Stand with LGBT Ugandans but...

I know you are saddened, anxious, and furious even that another country has, in the 21st Century, passed a law that makes it illegal to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. 

Yes, Museveni signed the bill. The renowned 'Kill the Gays Bill' is now an actual thing. It is a sad day in our history. It must be terribly frightening for LGBT people, their family, friends and loved ones right now. Especially those who are known and/or open about their sexual orientation. We can only imagine.

However, despite your angst, and your wanting to stand in solidarity with LGBT Ugandans as a global community, remember you must be tactful in whatever you do and say. Diplomacy is crucial in these situation. Respect Uganda's sovereignty as an independent nation. Yes, it is important.

Every person, every organisation, every country do not need to send a make a statement. I know you feel compelled to respond but you don't need to call Museveni an awful leader/person. Be respectful. He is still loved and remembered for his strong leadership in years gone when he promoted nationalism. Many still believe he is doing a fantastic job. Do not be bitter in your approach.

As you act, remember the very people whose safety and security you are concerned about still reside and will have to stay in Uganda. Unless it is that you plan to provide every LGBT person safe passage to North America and friendly countries in Europe. Besides asylum largely benefits the middle class when you look at it.

Let your approach be guided by thoughtfulness. Let it be informed by people in Uganda; by those who, despite being a difficult thing to do at this time, will be calm and reasoned. Not those who want extremist tactics. Your approach must be mindful that this very law was strongly encouraged (read sponsored) by evangelicals in North America; that we were aware when this process began several years ago and we watched silently as they played on the ignorance and fears of Ugandans and their leaders. We pretty much did nothing and still have not done anything about the fear mongering that is being exported to our countries.

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.

Public Defender's Irrelevance

The freedom of religion is seemingly the most essential right in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom. Nothing else matters in Jamaica as long as Christians enjoy their freedom of religion to the dismay of other faiths and non-believers. What other explanation could there be for the Public Defender who is mandated to protect and enforce the rights of Jamaicans seeking a legal opinion and possible injunction on the prohibition of preaching on buses?

The last few weeks have been a gift for secularism in Jamaica. We now know that there are about four hundred thousand Jamaicans who are non-religious and about the same who have separated themselves from traditional churches. To top it off, JUTC responding to the outrage of its passengers --- Christians and non-Christians alike, announced a ban on bus preaching. According to the police, persons found guilty can be charged for disorderly conduct. 

I had no doubt this would incite the rage of many Christians and persons who are too afraid to challenge the status quo and privileged offered to this religious group. However, I never imagine certain sects, such as the Office of the Public Defender, would take onus for ensuring Christians can do whatever they please. Would Earl Witter, the Public Defender, do the same for Hindus, Muslims, Jewish and Rastafarians? I highly doubt it.

It is important to note the Public Defender’s admission that his office is severely under resourced. Notwithstanding, he has announced with timelines that he intends to seek legal opinion and a possible injunction to protect the “rights” of the Christian majority. Is this the same person who weeks ago refused to even make a comment about a long overdue Tivoli Incursion report relating to the alleged extrajudicial killings of more than 70 persons? He still hasn't provided us with a date for the report yet there is a clear strategy to treat with the issue of bus preaching. This is preposterous!

The Public Defender is irrelevant. His statement to the media over the weekend and press conference yesterday is evidence of the disregard for the lives of those Jamaicans who lost their life in May 2010 during the Tivoli Incursion.

(Allegations) of extrajudicial killings is a big issue in Jamaica. We rank among the highest in the world. A year ago, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern 'at reports of excessive use of force by law enforcement personnel, particularly during the State of Emergency between May and July 2010 where 73 civilians were killed at the hands of law enforcement personnel.’ The Committee had also requested that Jamaica report in November of this year, what steps have been taken to ‘monitor allegations of extrajudicial killings and ensure that all such allegations are investigated in a prompt and effective manner with a view to eradicating such crimes, bringing perpetrators to justice and hence fighting impunity, and providing effective remedies to victims.’ One would imagine that the Public Defender's Report in the Tivoli Incursion is crucial to this process, especially as it relates to truth and reconciliation for families, loved ones and friends of those who were killed.

Whether or not those who died were in fact criminals is of no consequence. Desmond Tutu, a South African Anglican Priest, who served on the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, advises that the past has ‘an uncanny capacity to return to haunt us [because] an unexamined and unacknowledged past finds all kinds of skeletons emerging from all sorts of cupboards to bedevil the present.’ I can only imagine the anguish that lingers in the hearts and minds of so many persons in Tivoli Gardens.

We have committed similar offences and ignored them throughout our history. Vybz Kartel profoundly made reference to our treatment of Rastafarians over the years in his book The Voice of the Jamaican Ghetto. They were ridiculed and punished. The police destroyed Pinnacle (one of their very first dwelling) and ‘years later they were slaughtered in the Coral Gardens Massacre.’ We cannot afford to repeat our history. The next fifty years of Jamaica should be about mutual respect, truth and justice for all Jamaicans. This is just as important as the economy.

Truth, Tutu said, ‘could be such a potential healer […] Forgiveness is never cheap, never easy, but that it is possible, and that ultimately real reconciliation can happen only on the basis of truth.’ Until the people of Tivoli and the nation has some knowledge about what happened we will never be able to have confidence in our already damaged security and justice system. We made a promise and we ought to do what is right.

If the Public Defender cannot understand and appreciate his role in this regard and subsequently demonstrate this, then I am uncertain of his purpose. Perhaps it is about time we call for his resignation or removal (as difficult as the process may be) if we do not get the report by end of year.