A new African oppression
Munene Kilongi’s article on homosexuality, ‘When Andrew met Audrey”, and the sidebar on Malawi’s test case (‘Africa regresses on rights”, January 8) were thought-provoking insights into a very divisive subject. Gay denialism in Africa is the hallmark of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which was part of colonisation. Most Africans consider themselves sexually conservative, but we have to acknowledge the presence of those who, either through socialisation or because of biological reasons, and through no fault of their own, gravitate towards same-sex relationships.
The fact that there are laws criminalising homosexuality in Africa is a veiled acknowledgement that there is a minority that needs to be part of the human rights debate.
A balanced critique has to go beyond quasi-religious moralising, which simply stokes emotion. The discussion must be rooted in a rational mode that will eventually save those who live among us, perhaps in our very families, from the stigma and discrimination of the righteous.
Otherwise, the concept of ubuntu practised with zeal but no knowledge or consideration will be nothing but hollow words. — Billy Mayaya, Lilongwe, Malawi
The wave of homophobia sweeping this beautiful continent I call home is very sad. The anti-homosexuality legislation under discussion in the Ugandan Parliament goes against every tenet enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees us all the fundamental right to dignity and respect, based on the notion that despite our ethnic, religious or national backgrounds, we are human beings first and foremost.
What this Bill aims to do is to strip an already oppressed and stigmatised community of its remaining human dignity. Through vilification and propaganda, the sponsor of the Bill, David Bahati, has convinced Uganda that gay people are sub-human and should not be accorded any rights. Similar tactics were employed by the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide who, through the notion of the ‘expendable other” and the use of terms such as ’cockroach”, created a scenario where violence against Tutsis was justified and encouraged.
Similar tactics were employed by Nazi Germany against Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. In the wake of such horrors the world resolved that extreme forms of discrimination should never be allowed to flourish in the international community of nations. Yet millions of gay people across Africa, and indeed the world, are subjected to extreme discrimination that calls for the extermination of another human, that person’s only crime being that he or she is attracted to someone of the same sex.
The fallacy that being gay is unAfrican should also be dispelled. There is documented evidence of homosexual activity before colonial times (one missionary wrote: ‘Homosexuality has been known among the Nkunde [of the Congo] since time immemorial, among men as well as women”). Research among the Gikuyu people in central Kenya by Wairimu Ngaruiya Njambi and William O’Brien found traditional acceptance of ‘woman-woman marriage” when such relationships brought children into households or eased disputes over inheritance. Words for homosexuality, gay men and lesbians exist in a large number of indigenous languages.
I have met many young rural gay people who are attracted to people of the same sex from a very young age, without having come into contact with any white people. I myself am from a rural village and have always felt attracted to people from my own sex. My family was too poor to buy a television set, so I didn’t learn about being gay from TV. The assertion that whites brought homosexuality to Africa and are active recruiters for the homosexual cause is unfounded and ignorant.
This ignorance allows right-wing American Christian fundamentalists to sow their hateful and unchristian doctrine across East Africa. They propose the death of gay people and a more subdued role for women. This is even more saddening on a continent that for centuries suffered discrimination as a result of slavery and colonialism.
How do you explain so much hate towards gay people, an attitude built on the assumption that gay people are inhuman, Aids-carriers or paedophiles? How is the murder of Eudy Simelane, a black lesbian woman, at the hands of a homophobic lynch mob any different to the brutal gun attack on a black township by a racist young white man?
Across South Africa many gay people live in terror of being outed. It could cost them their lives, their family and friends. Black lesbians live in fear of being ‘corrected” through rape.
There is an obligation on the South African government to act in accordance with the Constitution, but it is silent on homophobic attacks in this country as well as on the draconian criminal legislation now before the Ugandan Parliament. It should engage its African counterparts on the need to ensure fundamental human rights for all Africans, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, nationality, race, class or religion.
It is time for a reality shift on this continent of ours. — Name withheld
Defending the indefensible?
I was one of the 1 400 people from 43 countries who were prevented by Egypt from expressing solidarity with the people of Gaza on the anniversary of Israel’s brutal offensive on Gaza in December 2008.
The letters (January 15) responding to Ilham Rawoot’s report on the international Gaza Freedom March show yet another similarity between apartheid South Africa and Israel. Like the apologists for apartheid, who were ever ready to defend the indefensible, any critique of Israel, no matter how mild or from whichever quarter, results in an outraged defence of Israel.
I have little doubt that the time will come when the unconscionable defence of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its crimes against the Palestinian people will be repudiated by current defenders in the same way that today it is hard to find anyone who supported apartheid. I also have little doubt that the Zionist response to my letter will be to accuse me of being a self-hating Jew. — Sue Rudin, Cape Town
The coordinated knee-jerk response by Media Team Israel, the South African Union of Jewish Students and others repeats discredited Zionist mythology and distorted history, ignores inconvenient facts and hides Zionist terrorism against Palestinians. These Zionist propagandists quibble about trivialities to deflect attention away from the core issues.
The essential fact is that Israel is a racist colonial settler entity occupying Palestine. Israel cannot claim legitimacy via the Balfour Declaration, issued by a foreign power, which had no right to give away someone else’s country. — Firoz Osman, Media Review Network, Tshwane
Why do Palestinians not want peace? Israel remains intent upon establishing more settlements on the West Bank, so gradually making a Palestinian state unviable. So the choice is war. Israel does not really want peace either. As for the dangers of Iran, Israel has nuclear weapons, so it is understandable that Iran should want to restore the balance of power, if indeed Iran’s policy is aimed at such weaponry. — Terence Beard
Cultural practices and the law
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi’s article ‘By force of law” (January 15) poses a simplistic framework for the reception of customary law. The reality is that customary law and constitutional democracy are not congruent. Laws such as the Communal Land Rights Act (CLRA) corroborate this. The Constitution is the supreme law and all law should fall within the set parameters. Yet an attempt to develop and modify a contentious customary law would result in a product that is not recognisable as customary law after court procedure.
The pending land rights case should be more robust in defining the relationship between the Constitution and customary law. In the past the Constitutional Court has either displayed deference to traditional authorities or, as in Bhe, exercised caution and struck down the written letter while remaining silent on the living law. The legislature is assigned the task of taking the next step. But legislation like the CLRA is proving to be inconsistent with the community’s logic. Also, customary law is not codified, certain and consistent.
It seems that we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Customary law was never put on paper; it does not operate under precedent. How is this living law, which takes its cue from custom and practice and is evolving with the times, to make sense in a constitutional framework? It is hard to assess because the body of law encompasses cultural practices, some of which, in theory, may offend the liberal Constitution, which nonetheless protects the right to culture.
Maybe a simplistic approach is safest. If a customary law offends the values of the Constitution, it must be abolished. There needs to be a fresh approach to customary law, one that places it in the sphere of modernity without alienating its foundations. If this seems too idealistic to attain, eventually something is going to have to give. A direct application of the Constitution to the living law will whittle it down to a relic. — Zarina Nteta, law graduate (2009), University of Cape Town
No need for reminders
Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela develops two unconvincing premises for why we should pardon Eugene de Kock (‘Towards an anatomy of violence”, January 15).
One is that many other perpetrators of apartheid-era crimes are free; the implication is that consistency demands De Kock (pictured) also be freed. The second is the assertion that releasing De Kock would usher in a ‘politics of remembrance”. The idea is that we need to see the man at our local Woolies (or Checkers, if he has no apartheid gold stashed away) to remember apartheid and thereby be reminded about what sort of society not to return to.
Both arguments are shoddy. The first assumes several wrongs amount to a right. No penal system is illegitimate simply because not all wrongdoers are behind bars. We strive to bust them all and to lock up those we do find and who are convicted after fair legal processes. That is what happened in De Kock’s case.
The phrase ‘politics of remembrance” sounds wonderfully poetic. But, translated into English, it is a simple claim that the only way we can remember never to forget the past is to have perpetrators of crimes among us. What balderdash! As the author acknowledges — undermining her own argument — the mere mention of De Kock’s name conjures up memories of apartheid. If so, we do not need to see him in the flesh. Besides, the challenges of democratic South Africa remind us of apartheid. — Eusebius McKaiser, Centre for the Study of Democracy, Jo’burg
I salute you
The decision by the Appeals Panel of the Press Council of South African to uphold the ruling by the Press Ombudsman that the Mail & Guardian erred against businessman Robert Gumede and the apology drafted by the panel and published in the M&G (January 15), are steps in the right direction.
Apologies are usually hidden under headlines such as ‘For the record”, even when harm has been done to an individual or organisation.
I salute the M&G and its editorial leadership for admitting its shortcomings and publishing the apology.
I hope other media houses follow suit when they are found wanting. — Themba Sepotokele, media trainer, attached to the Sol Plaatje Institute for Media Leadership, Rhodes University
In brief
I find Zapiro’s new ‘rape of justice” cartoon (January 15) offensive and a violation of Jacob Zuma’s dignity. Worse, depicting Zuma in this manner is disrespectful to South Africans who democratically elected him president. — Professor Tuntufye S Mwamwenda, Durban
Thanks to Zapiro for last week’s cartoon, and to the M&G for publishing it and the editorial ‘A special kind of justice”. You have a special kind of courage. — Dot Cleminshaw, Marina da Gama
What a relief to have the M&G back again after the break. I fancy it’s a little thinner, but detect a welcome selection of really interesting articles. I was getting fed up with page after page of introspection on higher education and so on. This edition (January 15) was top-notch. — Ian Alder