Human Rights or Vindictiveness? Time to Decide A Way Forward!

Note: This is from my weekly column in The Gleaner. I am not sure why it wasn't available online yesterday, so I have decided to upload it here. 

Human rights advocacy is too often laden with vindictiveness--a terrible trait for a movement founded on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and dignity to possess. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission (n.d), “Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe” (my emphasis).  

I understand many of us have been wronged and our impassioned advocacy might be fueled by such experiences but it is pivotal that as advocates we learn to promote our causes without the need to (always?) punish others for dissenting views (and/or even actions). Human rights “are about being treated fairly, [and] treating others fairly”. We must therefore appreciate that fairness and punishment are not synonymous and that they do not have a symbiotic relationship in any way.

As a human rights advocate, I am concerned about the seeming obsession with sanctions and punishment among some of my colleagues worldwide. It is an attitude we must rid ourselves of, as it can be inimical to the relationships we build with key opinion leaders and allies and further retard the progress we dedicate our lives facilitating. I am in no way positing that people should not be held accountable for their undesirable behaviours and practices, but reminding us all that change is not engendered through labeling and punishment. Education is an important and far more effective tool in this process of advancing the rights of all people.  

The outcry by some human rights advocates (I am assuming they all are) to Sizzla Kolanji’s Grammy Nomination in the Best Reggae Album Category is an excellent example. There is no secret “the wildly prolific Sizzla [who] performs melodic, rootsy dancehall with singalong hooks and creative lyricism” (Erin McLeod, 2014) has a particular conviction about homosexuality. He has produced and performed enough songs to apprise us that he ‘denounces’ gays and lesbians. But can someone please inform me how revoking his nomination will help to change his perspective on gays and lesbians? Isn’t the probability that he is more likely to be harsher in his criticism of homosexuals greater than him recognising their inherent rights and dignity? Or is it that our interventions are limited to actions of punishments like cancelling his vsas and shows and nothing else?

I am not saying countries that choose to revoke his visa or promoters who cancel his performances as a demonstration that they eschew violence or degrading treatment of anyone shouldn’t do so. But Sizzla, whose real name is Miguel Collins, began his career in 1995, and has felt the blow of the so called “powerful gay lobby” so many times and has been relentless about his stance. And, despite having over seventy albums, is only just now being nominated for an award. So, although he and his team are elated about this recognition, do we honestly believe he will (re)think about his pronouncement about lesbians and gays? I highly doubt it.

Other nominees in this category are Beres Hammond, Sly and Robbie, Ziggy Marley and Snoop Lion. The nominations committee, however it is comprised, has clearly put much thought in selecting this year’s nominees. The reviews I have read about ‘The Messiah’--the album that earned him the nomination--have been quite good. I have not however, listened to the album. Sizzla’s repertoire is vocally strong as he “challenge[s] listeners with his beliefs and politics” (All Music) on several issues such as babylon, imperialism and homosexuality but the majority of his songs do not chastise and encourage the castigation and ostracisation of LGBT people. It would be good if he changes his position.

We must recognise that progress in human rights, even when there were riots and uprisings, was largely successful because of a dedication to active engagement with opponents, bigots (or whatever we want to refer to them as), not punishment. Are we going to go after LGBT people who express racist views, endorse slavery or say disparaging things about sex workers and people living with HIV or with disabilities since punishment is the only way to encourage respect?

I'm not sure where we learnt or got the idea that punishment is a “best practice” to gain recognition and status for minority groups. The world is a much different place now than when we punished South Africa for apartheid. And even then there was lots of engagement with leaders to see to the end of such a repressive regime.

As advocates we have a responsibility to the people and groups we represent and we must, as best as possible, do so in the absence of anger and bitterness but with love and respect--the very thing we seek to encourage.

Finally, I understand the critical role of our friends--government, multilateral agencies, NGOs, etc--in developed countries play but we must find better ways of engaging them. They don't always need to sign petitions and send damning releases to and about our government's action to show solidarity, for example. There are many ways to show such support. There is no blueprint to do this but we must encourage them to respect and encourage our agency as advocates on the ground as well. Otherwise, their role and place in a global human rights movement can do more harm than good.

I put it to you that the people behind the 56th Annual Grammy Awards could have been engaged in a much better way than asking them to rescind Sizzla Kolanji’s nomination.