Our destinies are bound together (even if our needs are diverse and sometimes at odds)

Monica Roberts at TransGriot is exploring the future of the trans* movement:

“One of the things I was pondering recently was triggered by me seeing a pic of a five year old trans girl.  I began to ponder what her Trans World that we 2K10’s activists are fighting tooth and nail to shape, would be like 10 to 20 years from now…”

Blogger apparently won’t accept a comment this long, so I’ll post my thoughts here instead:

Any time we try to wax prescient about a social issue and its future, we have to be careful not to forget the pendulum effect of social progress.  We have a period of great strides, then a stage of regression, then more advances.  I believe Dr. King understood this before anyone in human rights movements, when he spoke of the arc of the moral universe being long but bending toward justice: it is glacial, and fraught with forward-then-backward strides, but it eventually inches forward.  The trans* movement is definitely in a forward swing, no doubt about it, but eventually we’ll hit another backward slide before advancing once again.

But it’s also crucial to see our own social movement as part of a much larger picture.  More on that in a moment.

Trans* communities still have a few more years of forward motion, no doubt.  The far-right religious persecution complex is unconvincing, and the longer washroom panic is touted but fails to manifest in actual harm, the faster that tactic evaporates.  If Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism (TERFism) manages to change some of the thinking within feminism, that contraction could come sooner, but I don’t believe it will, unless we play too eagerly into TERF persecution games.  More likely, that contraction will happen because of changing priorities.  Something more urgent will come to the fore, and we’ll once again be seen as a 0.01% -sized minority… and that will trigger the next stagnation or regression.

We also have to keep in mind that social movements have a horrible track record of turning on their own, as the difficulties of earlier generations becomes forgotten.  I see a time coming when youth (not this particular generation of youth, who are fighting pioneering battles of their own, but perhaps the generation that comes after them) start being unable to understand how it could have been so difficult to come out or why people would have waited until their late 30s, 40s, 50s or older to begin transition.  And with we older folks being more ravaged by incongruent hormones (especially for trans women, since testosterone is such a vicious chemical), lookism will become a serious issue, as well as greater inter-movement criticism about socialization (sometimes deserved, sometimes overstated).  There will inevitably be a new quest for the “appropriate face” of the movement, as if such a thing could exist, and increasingly those who pioneered progress for trans* people will become seen as a liability to that.

There is a bright side, though, which is found by looking at the larger picture.  Social progressives have reached a wall.  The corporate, religious and political worlds have merged into an oligarchic monolith that we cannot face any other way.  In order for *any* social movements to progress in the larger scheme of things, there has to be a coming together, and getting away from colonial / umbrella-style thinking so that we can all rediscover what it means to be an alliance: that it’s not an assimilationist melting pot, the borders of which need to be rigidly policed and people either belong or they don’t (we keep trying that and failing), but rather a critical mass of varied and unique individuals who all deserve a voice and (the harder part) who all also need to listen… and who stand together for mutual advancement, equitably.  Feminism, racial justice, environmentalism, labour rights, sexual minority equality (LGBTTIQQA2S, as well as poly people, sex workers and other emerging groups), issues of global climate change, reproductive rights, classism, privacy rights and personal liberties (as opposed to neoliberalism), the rights of the disabled, the rights of youth (as opposed to parental ownership), economic justice… in the near-term, all of our destinies are bound together, even if our objectives differ and sometimes even conflict.  The political left is going to have to decolonize if it is to survive.  It will take time, but the need will be for everyone to have a seat at the table.  We no longer have the luxury of infighting… it’s time to either work this stuff out, or else to put the differences aside.

Those lessons will be hard.  The lesbian and gay establishment is still learning that it cannot speak for trans* people, but rather need to empower them.  Some pockets of feminism, likewise, remain too blinded by dubious data and an ideology that says that all sex work is inherently victimizing to actually listen to sex workers when they speak out about what will either harm or empower them.  It’s seductively easy to slip into patronizing condescension and predisposed belief than to listen to and learn from profound lived experience.

It’s also difficult to get others to care about an issue without ceding “ownership” of the issue.  One can’t say labour rights “is an LGBT issue” in a way that means that LGBT people should be dictating what labour needs — but one must still recognize how the systematic dismantling of labour harms the economically vulnerable (including many LGBT people), and amplifies inequality in a deep and systemic way.  Social movements usually see things as an all-or-nothing endeavor: either we own it, or we don’t have an obligation to care about it.  That has to change.  Incrementalism is a lie and steals fire from true, substantial change.  Individual movements must let go of the “us first” impulse and start seeing “everyone together” as the goal.

In these ways, social movements might almost ever be stumbling recklessly toward unity.

So as much as things like lookism will surface in later generations for the trans* movement, it will be mitigated by the larger evolution of social movements.  And as much as TERFism might seek to alienate trans* people from the feminist movement and the greater conversation about gender, it will similarly be mitigated by this.  Exclusion will be a lesser factor (eventually).  Learning to look inward and deal with our own biases and challenge ourselves to rise above them will be the next (and probably much harder) step.  And it will be absolutely necessary.

It also won’t be complete or perfect.  Social movements have a horrible record of backlash and subterfuge, mixed with self-sabotage.  So it all might fail.  Oligarchism might siphon off individual movements one at a time and absorb them.  The lesbian and gay establishment are already vulnerable to this, for example, given the classism that infects the hierarchied LGB(T) establishment.  It is here that the lateness of trans* empowerment and the emergence of poly folks, sex workers, asexuals, et al could prove a saving grace, and in which the LGB community’s gradual (stumbling) learning of how to support trans* people without trying to speak for them could provide lessons for changes to come.

But other assimilations could still be on the horizon.  If the energy industry did a public about-face (for whatever motive), for example, it could possibly absorb the movement against global climate change.  If that resulted in substantial reduction to the harm humans do to the planet, that would be great, yet I could see this sort of a time coming: environmentally-conscious alternatives become available and harnessed by the corporate sector, but the change will require wealth, and those who can’t afford to adapt are seen as the real / new menace.  In this way, people who once lobbied against oil and gas become suddenly not able to afford the progress they fought for… one more way to keep the masses turned upon each other.

Each time the co-option of a movement happens, it steals progressives’ fire, and a movement toward critical mass to address oppression on a grander scale could fail.  Society is at a pivotal time.

And as the political world polarizes, militarizes and veers into mass espionage, that could bode badly overall for social movements, which have historically been viewed as radical and threatening.  So the political pressures will be very much against a coming together of progressives.

And the greatest fear of all is that the general public is remarkably and tragically apathetic.  Just getting people to vote is a difficult task (and that’s if they’re allowed to under growing suppression).  If progress is to happen, it needs something to motivate people in a grand way: not just to scare people about how bad things are getting (which there’s already plenty of, and can be demotivating of itself), but to inspire people with a new vision of how things can be.  That vision is still being formulated.

So that’s the lens I look through.

Returning to trans* communities, the science will improve, certainly.  As Monica says, we’ll see advances in surgical options, probably the biggest leaps deriving from cloning.  Surgical advances on genital-specific health care are more challenging for trans* people, though, because it’s not just about a penis or vagina: the surface stuff can almost be done now (not quite for the guys, but the technology is almost there), but a lot of the inner biological infrastructure will take longer.

Additionally, we might discover the biological triggers (I suspect there’s more than one) that contribute to (as opposed to exclusively cause) someone being trans* — and that could be a mixed blessing of its own, depending on what that future generation decides to do with that new information.

The human rights advances will continue in the west, although Asia and Africa will take longer.  If the social-left decolonizing of activism I wrote of earlier happens, this will significantly help in those regions, as much of the anti-LGBT sentiment there has gained traction because the political right figured out how to hijack the language of decolonialism and mask their own colonial aims.  If the left comes together, the deceptive spin will eventually fail, and LGBT people will become properly recognized as the oppressed class rather than as a potential oppressor to fear.

The backlash to that will be that the political, corporate and social right will seek to dismantle the human rights mechanisms themselves: human rights commissions, rights laws, diversity policies… all of that will be framed as no longer relevant (i.e. “racism is over” / “feminists are the real oppressors,” etc.) and an impediment to the nation’s best interests (a slier way of saying corporate and religious interests).  That’s a looming fight we’re just seeing emerge right now.  We’re winning a lot of the battles, but the war is shifting to a new and larger front.

I apologize for that sounding preachy, something that is certainly not helped by referring to the royal “we.”  I know we have our own individual limitations.  We can’t do everything.  Living in rural Alberta now, I’m very conscious about how much less I do and can do than before, so I don’t say any of the above with judgment.  It’s simply my limited, fallible observation.

Push, pull, forward, backward.  And gradually, we’ll get somewhere.  But it will be rocky.

Uganda passes its Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Uganda has passed its Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009.  A Parliamentary spokesperson, Helen Kawesa, has confirmed it.  The bill now goes to Ugandan President Yowari Museveni, for a signature. Museveni previously said he was not in favour of the bill, but he can’t stop it constitutionally — only delay it at best.  In 2012, Parliamentary Speaker Rebecca Kadaga had promised to pass the bill as a “Christmas present” to her people, following a vocal exchange with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird at a summit in Quebec City.

The bill gained international notoriety in 2009, becoming commonly known as the “Kill The Gays Bill.”  At its inception, the bill contained a death sentence for a number of situations.  Proponents of the death sentence characterized it as applying to pedophiles and HIV-positive persons, erasing that it also applied in cases of “serial” homosexuality.

The version that was passed contains a life sentence rather than a death sentence, in these cases.  Uganda’s New Vision has published a copy of the text, and reports that an amendment to reduce this to a 14-year sentence was voted down.  A coalition of LGBT advocates reports that the life sentence amendment is the only one that had been made to the controversial bill, while the Daily Monitor indicates that MPs also passed a motion to thank the Speaker for the “gift.”

The bill also bans advocacy for LGBT people, and criminalizes anyone who fails to report them to authorities.  Provisions (which had been dissected clause-by-clause at Box Turtle Bulletin) include:

• A definition of “homosexuality” which is so vague that almost anyone could be convicted of it;
• A definition of “aggravated homosexuality” which is overly-broad, and includes “serial” offences;
• A weird “intent to commit” clause that could open any physical contact to interpretation;
• A financial incentive for people to accuse others of trying to seduce them;
• The targeting of friends, family and landowners for aiding / abetting LGBT people, for failing to report LGBT people, and for renting a room to LGBT people;
• The criminalization of advocacy for or even defending an LGBT person with a sentence of 5 – 7 years; and
• The criminalization of anyone who fails to report in under 24 hours anyone who is gay, who witnessed a same-sex wedding (it’s unclear if said wedding had to occur in Uganda), who rents a room to a gay person, and more, with a sentence of up to 3 years.

UPDATE: According to Box Turtle Bulletin, some of these clauses may have been amended after all.

Anti-LGBT legislation has become popular in Africa and Russia because of sensitivity to colonialism, which has been exploited by right-wing western organizations.  These groups have portrayed affirmation of LGBT people, HIV relief and LGBT-positive education as imposing homosexuality on those nations.  Ironically, LGBT people have always existed worldwide — it’s the extreme right homophobic worldview which is in fact being exported to these nations.  In Political Research Associates’ report entitled Colonizing African Values – How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa, researchers noted:

“Homophobia proved a powerful rallying point for many established leaders on the continent… These leaders found they could earn easy support from religious factions, while winning nationalist votes for denouncing the West as neocolonial.

Africans working for U.S. rightist groups also lodge the charge. Human Life International’s regional coordinator Emil Hagamu praised the Ugandan parliament as “typically African” for promoting the “Kill the Gays” bill. “It strives to protect African traditional and cultural values against Western encroachment in areas such as homosexuality and same-sex unions…”“

When Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird, clashed with Ugandan Parliamentary Speaker Rebecca Kadaga at the 2012 Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, it was this claim of colonialism that was threaded through Kadaga’s response.  This claim makes it difficult for the international community to support LGBT Ugandans, without further fuelling the hatred toward them and providing seeming validation of the claim of colonialism.

This blogger has proposed that the most effective way that North Americans can address this tactic is to call out the religious organizations which are fomenting anti-LGBT hatred worldwide, and to also challenge those who support them to explain themselves.  One such challenge was issued to the Canadian website LifeSiteNews (LSN), which has provided ample publicity and a forum to Human Life International (HLI), one of three significant organizations fueling hatred in Africa identified in Colonizing African Values.  Since that challenge, LSN has not replied, but contributions by HLI have diminished, while those by HLI offshoots, like the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) have multiplied significantly.

Other Canadian far-right personalities have previously expressed support for Uganda’s and other pieces of anti-LGBT legislation, although they’re not known to have meddled in Africa in the ways that HLI has, or provided connectable support in the same way that LSN has.  REAL Women of Canada (RWoC) recently lambasted John Baird for his support for LGBT people in Uganda, and the current and former leaders of the Christian Heritage Party have supportively portrayed the Anti-Homosexuality Act as a bill that would curb the spread of HIV.

Another reason that anti-LGBT hatred has been focused on Africa has been the large amount of HIV relief aid funding available in the region, such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) fund provided by the US. Of PEPFAR’s 2009 figure of $285 million spent in Uganda, the only recipient organization which assisted the highest risk group (gay males) was the Most at Risk Populations Network (to the tune of $5000).  The remainder went to religious organizations that teach abstinence-only principles.  Under the Anti Homosexuality Bill, groups like the Most at Risk Populations Network would be illegal and their leadership could be imprisoned for up to 7 years for “aiding and abetting homosexuality” — thus making the most in-need population completely ineligible for the funding (groups that provide support to sex workers are also banned from PEPFAR funding, due to an amendment passed by US Congress). By stirring up anti-gay hysteria and pushing for laws like Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, the extreme right has found an opportunity to have virtually exclusive access to billions of dollars in AIDS-related relief funds — not for condoms, but to proselytize in the guise of abstinence-only education.

John Becker reports at The Bilerico Project that earlier this week, Nigeria has also enacted several anti-LGBT provisions, mostly phrased around same-sex marriage (which is already illegal there, anyway):

But the bill goes far beyond marriage, imposing 5-year prison sentences for a host of activities including providing services for gay and lesbian couples, public displays of same-sex affection, and LGBT rights advocacy of any kind.

Homosexuality is already punishable by up to 14 years in prison, in Nigeria, and 12 Nigerian states are even known to apply the death penalty.  Nigeria’s latest law is probably most clearly understood as a misinformed anti-colonial gesture, as well as criminalizing LGBT advocacy.

(Crossposted to rabble.ca)

Reblog: A Statement of Trans-Inclusive Feminism and Womanism

This is how you decolonize activism.

A wide swath of people have demonstrated how to decolonize activism: not with negativity, but with constructivity.  The following is being reblogged from Feminists Fighting Transphobia, and you will need to follow the link to see the ever-increasing number of signatories who have signed on.  I did not take part in authoring this, but gladly lend whatever support I can — M.

A Statement of Trans-Inclusive Feminism and Womanism

We are proud to present a collective statement that is, to our knowledge (and we would love to be wrong about this) the first of its kind.  In this post you’ll find a statement of feminist solidarity with trans* rights, signed by nearly 100  feminists/womanists from at least eleven different countries [it’s now 383 individuals and 17 organizations — exactly 400! — from at least 15 countries] who wish to affirm that feminism/womanism can and should be a home for trans* people as well as cis.  It has been signed by activists, bloggers, academics, and artists.  What we all have in common is the conviction that feminism should welcome trans* people, and that trans* people are essential to feminism’s mission to advocate for women and other people oppressed, exploited, and otherwise marginalized by patriarchal and misogynistic systems and people.

If you are a blogger/writer/academic/educator/artist/activist/otherwise in a position to affect feminist or womanist discourse or action and you would like to sign on to this statement, let us know!  You can use the form on the contact page or you can email us at feministsfightingtransphobia1@gmail.com.  We’d love to hear from you. [NEW: You can also just sign right on in the comments, particularly if you’re wanting to sign in a personal, rather than professional capacity–this will be much quicker and also easier on our moderators!]

Note: this blog in general and this post in particular are places where trans* people can come and find welcome and support from feminists.  For this reason, all comments are moderated for now, and hateful or abusive or bigoted discourse directed against marginalized groups or their members will not be approved.  It will either be deleted or it will be replaced with mockery of that discourse, depending on what the moderators feel like doing.  To be clear, transphobia, misgendering, racism, misogyny, slut-shaming, etc. are unwelcome.

We particularly welcome comments regarding ways in which feminists and womanists, both cis and trans*, can organize to demonstrate solidarity with and support and acceptance of trans people.  Reading the names of prominent feminists on statements of transphobia is heartbreaking to many of us, but as Joe Hill said, “Don’t mourn; organize!”

– Moderators

A Statement of Trans-Inclusive Feminism and Womanism

We, the undersigned trans* and cis scholars, writers, artists, and educators, want to publicly and openly affirm our commitment to a trans*-inclusive feminism and womanism.

There has been a noticeable increase in transphobic feminist activity this summer: the forthcoming book by Sheila Jeffreys from Routledge; the hostile and threatening anonymous letter sent to Dallas Denny after she and Dr. Jamison Green wrote to Routledge regarding their concerns about that book; and the recent widely circulated statement entitled “Forbidden Discourse: The Silencing of Feminist Critique of ‘Gender,’” signed by a number of prominent, and we regret to say, misguided, feminists have been particularly noticeable.  And all this is taking place in the climate of virulent mainstream transphobia that has emerged following the coverage of Chelsea Manning’s trial and subsequent statement regarding her gender identity, and the recent murders of young trans women of color, including Islan Nettles and Domonique Newburn, the latest targets in a long history of violence against trans women of color.  Given these events, it is important that we speak out in support of feminism and womanism that support trans* people.

We are committed to recognizing and respecting the complex construction of sexual/gender identity; to recognizing trans* women as women and including them in all women’s spaces; to recognizing trans* men as men and rejecting accounts of manhood that exclude them; to recognizing the existence of genderqueer, non-binary identifying people and accepting their humanity; to rigorous, thoughtful, nuanced research and analysis of gender, sex, and sexuality that accept trans* people as authorities on their own experiences and understands that the legitimacy of their lives is not up for debate; and to fighting the twin ideologies of transphobia and patriarchy in all their guises.

Transphobic feminism ignores the identification of many trans* and genderqueer people as feminists or womanists and many cis feminists/womanists with their trans* sisters, brothers, friends, and lovers; it is feminism that has too often rejected them, and not the reverse. It ignores the historical pressures placed by the medical profession on trans* people to conform to rigid gender stereotypes in order to be “gifted” the medical aid to which they as human beings are entitled.  By positing “woman” as a coherent, stable identity whose boundaries they are authorized to police, transphobic feminists reject the insights of intersectional analysis, subordinating all other identities to womanhood and all other oppressions to patriarchy.  They are refusing to acknowledge their own power and privilege.

We recognize that transphobic feminists have used violence and threats of violence against trans* people and their partners and we condemn such behavior.  We recognize that transphobic rhetoric has deeply harmful effects on trans* people’s real lives; witness CeCe MacDonald’s imprisonment in a facility for men.  We further recognize the particular harm transphobia causes to trans* people of color when it combines with racism, and the violence it encourages.

When feminists exclude trans* women from women’s shelters, trans* women are left vulnerable to the worst kinds of violent, abusive misogyny, whether in men’s shelters, on the streets, or in abusive homes.  When feminists demand that trans* women be excluded from women’s bathrooms and that genderqueer people choose a binary-marked bathroom, they make participation in the public sphere near-impossible, collaborate with a rigidity of gender identities that feminism has historically fought against, and erect yet another barrier to employment.  When feminists teach transphobia, they drive trans* students away from education and the opportunities it provides.

We also reject the notion that trans* activists’ critiques of transphobic bigotry “silence” anybody.  Criticism is not the same as silencing. We recognize that the recent emphasis on the so-called violent rhetoric and threats that transphobic feminists claim are coming from trans* women online ignores the 40+ – year history of violent and eliminationist rhetoric directed by prominent feminists against trans* women, trans* men, and genderqueer people.  It ignores the deliberate strategy of certain well-known anti-trans* feminists of engaging in gleeful and persistent harassment, baiting, and provocation of trans* people, particularly trans* women, in the hope of inciting angry responses, which are then utilized to paint a false portrayal of trans* women as oppressors and cis feminist women as victims. It ignores the public outing of trans* women that certain transphobic feminists have engaged in regardless of the damage it does to women’s lives and the danger in which it puts them.  And it relies upon the pernicious rhetoric of collective guilt, using any example of such violent rhetoric, no matter the source — and, just as much, the justified anger of any one trans* woman — to condemn all trans* women, and to justify their continued exclusion and the continued denial of their civil rights.

Whether we are cis, trans*, binary-identified, or genderqueer, we will not let feminist or womanist discourse regress or stagnate; we will push forward in our understandings of gender, sex, and sexuality across disciplines.  While we respect the great achievements and hard battles fought by activists in the 1960s and 1970s, we know that those activists are not infallible and that progress cannot stop with them if we hope to remain intellectually honest, moral, and politically effective.  Most importantly, we recognize that theories are not more important than real people’s real lives; we reject any theory of gender, sex, or sexuality that calls on us to sacrifice the needs of any subjugated or marginalized group.  People are more important than theory.

We are committed to making our classrooms, our writing, and our research inclusive of trans* people’s lives.

Signed by:

Individuals

Hailey K. Alves (blogger and transfeminist activist, Brazil)

Luma Andrade  (Federal University of Ceará, Brazil)

Leiliane Assunção (Federal University of the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil)

Talia Bettcher (California State University, Los Angeles)

Lauren Beukes (novelist)

Lindsay Beyerstein (journalist)

Jamie “Skye” Bianco (New York University)

Hanne Blank (writer and historian)

Kate Bornstein (writer and activist)

danah boyd (Microsoft research and New York University)

Helen Boyd (author and activist)

Sarah Brown (LGBT+ Liberal Democrats)

Christine Burns (equalities consultant, blogger and campaigner)

Liliane Anderson Reis Caldeira (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil)

Gloria Careaga (UNAM/National Autonomous University of Mexico)

Avedon Carol (activist and writer; Feminists Against Censorship)

Wendy Chapkis (University of Southern Maine) – “I don’t love the punch line ‘people are more important than theory.’  More to the point, it seems to me, is that feminist theories that fail to recognize the lived experiences and revolutionary potential of gender diversity are willfully inadequate.”

Jan Clausen (writer, MFAW faculty, Goddard College)

Darrah Cloud (playwright and screenwriter; Goddard College)

Alyson Cole (Queens College – CUNY)

Arrianna Marie Coleman (writer and activist)

Suzan Cooke (writer and photographer)

Sonia Onufer Correa  (feminist research associate at ABIA, co-chair of Sexuality Policy Watch)

Molly Crabapple (artist and writer)

Petra Davis (writer and activist)

Elizabeth Dearnley (University College London)

Jaqueline Gomes de Jesus (University of Brasilia, Brazil)

Sady Doyle (writer and blogger)

L. Timmel Duchamp (publisher, Aqueduct Press)

Flavia Dzodan (writer and media maker)

Reni Eddo-Lodge (writer and activist)

Finn Enke (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Hugh English (Queens College – CUNY)

Jane Fae (writer and activist)

Roderick Ferguson (University of Minnesota)

Jill Filipovic (writer and blogger)

Rose Fox (editor and activist)

Jaclyn Friedman (author, activist, and executive director of Women, Action, & the Media)

Sasha Garwood (University College, London)

Jen Jack Gieseking (Bowdoin College)

Dominique Grisard (CUNY Graduate Center/Columbia University/University of Basel)

Deborah Gussman (Richard Stockton College of New Jersey)

Dr Sally Hines (University of Leeds)

Claire House (International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, Brazil)

Astrid Idlewild (editor, urban historian)

Sarah Hoem Iversen (Bergen University College, Norway)

Sarah Jaffe (columnist)

Roz Kaveney (author and critic)

Zahira Kelly (artist and writer)

Mikki Kendall (writer and occasional feminist)

Natacha Kennedy (Goldsmiths College, University of London)

Alison Kilkenny (journalist and activist)

Matthew Knip (Hunter College – CUNY)

Letícia Lanz (writer and psychoanalyst, Brazil)

April Lidinsky (Indiana University South Bend)

Erika Lin (George Mason University)

Marilee Lindemann (University of Maryland)

Heather Love (University of Pennsylvania)

Jessica W. Luther (writer and activist)

Jen Manion (Connecticut College)

Ruth McClelland-Nugent (Georgia Regents University Augusta)

Melissa McEwan (Editor-in-Chief, Shakesville)

Farah Mendlesohn (Anglia Ruskin University)

Mireille Miller-Young (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Lyndsey Moon (University of Roehampton and University of Warwick)

Surya Monro (University of Huddersfield)

Cheryl Morgan (publisher and blogger)

Kenne Mwikya (writer and activist, Nairobi)

Zenita Nicholson (Secretary on the Board of Trustees, Society Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Guyana)

Anne Ogborn (frightening sex change)

Sally Outen (performer and activist)

Ruth Pearce (University of Warwick)

Laurie Penny (journalist and activist)

Rosalind Petchesky (Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY, and Sexuality Policy Watch)

Rachel Pollack (writer, Goddard College)

Claire Bond Potter (The New School for Public Engagement)

Nina Power (University of Roehampton)

Marina Riedel (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil)

Mark Rifkin (University of North Carolina – Greensboro)

Monica Roberts (Transgriot)

Dr. Judy Rohrer (Western Kentucky University)

Diana Salles (independent scholar)

Veronica Schanoes (Queens College – CUNY)

Sarah Schulman, in principle (College of Staten Island – CUNY)

Donald M. Scott (Queens College – CUNY)

Lynne Segal (Birkbeck, University of London)

Julia Serano (author and activist)

Carrie D. Shanafelt (Grinnell College)

Rebekah Sheldon (Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis)

Barbara Simerka (Queens College – CUNY)

Gwendolyn Ann Smith (columnist and Transgender Day of Remembrance founder)

Kari Sperring (K L Maund) (writer and historian)

Zoe Stavri (writer and activist)

Tristan Taormino (Sex Out Loud Radio, New York, NY)

Jemma Tosh (University of Chester)

Viviane V. (Federal University of Bahia, Brazil)

Catherynne M. Valente (author)

Jessica Valenti (author and columnist)

Genevieve Valentine (writer)

Barbra Wangare (S.H.E and Transitioning Africa, Kenya)

Thijs Witty (University of Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Groups:

Bishkek Feminist Collective SQ (Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia)

House of Najafgarh (Najafgarh, India)

House of Kola Bhagan (Kolkatta, India)

Transgender Nation San Francisco

[See http://feministsfightingtransphobia.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/welcome-to-our-most-recent-signatories/ for our newest signatories, as of the end of the day on September 16, 2013]

[See http://feministsfightingtransphobia.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/six-hours-later-we-have-a-new-signatory-list/ for our newest signatories, as of the end of the day on September 17, 2013]

Using scripture to rationalize slavery by the one percent

I grew up in a Pentecostal church, so I remember the beginnings of some of the dominionist doctrines that characterize far right faith groups today.  There was never any one principal compendium of theology that every church got behind (just as there’s no single denomination in the dominionist movement, and divisions exist), but rather there were different streams of thought that flowed in and gradually changed the course of the river of belief teachings.  It filtered in through books by C. Peter Wagner, sermons by Oral Roberts, through Maranatha Ministries publications, through Youth For Christ media, and various other influences that made up the charismatic movement.  So I remember when “abundant life” teachings became the new dogma.

Abundant life teachings were a loose offshoot of faith-healing, in which congregations were told to put their finances and trust in God and he would consequently bless them exponentially, in return.  If you had only a dollar to your name, you give that dollar to God and he’ll find a way to give you much more in return — a twisting of the parable of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44), changing the valuing of the poor that Jesus-the-man intended into a give-everything ideal that could be taken advantage of in the name of Jesus-the-legend.  There could be no excuse, then, for holding back the amount one tithed, in order to do things like pay the rent and bills, or to buy groceries.

Heads, we were right; tails, you were wrong.

It became another weapon in the shame machine, too.  Abundant life teachings implied that the poor were poor because they were sinners, were irresponsible, lazy.  And if you as a Christian gave abundantly to the church but saw no reward in return, then you needed to search your heart, because it meant that you were holding something back.  It meant that there was some sin, some doubt, some laziness, some guilty pleasure, some impure thought that held you back, and that God therefore would not reward you until it was flushed out and addressed.  And in this way, you were to give everything, and if you saw no return on it, it was your own fault.  A shyster’s dream.

Abundant life philosophy became a part of charismatic philosophy, one of the foundations for what is called the New Apostolic Reformation, or Seven Mountains Dominionism, a kind of roadmap for the Evangelical extreme, fundamentalist Catholicism and other allies to try to achieve theological-based governance.  And this is where it becomes necessary to parse things once again, because I’m referring to narrow branches of philosophy within a faith, and not the whole faith itself.  This becomes blurred, because many of these leaders pass themselves off as speaking for their faith authoritatively, and few actually challenge them on that.  I say this repeatedly in my blog because I believe it’s important that the specific abusive exploitations of Christianity that I single out not be conflated with Christianity itself, and by extension, with all Christians.

Abundant life teachings became a boon to some in the corporate sector, and had a lot to do with the growing together of dominionist doctrine and the Ayn Rand survival-of-the-fittest beliefs of the corporate class.  Abundant life philosophy taught that the rich were rich because they were worthy in the sight of God, and blessed accordingly… a self-aggrandizing patronization that was easy to believe, reflecting the self-important self-image of many financial elites.  And it absolved those who subscribed to abundant life teachings of feeling any social responsibility toward the poor.  Poverty was for the weak, the unworthy, the lazy, the irresponsible… for those who deserved it.  It fit the belief among the rich that anyone could be rich if they simply worked hard enough at it, or believed in God enough — something that fails to take into account the lack of opportunity and constant obstacles faced by the poor.

In case it’s not clear in my writing, I’m not talking about a conspiracy.  There might be another name for it out there, but I call it “coinciding interest opportunism,” the tendency of self-interested parties to move toward policies, beliefs and tactics that suit those interests, resulting in the merger we’re seeing between the top one percent of wage earners and dominionist religion.  The latter provides not only an affirmation of the growing class divide as though it’s pre-ordained by Christ, it also provides a mechanism to devalue the poor, perpetuate shame and keep adherents submissive and believing in the rightness of that submission.

And using abundant life -style teachings, even something as evil as slavery can be rationalized.

Easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than for the meek to inherit the earth… or something like that.

Vyckie at RH Reality Check pointed to a video today that vividly illustrates the convergence between far-right religious fundamentalism and the Any Rand -style corporate opportunism of the upper upper upper class.  It’s a sermon posted online, which expounds on Proverbs 11:29, which reads:

He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind,
And the fool will be servant to the wise of heart.

On the basis of this scripture, Joe Morecraft of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church teaches his congregation that in godly cultures, slavery is God’s chosen fate for the morally deficient:

“There IS a place for slavery, then, in godly cultures.  It’s the only place you can keep a fool under wraps.  It’s the only way you can keep a man from ruining other peoples’ families…”

Morecraft’s church is located in Cumming, Georgia, so there’s quite likely an undercurrent of racism throughout the sermon.  But race isn’t addressed directly at all; only through dog whistles and appealing to parishoners’ assumptions about those he defines as fools.  Interestingly, the language he uses is more often the language used to target LGBT people (i.e. about family) than racial groups.

The video clocks in at 5:50 long, and provides a stunning lesson in the way evil can be rationalized through the use of scripture.  It’s worth watching in full:

How prevalent is this kind of belief?  Well, if you look at all of Christianity, then not very.  But if you look within the narrow, vocal stream of North America’s far right Evangelicals in particular, it’s probably a lot more common than most would want to believe.  Morecraft is hardly a major name among theocrats, although his church is apparently the progenitor of an offshoot of Presbyterianism that now encompasses 12 churches.  His sermon is notable, though, as an example of the ideas that pervade pulpits in average neighbourhood churches — at least in southern states.  While theocrats aren’t usually as blunt and bold as, say, Bryan Fischer, the attitude that equates poverty with sinfulness has become pervasive in the increasingly consolidated far right.

And it’s helped to make religion a tool in the arsenal of corporate social engineers.

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project Dented Blue Mercedes)

Doing something about anti-gay lobbying in Africa

If you’ve frequented any LGBT media at all, you’ve heard about Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill (often referred to as the “Kill the Gays Bill”), and possibly other anti-gay legislative bills that have been debated in African nations.  Perhaps you’ve signed on to petitions directed to various governments to urge them to put pressure on those nations to drop this type of legislation.

And if you’ve been paying close attention, you’ll have seen that when governments do put the pressure on nations like Uganda, often the situation for LGBT Africans becomes worse, with political leaders vowing to enact extreme punitive laws at the earliest opportunity, and the public hatred surging and escalating further.  This has caused LGBT people in Uganda to ask for concerned folks to avoid media and public admonitions, and avoid threats to cut aid, or to avoid tying aid to human rights.

The current approach has enabled anti-gay lobby groups to spin our concern into a perceived colonial will to impose homosexuality on Africa.  In reality, of course, it’s these neo-conservative groups who wish to import their homophobic version of morality on the Ugandan peoples, but when this becomes a pressure-on-nation scenario, it still gives the appearance of validity to claims of colonialism.  Uganda and several other African nations have long histories of suffering under the will of other nations, so this proves to be a powerful and effective point of deflection and deception.

But for those of us in North America who are concerned for LGBT people around the world, this creates a quandary.  We care for the safety and well-being of our sisters, brothers and everyone in between.  We want to do something.

It turns out that we can.  Although it’s best to leave the situation in Uganda and elsewhere to citizens of those nations, we can take the battle to western organizations that are exporting hate.  In the early days of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, we understood this, and challenged people like Rick Warren (successfully) to cut ties with anti-gay agitators, and exposed the full extent of the hateful agendas of others, like Scott Lively.  This, we can still do.  Rather than appearing to impose our will on Africa, we are combating the genuine attempts of neo-conservative groups to impose theirs.

Last week, I posted one such challenge, calling on LifeSiteNews to explain its extensive partnership with Human Life International, one of the groups identified in Colonizing African Values – How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa as being a key anti-gay lobby group in Africa (along with the American Center for Law and Justice, a part of Pat Robertson’s extensive ministries).  To that end, I ask that people sign onto the petition at Avaaz to push LSN for a reply.  I also ask that people encourage their friends to do the same.

This is not the only campaign of the sort that can be launched, of course.

This morning, Canadian publications are reporting that a Canadian group which listed homosexuality, lesbianism and “transvestitism” as “sexual sins” it considered to be “perversion” has been receiving funding from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for work in Uganda.  It is not yet known if Crossroads Christian Communications (a televangelist empire which grew out of the program 100 Huntley Street) has used any of the $544,813 in funding it has received for anti-gay lobbying or even if the group has taken a position on the bill at all — the grant was intended to dig latrines and promote hygiene.  But questions are being asked.  [This report follows on the heels of a January report in Quebec media that indicated CIDA funding of theological aid groups grew by 42% since the Harper Conservatives came to power in 2005, while non-religious groups working internationally saw their funding stagnate (details will be released in the spring edition of the Canadian Journal of Development Studies).]

And on Thursday, February 7th, President Obama spoke at the 61st annual National Prayer Breakfast, sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, a.k.a. “The Family,” another group involved in funding and supporting anti-gay hatred and lobbying.  GetEQUAL condemned the President’s attendance:

“We’d like to see the President stop coming to events that are sponsored by people who are trying to kill and imprison us,” said Cathy Kristofferson, co-lead organizer with GetEQUAL Massachusetts and active supporter of LGBT Ugandans. “We’re disappointed that the president is sending mixed messages to our youth and to our friends abroad, by giving supportive speeches one day and then supporting those who was to murder us four days later.”

Challenge the groups involved in anti-gay lobbying in Africa.  Challenge those who fund, support and cheer them on.  Challenge those who would lend their presence and prestige to these groups, even if some of them are our allies.  The connection to anti-gay lobbying in Africa needs to be called out, shamed, defunded and isolated.

This, we can do.

(The previous Open Letter to LSN and the petition.  Know of similar efforts?  Let me know!  Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

Violence is almost never an acceptable response. Neither is rationalizing it.

In August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins entered the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters and opened fire, injuring a security guard as he was tackled — fortunately, before he could cause any more damage.

Periodically, I see people who I otherwise respect trying to dismiss the incident as insignificant, or even making excuses for Corkins.

Violence is not an acceptable response to hate.  I’ll add the caveat “unless someone is in direct danger.” I believe in the right to self-defense and accept that there could be extreme situations that preclude using the word “never,” i.e. mass criminalization and mob violence.  But that was not the case here and is besides the point.  Floyd Lee Corkins deliberately chose to seek out the FRC with the intent of killing people.  I blame the idiot with the gun.  Whether a right-wing nut or a left-wing nut, violence is not an acceptable response to hate.

When we try to rationalize actions like Corkins’ — even when we’re not completely serious and just using hyperbole — we are (consciously or unconsciously) creating an environment in which violence is seen as an acceptable response.  It isn’t.

Further, rationalizations have a tendency to lead toward absurdity.  The most vivid example of this is the contention that if a woman is raped, she should be held at least partly responsible if she wore a particularly short skirt. Selecting clothes is not an act of consent, and yet increasingly, this rationalization is used to minimize or even absolve sexual violence.  Rationalization of aggression needs to be called out, no matter who is doing it.

“Well, if they’re going to be that way, they’re going to have to expect that people aren’t going to like it.”

And it is not that long ago that being lesbian or gay was rationalized as reason enough to expect to be targeted for violence.  It is still seen that way for trans people.

Instead, be the change you wish to see.

If we are to condemn victim-blaming and rationalizations of hate and violence, then we also need to practice the alternative we expect others to live up to… even if the victim in a particular case has been vile.  I do not believe that violence and fear are the response to violence and fear that we should espouse.  Inspire. Be the change you wish to see. And that means not making excuses for violence.

Challenge the ideology, not the individual.

Identifying hate

The Family Research Council has tried to take advantage of the Corkins episode by blaming the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and has categorized FRC as a hate group for the voluminous anti-gay and otherwise vitriolic / targeted rhetoric it has habitually used.

There is value in what the SPLC does, in that it draws attention to and demands answers for hateful comments.  Identifying hate challenges those identified to either back down from hateful positions or to reveal the full and extreme extent of them for all to see.  Both are revealing to the social dialogue on minority issues.  But identifying hate is not a license to target individuals or groups for violence.  And if we begin rationalizing its use that way, then we risk encouraging people with poorer judgement to act violently, whether we intended to or not.  And if we cannot be clear on this, then we risk losing the moral high ground.

No matter how vile the FRC has been in its rhetoric, violence is not an acceptable response.

Reprise: An Open Letter to LifeSiteNews Regarding Anti-Gay Activism in Africa.

Originally published at The Bilerico Project.  Help out by signing the petition at Avaaz to push for an answer.  And encourage your friends to do the same.

Dear LifeSiteNews,

I have several questions for you about your stance on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill and anti-gay activism taking place in Africa.  I also have reasons why it is appropriate to direct those questions to you, and why it is reasonable to expect an answer.

Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Most people are aware of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill (a.k.a. the “Kill the Gays” bill), which keeps coming up for debate in that nation’s Parliament.  It has been dubbed the “Kill the Gays bill,” although there is some disagreement whether the death penalty is still included (one of the many inspirations for the legislation, American evangelist Scott Lively, believes it has been replaced by a life sentence, and has cheered this).  The last public draft simply replaced the death penalty with a reference to penalties for an unrelated offense — penalties which allow for death.  Whether that penalty is implicitly, explicitly or not in the bill that will ultimately be discussed before Parliament, it also includes the following items, which the website Box Turtle Bulletin has examined clause-by-clause:

• A definition of “homosexuality” which is so vague that almost anyone could be convicted of it;
• A definition of “aggravated homosexuality” which is overly-broad.  If the death sentence remains in the bill, then aggravated homosexuality is the charge to which it would apply.  Proponents of the bill represent aggravated homosexuality as referring to pedophilia, but it actually also includes people who are afflicted with HIV (whether they were aware of it or not), who have sex with a person who has a disability (whether the act was consensual or not), and “serial” commission of any of the included and overly-vague offenses);
• A weird “intent to commit” clause that could open any physical contact to interpretation;
• A financial incentive for people to accuse others of trying to seduce them;
• The targeting of friends, family and landowners for aiding / abetting LGBT people, for failing to report LGBT people, and for renting a room to LGBT people (via a strange reinterpretation of the word “brothel”);
• A 3-year sentence for officiating a same-sex marriage, and a life sentence for being in a same-sex marriage or presenting a same-sex partner as a spouse (it’s not specified whether said marriage needs to occur in Uganda, but keep reading…);
• The criminalization of advocacy for or even defending an LGBT person, with a sentence of 5 – 7 years (criminalization of LGBT advocacy has also been an objective in recent bills proposed in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others);
• The criminalization of anyone who fails to report in under 24 hours anyone who is gay, who witnessed a same-sex wedding, who rents a room to a gay person, who advocates for LGBT people, or who commits any of the other above acts, with a sentence of up to 3 years;
• The criminalization of any of the above offences regardless of whether or not they occur in Uganda, provided they involve a Ugandan citizen, or a portion of the offense occurs within Uganda (i.e. the “failure to report” part).  Extradition demands are also included;
• The nullification of any treaties or portions of agreements which run contrary to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill; and
• The granting of wide, sweeping powers to the Minister of Ethics and Integrity Minister to enforce the act, effectively giving the power to initiate a witch hunt.

Male homosexuality has been illegal in Uganda since colonial British rule in the 19th Century, and is already punishable by up to life imprisonment.  In 2000, wording was amended so that lesbianism could be criminalized as “gross indecency between two persons of the same sex,” which carries a term of seven years’ imprisonment.  So all of the above are in addition to this status quo.

Public attention has been directed toward American Evangelical leaders whose intervention has stoked anti-gay sentiment in Uganda (such as Scott Lively and Don Schmierer), although they did not act alone, and things did not go quite in the direction they had intended (which appears to have been to urge Uganda to legally require gays and lesbians to undergo reparative therapy).  Instead, these interventions have led to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (a private member’s bill by MP David Bahati), as well as increased levels of violence toward LGBT people.  This happened for two reasons: 1) because the creation of a homosexual menace provided a convenient distraction from the government’s own scandals and a way to demonize its opponents, and 2) because of sensationalistic rhetoric used to frighten and enrage the Ugandan public against LGBT people.  Part of the latter comes from people like Martin Ssempa, who is famed for showing clips of graphic scatological pornography to church audiences.

This campaign has been occurring not just in Uganda, but throughout the African continent.  And part of that rhetoric has come from a frequent LSN -contributing and -collaborating organization.

Human Life International

Human Life International is an anti-abortion, anti-gay organization which reportedly spends a quarter of its overseas budget (which is reported to be small, but apparently effective) in sub-Saharan Africa alone, and has an affiliate in Tororo, Uganda (second citation) that it does not publicize on its website.  HLI was highlighted as one of a few key groups that are significant sources of the anti-gay hatred circulating in Africa, in Political Research Associates’ in-depth report, Colonizing African Values: How the U.S. Christian Right is Transforming Sexual Politics in Africa.   HLI has lobbied leaders throughout Africa on issues that fall within its mandate of “life and family,” particularly on abortion (where it has had only moderate success so far) and homosexuality.  It found fertile ground in the latter, and an opportunity to influence politicians.  HLI has also worked with priests and bishops throughout the region to foment its particularly anti-gay worldview, and was profiled in detail in a Catholics For Choice Opposition Notes report.  When the Political Research Associates (PRA) Colonizing African Values report was released, HLI spokesman Stephen Phelan acknowledged to The Guardian that it has affiliates in Africa which it provides with grants, publications and support, ironically phrasing the group’s work as an anti-colonial campaign (more on this in a moment) when stating:

“We feel that it is important for us to be there because the assault on the natural African pro-life and pro-family values is coming from the United States, so we feel obliged to help them understand the threat and respond to it based on their own values and culture… We speak to the deep and natural values of our brothers and sisters in Africa, and help them resist the encroachment of very powerful western interests…”

Human Life International has an extensive and chequered history, being founded in 1981 by Fr. Paul Marx, who later attracted controversy by insinuating that abortion had a Jewish eugenics origin, among other apparently anti-semitic and racist statements.  Marx was the pioneer of shock tactics that included showing graphic images of aborted fetuses to school children, and fearmongering that abortion and homosexuality would bring the end of civilization. Marx resigned amid political infighting within HLI and allegations of financial wrongdoing.  HLI’s affiliate in Canada lost its charitable status in 1997 for engaging in political activity, and Canada is now one of the few western nations in which the group does not have an office.

Subsequent leaders like Fr. Thomas Euteneuer would expand upon Marx’ sensationalism with comparisons between stem cell research and the Holocaust, attempts to twist “bubble zone” laws so that they would allow anti-abortion activists to “counsel” people unimpeded, and wildly conflating abortion and homosexuality with demonic possession and satanism.  The organization has labelled reproductive rights efforts like provision of contraception and abortion as being “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” sometimes even putting providers at risk of violent backlash.

The regional director at work in Uganda, Emil Hagamu, frequently uses the claim that HIV and womens’ health initiatives constitute attempts by western nations at colonialism in Uganda.  He called a bill that proposed to provide pregnant women with access to reproductive health and rights that included contraception and selective abortion in certain circumstances in Tanzania a radical and “foreign ideology that is being imposed on our African culture whose objective is depopulation.”  Uganda still reels from over a century of British colonial rule, so claims of colonialism still resonate — even if they ironically come from western theological groups seeking to spread western homophobia.

HLI’s Director of Research and Training Brian Clowes has made several sensationalistic statements, including claiming that the availability of birth control and condoms increases abortions, and that sex abuse claims involving clergy were part of an “opportunistic” gay conspiracy.

HLI was also an early supporter of Paul Cameron, who proposed castration and the death penalty as ways of combating homosexuality.  HLI stood by him until his comments about combating HIV by branding the face of anyone infected or even the “elimination of the carrier” drew so much negative attention that the group was forced to disinvite him to speak at a conference.

HLI’s former public relations director Jason Jones is famous for alleging in 2006 that:

“Homosexuals reproduce sexually by molesting children.  This creates a cycle of violence and disordered behavior that creates future generations of abusers and predators.”

In June of this year, the Uganda Joint Christian Council (UJCC) lobbied the Ugandan government to reintroduce and pass the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, even though the Vatican itself has finally stated opposition to the death penalty provision.  42% of Uganda’s population is Catholic, so their support for the bill is significant.  This even signaled a reversal of position by Roman Catholic Bishop of Uganda Cyprian Lwanga, who had previously denounced the bill as being contrary to “a Christian caring approach to this issue.”

This change appears to be at least partly due to HLI’s lobbying of Catholic leaders in Uganda.  Bondings 2.0 reported a teleconference with Rev. Kapya Kaoma (lead author of Colonizing African Values…) and Frank Mugisha, Executive Director of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG):

“It’s not true that they [Roman Catholics] are not involved,” said Rev. Kaoma, noting that Human Life International has good relationships with the Catholic hierarchy. “Together with Anglican archbishops, certain Roman Catholics demanded the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda be passed.”

Mugisha noted that the Catholic archbishop in Uganda did ask that the death penalty be removed from the bill, but that the Catholic Church still has not taken an official position on whether the bill should be passed.

“In Uganda, they [Roman Catholic Institution] haven’t stepped up to say anything or challenge the bill,” Mugisha said.  He added that in fact, the Catholic bishops have joined with other Christian groups to support the bill.

Additionally, while legislators were promoting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2010, HLI’s Regional Director, Emil Hagamu, bragged of meeting with many of Uganda’s clergy:

“The Ugandan parliament is typically African.  It [the parliament, that is — the Mission Report is careful to avoid naming the bill – M] strives to protect African traditional and cultural values against Western encroachment in areas such as homosexuality and same-sex unions. Uganda is the center of attraction for population control bigots. I set my foot on the soil of this country and was received by the Catholic Secretariat of the Bishops Conference staff. The Secretary General of the Catholic Bishops Conference sent a car to pick me up from Entebbe International Airport, a drive that takes 30 minutes…”

There is at least one possible incentive to do this sort of work in Africa, and it is certainly a lucrative one.  Economic aid to Africa figures high in discussions of African politics and the changing social climate, and the types and amounts of funding to be had are significant.  HLI and UJCC have both vied for PEPFAR funding in the past, for example.  PEPFAR is an emergency fund intended to stem the spread of HIV in Africa, but due to U.S. government lifting of restrictions on proselytization, plus the imposition of bans of assistance to groups who assist sex workers and other high-risk groups, it has become increasingly seen by far right neo-conservative groups as a means to conduct ideological missionary work, through the guise of abstinence-only education.  Provisions in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would provide theologically-driven groups the additional benefit of criminalizing LGBT advocacy or assistance, thereby removing organizations that work with another high-risk population from competition for PEPFAR and other HIV-related funding.  Barring clear documentation, however, a PEPFAR motive still needs to be acknowledged as being speculative.

HLI has not been the only group working in this capacity, but it has been a prominent one.  And it’s possible that HLI’s partners might be unaware of the results of HLI’s lobbying, but it’s certainly reasonable to expect a statement from its partner organizations, when this activity is pointed out.

Where LifeSiteNews comes in

LifeSiteNews (LSN, sometimes also called LifeSite) was started as a media arm of the Canadian anti-abortion and anti-gay charity, Campaign Life Coalition.  LSN has taken on outside contributors since 2011 that have included loose cannon Bradlee Dean, people from groups like Live Action, Breakpoint.org, and others.  But before this influx, the website has networked with, publicized and posted articles from HLI leaders since LSN’s earliest days (LSN only started tagging to index its authors in 2011), and HLI continues to be featured most prolificly among non-staff contributors.

LSN contributors include (but are not limited to) current HLI President Fr. Shenan Boquet, HLI Director of Education and Research Brian Clowes, former interim head and frequent “demographic winter” alarmist Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula, current VP for Missions Fr. Peter Welch, Communications Director Stephen Phelan, HLI’s Regional Director in English-speaking Africa Emil Hagamu, and the occasional badly-formatted press release by former President Fr. Richard Welch (who seems to be the only HLI leader that LSN didn’t like).  And when Human Life International spokespeople are not contributing to LSN, the website is often reporting HLI’s leaders speeches and pronouncements with enough importance that they seem to convey an almost papal authority.  LSN has even assisted disgraced former leaders of the organization escape criticism, like founder Fr. Paul Marx.  LSN published Fr. Thomas Euteneuer’s defense of himself plus a glowing tribute, after he resigned amid scandal involving inappropriate sexual activity with a woman upon whom he was performing an exorcism (legal documents go further to allege that the sexual activity was non-consensual).

LSN additionally publishes for and signal-boosts HLI offshoots Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), C-FAM’s President Austin Ruse, and Population Research International (PRI) President Steven Mosher.  Those groups formed in the wake of several HLI scandals, including the 1994 revocation of HLI Canada’s charitable status for excessively engaging in political activity (which ultimately led to the organization’s eventual fold in Canada in this decade).  The creation of these organizations allowed HLI to gain some indirect consultative status at the United Nations that had initially been denied, due to their notoriety.  It also helped HLI to develop think-tank -style data in order to combat science on overpopulation, yet keep from being mired by the poor reputation that HLI had developed.   While C-FAM and PRI were set up as apparent independent organizations, evidence suggests that they were governed to a degree  (at least in the beginning) by HLI, and are meant to seek their spiritual guidance and political direction from their parent organization.

LSN’s support of HLI has been highly visible with regard to the group’s work in Africa.

When the government of Nigeria proposed a law to ban same-sex marriage (which was already illegal), and also make it an offense to witness, aid or abet anyone who engages in one, Human Life International published a congratulatory article which began:

Pro-life and pro-family supporters in Nigeria are rallying around a bill currently being considered in the Nigerian Senate that would prohibit same-sex “marriage” in Africa’s most populous country amid threats from the United Kingdom to cut aid if countries do not protect homosexual “rights.”

“Human Life International Nigeria is joining forces with other pro-life organizations and well-meaning Nigerians in mobilizing support for the defense of this bill,” said Chizoba Nnagboh, Human Life International (HLI) country director in Nigeria…”

LifeSiteNews faithfully reposted the article.  There was a glaring journalistic oversight, though.  It failed to mention that homosexuality is already punishable by death in 12 Nigerian states, and up to 14 years imprisonment elsewhere in the country.

This was pointed out previously, and yet on Monday, LSN profiled Nigeria again in December, repeating the omission of the existing death sentence — and presenting the 14-year sentence as though it would be altogether new.

There are concerns that threats of withholding aid could aggravate homophobic violence and legislation, rather than help.  But it is fair to challenge the organizations that have been stirring up this polarized sentiment and exporting western homophobia to Africa.  It is also fair to challenge those who fund, promote and support those groups.  LifeSiteNews has clearly done at least some of the latter.

One of LSN’s own staff penned an article highlighting Uganda’s refusal to bow to pressure to drop the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in 2009, but the organization later gave voice to concerns that the bill’s punishments would be too severe.  Thus, LifeSiteNews’ own editorial perspectives have also been mixed enough to warrant clarification.

My questions to LSN

The death penalty has been presented or at least interpreted by legislators and religious leaders in Uganda and Africa as a “Christian” solution to homosexuality.  This is partly due to the influence of groups like your partner, HLI.  Western organizations of faith have also not done much to condemn them, but have instead heralded Uganda as an example for other nations.  This has signaled to an African public — and to people around the world — that killing gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans people is acceptable or endorsed in the eyes of Jesus Christ.

It’s possible that LSN is unaware of the extent of HLI’s lobbying in Africa, and the effect it has had in developing extreme legislation and propagating anti-gay hatred.  But the closeness with which the groups work implies that LSN would seem to (at best) tacitly condone what their partner organization is stirring up by turning a blind eye to the result.

LifeSiteNews, you are certainly welcome to dispel this perception.  This is why I invite you to answer several questions about your stance on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill:

1. What has LifeSiteNews done to respond to the penalties proposed in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, and how does it intend to respond in the future?
2. Does LSN view capital punishment as a reasonable response to homosexuality?
3. Life sentences and extreme imprisonment durations have also been proposed in the bill.  Does LSN view life imprisonment or 14-year sentences as a reasonable response to homosexuality?
4. Does LSN support banning advocacy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people?
5. What is the nature of the partnership between LSN and HLI?
6. In light of Human Life International’s influence in bringing about an environment in which the Anti-Homosexuality Bill has gained popularity, is LSN prepared to change its working arrangement with HLI?

I eagerly await your response.

(Readers are invited to sign on to a petition at Avaaz to push them to answer for supporting HLI)

Understanding the legalities of First Nations struggles in Canada, present and past.

This is 35 minutes long, but Russell Diabo (publisher of the First Nations Strategic Bulletin) provides an informative and important discussion about the complexities of the issues surrounding the Indian Act, the Harper Government’s termination agenda, the #IdleNoMore movement, Chief Spence’s hunger strike, and Bill C-45.  This comes courtesy ThePerfectPlex’s YouTube channel.

Previously: Treaties are Between Nations

Additional:

• Royal Commission Report on Aboriginal Peoples;
• For a shorter summary: Taiaiake Alfred and Tobold Rollo’s brochure on Resetting the Relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Canada;
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
• Rabble.ca Indigenous Rights & #IdleNoMore coverage;

Treaties Are Between Nations: An #IdleNoMore Solidarity Post

When I first started blogging, I mentioned something that I’ve only talked about occasionally, since.

I wrote about being Métis but passing for white and living in urban Canada.  This brought with it an escape from most serious forms of discrimination that First Nations people face, and something that should be acknowledged as privilege, even if it wasn’t consciously pursued.  It also brought many occasions of people letting fly the judgmental assumptions and beliefs that they have about Aboriginal peoples, thinking it’s “safe” to do so around me.  And then, when I get angry and reveal that I’m Métis, those people simply change their behaviour.  Their opinions haven’t changed, they simply decide to be more careful about speaking in front of me.  It’s also not unusual to have them also start projecting those assumptions onto me.

There’s a reason that I don’t write about it a lot.  I grew up in urban Canada and was largely not told about about my heritage, or with anything that would connect me to it.  In recent years, I’ve been able to make some positive connections and rediscover things, but remained preoccupied with other activism, life in general, and especially the sucking black hole of the day-to-day work of economic survival.

Part of it was my own fault, too.  I learned many of the negative attitudes from Canadian culture, and internalized them (directing them inwardly and occasionally also outwardly) until I finally realized I needed to question them (and I occasionally still discover some screwed up way that I’ve unconsciously internalized things).  While I can take some solace in the fact that I’d changed my perspective, the fact that it took so long is still something I’m not proud of.

And so being disconnected from that heritage, having escaped the worst of anti-Aboriginal prejudice, and also having spent some of my youth being ashamed of it, I’ve never seen myself as someone who could be inspiring about Aboriginal issues or have much right to speak out.

Supporting #IdleNoMore

That notwithstanding, I feel a need to at least express my support and do something to draw attention to the #IdleNoMore movement which is spreading and which the mainstream media is trying to ignore in hopes that it will go away.  There are many things I can’t claim to speak with authority on.  But I can speak to my own reasons for supporting this movement, and why the “assimilate already” attitude from non-Aboriginal Canada toward the First Nations fails.

Decolonial Thinking: Putting Words into Practice

Additionally, I’ve previously written to trans audiences about colonial thinking, describing it as “how various classes lay claim and ownership over each other and impose regulations, will and rules of conformity that run counter to other classes’ needs.”  Decolonialism is the process of seeking to dismantle the socially-constructed ways that societies create and reinforce oppression and colonization of peoples, cultures, characteristic classes and nations throughout the world.

A movement — any movement, trans or otherwise — can too easily get hung up on its own issues and forget that its struggle is part of a larger whole.  And while it is not physically possible to be all things to all people, or to involve oneself in all forms of activism (nor is that good for one’s health), we do have some responsibility to be aware of others’ struggles, be empathetic, and be prepared to at least be a voice when the opportunity presents itself.  It is crucial to recognize that decolonization is not merely a process of liberating ourselves, but one of challenging the world we create and empower through tacit obedience on a universal level — to question the actions undertaken supposedly under our name, with our assumed consent, whether we’ve elected and empowered the governors in question or not.  Decolonial thinking is an aspiration not only to liberate a single minority, not only to liberate multiple intersecting minorities, not only to liberate ALL minorities, but to deconstruct the ways by which we marginalize and oppress — to wholly dismantle the ability to institutionalize oppression.  Or at least, that’s my personal take on decolonial thought, anyway.

Any discussion about decolonialism needs to acknowledge the fact that literal, institutionalized colonization still persists.  It persists in the Anglophone / Francophone conflict in Canada, and in the various race and immigration struggles here and south of our border.  And it persists most vividly in Canada’s treatment of its First Nations.

Historically, the First Nations have experienced depopulation and genocide, exile within their own homelands, economic impoverishment made worse by theft and/or destruction of reserve land resources, and institutional attempts to obliterate their cultures and traditions, and replace them with western ideologies and values.  But this is not merely historical, and my own loss of heritage is merely one of countless examples of how that cultural erosion and eradication continues to occur.  While #IdleNoMore was ignited by the ways that the Harper Government’s omnibus budget bills have dismantled previous agreements with the First Nations, the kindling has been decades of invisibly erasing a nation.

We still have a tendency to think of Canada as a single nation, with everyone subsumed by it.  That’s a problem.  Treaties are signed by nations.  Plural.

Nations, and Other Distinctions.

And that illustrates just one of the many things that complicate justice and equality for Aboriginal peoples.  Canadians have long ago stopped thinking of the First Nations as nations — as though the treaties resulted in their dissolution and absorption into Canada.

This has allowed a cognitive dissonance to infect the public consciousness over the past century or more, in which Aboriginal peoples are often characterized by some as (forgive the paraphrase) “spoiled brats who want to be special.”  The non-Aboriginal “solution” to First Nations plights has always been to assimilate people to the point that they become like “any other Canadian,” and our governmental policies have always been keyed toward this objective.  But dissolution of the First Nations as nations was never agreed to, and it’s because of this that the erasure of Native culture over two centuries has taken the form of separation of children from families, denigration of traditions, and sometimes even extermination of entire populations (most familiarly through the use of things like smallpox-infected blankets, but evidence is surfacing about other atrocities as well).  Canada never had authority to actually dissolve the First Nations, so it set out to do what it could to disempower, erase, and break them.

This is why you have the atrocious conditions at places like Attawapiskat (and it should be acknowledged here that both conditions and legalities are very different from place to place because of the different treaties that were signed, the varying limitations on communities to self-govern, the different visions of those communities, etc.).  Treaty-designated reserves and territories are exempt from Provincial laws (which sometimes gets spun as “preferential treatment” elsewhere in Canada).  But treaty legalities limit the way that Aboriginal communities can self-govern.  And where self-governance exists, federal legislation often prevents communities from establishing a legal system with teeth that can actually enforce Aboriginal laws and regulations in a meaningful way.  That is how you can have homes built upon floodplains, riddled with mold, without fire-suppression sprinklers or other safety considerations that would be illegal under fire codes, without sanitation, and basically uninhabitable.  This is how you can have a school built and torn down shortly afterward because it was built over toxic waste.  This is why the only solution available for deplorable housing can be to build yet more homes that will eventually be uninhabitable.  Canadians outside the experience of Aboriginal plight see only the money, and not the complex morass of institutionalized chaos that keeps that money being spent in a grossly ineffective state of triage.  Or the fact that that money has to address everything for Aboriginal populations — from housing to health care to education to infrastructure to utilities to social supports like addictions assistance and suicide prevention… many of them things that the average Canadian also benefits from but aren’t including the price tag in their comparison.

Agreements.

That’s where the Indian Act comes in — a piece of legislation which was said to implement the agreements made in the treaties.  It was a deplorable piece of legislation in the first place, steeped in racism, and until 1960, it even denied Native peoples the right to vote for the government that determined their fates, unless they renounced Indian status first.  20 major amendments to the Indian Act later, we still have First Nations ravaged by economic exploitation (revealing the worst of capitalism), and barriers to communities that want to grow and flourish and determine their own destinies.  Not all have done badly under these agreements, but those who’ve done well are very often aware of how easy it is to fall into despair, and how difficult it is to climb back out.

And so, the Harper government now steps into that by unilaterally making changes to those agreements, as though the First Nations do not even need to be consulted at all.  In the massivesupermegaomnibus “budget,” some of the few guarantees that government historically did provide to the First Nations were struck off, to allow for more corporate exploitation — without anything substantial in return.  And then when you hear neo-liberal pundits like Spin Media entertainer Ezra Levant talk about it, you hear spin that the best way to deal with it all is to dissolve the First Nations and give them the legal right to sell their land off to oil companies.  Harper’s own response to Attawapiskat was to try to impose an emergency manager, reminiscent of the tactic being tried (in attempt number two, now) to arbitrarily break minority communities in Michigan and sell off public assets.  And it is not a heartening sign when the Prime Minister ignores and refuses to meet with Chief Spence, follows the Tom Flanagan playbook and appoints an Indian and Northern Affairs Canada minister who had been a former forester directing the destruction of Haida lands, and who once viewed the department he now heads as:

“… the money vacuum. …. Furthermore, it is a cruel, unfair hoax on the Canadian taxpayer because despite all the federal largesse and misguided paternalism, those status Indians who live on reserves do not pay income, property or sales taxes on purchases delivered to the reserves….”

This is why Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike and the #IdleNoMore flashmobs, round dances, railway and highway blockades, and other decidedly peaceful acts of resurgence and reclamation are part of a multifaceted issue which can’t be boiled down to one law, one action or one easy fix… or even one particular group to negotiate with, for that matter, which could complicate resolving things.

Now, in the above, there is probably at least something I screwed up, got wrong, mischaracterized, failed to reveal the full scope, have overemphasized victimhood, etc.  I do know, for example, that some consider the word “Aboriginal” objectionable, while others embrace it — terminology debates are not just limited to trans communities, but I’m not versed in all the nuances of that discussion to make a decision on that word.  I often don’t know specifically where I’ve messed up my characterizations because I don’t have the lived experience, and this is why I don’t typically write about First Nations issues.  But I challenge people to question the assimilationist mentality that has often been passed off as “conventional wisdom,” complete with dismissive finger-pointing.

And that is why I support #IdleNoMore, and issue this challenge to my readers: don’t accept the media, mainstream or party line for truth.  Question everything.

Some recommended reading:

The #IdleNoMore Manifesto;

âpihtawikosisân’s Idle No More: There’s good reason the Natives are restless;

Her follow-up, Where do we go from here?

Pam Palmater gives some idea of how legislation (not just the massivesupermegaomnibus “budget”) discussed by the Harper Conservatives as of November impacted the Indian Act, using Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve & Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (which in true Harper fashion, was presented as a way to protect women) as an example;

Intercontinental Cry discusses the suite of bills passed or in process affecting the treaties, and puts them in the context of the White Paper of 1969;

And if you want to focus just on the numbers, âpihtawikosisân gives a frank breakdown of the disputed dollars in Attawapiskat as an example.

(Crossposted to rabble.ca)

On Persecution Complexes and Rage

The interplay of rage and persecution complexes works to shape trans, LGB — and in fact all — struggles against oppression.  It can become an eternal feedback loop that can stymie any attempt to move progressive causes forward, if it succeeds in establishing its circuitous pattern.

This translates to many struggles, so I’m going to speak generally and with varied examples — but I’m reminded of this most recently by the claims of persecution over a confrontation that happened at the New York dyke march, by Cathy Brennan, so will probably focus there most frequently.

(Oh dear god, I invoked the name. Now here come the bajillion bloody emails and the character assassination — it’s like goddamn Beetlejuice.)

Because I’ll be talking in generalities, I’ll be using terms like “oppressor / oppressed.” And because privilege is relative, and we all have some form of it or another relative to someone else, there are times when just about any group takes on the role of the oppressor — ourselves included.  So if I jump around a bit, you’ll need to bear with me.  The principle is what I’m focusing on, moreso than the many players.  Rather than participate in the game, I’d rather dismantle it.  Break the cycle, not perpetuate it.