to the eedyerts in power

Recently I’ve heard South Africa’s political form of government being referred to as a kleptocracy and even an idiocracy. But as the treasury is being raided to enrich a small minority who hold the reins of power, while proposing idiotic laws which are meant to curtail freedom of speech, these two terms will remain pertinent.

It’s therefore time to remind the klepto-idiots in power what DEMOCRACY really means. The simplest definition I can find is as follows:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

However it goes beyond that.  A few other characteristics of democracy are:

• All citizens are equal before the law [those who are politically connected are not more equal than others, as is currently the case]
• The freedom of all citizens are protected by a constitution [whatever happened to ours which was described as a model constitution?]
• The use of checks and balances through legislation ensures that there is no accumulation of power [why are those in power not satisfied with even a two-thirds majority?]
• Freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that everyone is informed [why are those in power proposing laws that will curtail these freedoms?]
• It goes without saying that civil liberties and human rights are sacrosanct [is this really the case in South Africa where certain individuals in power, not only are more right than others, but enjoy more rights than others]

It’s really simple; you just have to go back to the basics, which you seem to have abandoned in the mad rush to pig out at the trough. Try it; it will be good to feel human again.

While putting this piece together, I stumbled upon a marvellous blog called By The People at America.gov. Please take the time to watch some short videos  by young people from countries such as Nepal, Ethiopia, Spain, Indonesia and Colombia, which convey their idea of democracy, on the blog post titled What Do You Think Democracy Is? The one from Farbod Khoshtinat from Iran is particularly good and relevent to my message above.

Heretical news…

A couple of stories that caught my interest recently:

A guy in Edmonton, Canada legally changed his name to God. Apparently he fought the government and won the right to change his name. How cool is that? How cool is Canada? I can just imagine him going for a job interview and introducing himself, “Hi, I’m God. I need a new job ’cause people didn’t take me seriously in my old one.”

**************************

Famous atheist Richard Dawkins has thrown his weight behind the calls from self-proclaimed non-theist, Christopher Hitchens, to have the Pope arrested when he visits the UK later this year. This follows the recent sex abuse scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church. This type of action is unprecedented, as ordinary religious figures seem to enjoy a special status in society, but the Pope is deemed untouchable.

Personally, I don’t think anything will come of it, but just imagine if the Pope was actually arrested and charged, with among other things, human rights violations. I’ll bet that would send all other clergymen scurrying for their lawyers.

More amusing however, is picturing the Pope in a hard-core prison, sharing a cell with Bubba. Upon finding out that Bubba is called that for a very special reason, the Pope exclaims, “get thee behind me Satan,” whereupon Bubba licking his lips in glee shouts out, “with pleasure, your Popeness, with pleasure.”

The African Way?

Every time someone in the South African government, or one of its pathetic minions such as the ANC Youth League fucks up, it’s become common practice for their detractors to comment that it’s the African way. And as one of the government’s most vocal detractors, I think we need to examine this concept more closely.

What is this African way that they are referring to? Is it greed, corruption, incompetence, arrogance, wastefulness, ostentatious behaviour, the tendency to be dictatorial? For crying out loud, this government and about every other government in Africa epitomize every one of these traits, and more. But, is it really an African phenomenon?

To be fair, many other governments all over the world indulge in some, if not all of these disgusting characteristics, so to single out Africa as a unique source of maladministration, is extremely disingenuous. Granted Africa has some of the worst culprits, but they are certainly not alone in this form of inhumanity to man; there is no other way of describing this behaviour as anything but man’s contempt for his fellow-man. Africa did not export this loutish behaviour to the rest of the world. And there are off course historical reasons why Africa has become associated with being one of the worst perpetrators of human rights violations, but that is the subject of another discussion.

What then is the African way?

For the most part, Africans are good people, but their apparent pre-disposition to accept the gross indulgences of their leaders, at a horrific cost to their personal selves, is annoying, to say the least. The simple awe in which they hold their leaders, fueled by the illusion that they are liberators meant to worshipped, is akin to the grip that religion has on the uncritical mind.

Is the African way then, to accept one’s lot in society with barely a whimper? Or you going to show your arrogant, egotistical, incompetent, corrupt, lazy, greedy, selfish, dictatorial, thieving leaders that it is no longer the African way to take this shit any more.