Free speech, and the cruel shackles of empathy and mutual respect

In Canada, we tend to value freedom of speech very highly, and it’s often said that the best way to counter objectionable speech is with more speech.

That’s the first thought that crosses my mind in the case of U of T professor Jordan Peterson, who declares in a series of YouTube videos that he will not honour trans* peoples’ chosen pronouns, and opposes trans* human rights protections, all in the name of combating “political correctness.”

Of course, that would be an ideal world. In the real world, it’s still not that unusual for discussion of trans* issues to devolve into a “balanced” debate between pro- and anti-trans* academics over whether they exist at all, without any annoying context like actual trans* people being present to discuss their lived experience of, well, existing.  In the real world, there are real problems about who gets to speak, and how widely they can be heard… and the marginalized are often not given much voice to matters that affect — and are specifically about — them. In fact, the established and prolific voices in today’s media are more often quick to reject attempts to “inflict” change, or energetically create a lopsided portrait.

Speech is not a truly universal and equitable thing in the first place. Rather, it is something that is dependent upon access to favourable platforms, and is usually pre-emptively muddied by characteristic value judgments made about the speaker’s class, gender, race, etc.

Nevertheless, we strive for it as best we can. And in doing so, we arrive at the next irony: the very act of protesting ignorance with speech becomes itself heralded as evidence of censorship — as if the only way one’s speech can be truly free is for everyone else to remain silent.

The outcry and protest of ignorance [edit: example removed, was based on bad information – M] is speech, too — that of the protestors.  But in a disparate society, privileged speech is defended, while protest of it is often minimized, marginalized and dismissed as rowdiness, whinging, totalitarianism (!), censorship, and noise.  It becomes: “a little free speech for me, and a little shut-up-and-take-it for you.”

But let me back up for a moment.

Jordan Peterson is a University of Toronto (UofT) psychology professor who began his rants — especially about, but not limited to, trans* people and a “radical leftist ideology” — in late September, saying from the beginning that he felt he could face consequences, and even feared government or university reprisal because of existing human rights and hate speech laws.  He told Postmedia:

“I think (Bill C-16) risks criminalizing discussion about aspects of human sexual behaviour and identity that we need to discuss,” said Peterson, explaining that there are layers to C-16 — the biology of sex, gender identity and gender expression, for example — that could cause problems down the road.

One of his top stated concerns has been with the inclusion of trans* people in existing hate crimes legislation. The thing that people forget about this when it pertains to speech, though, is that the law has already been tested and shown to apply only exceedingly sparingly. If Bill Whatcott’s homemade but mass-distributed “anal warts” flyers equating LGBTQ people with pedophiles, and lyrical invitations to “kill the homosexual” skirt the edges of hate speech — some permissible and some not — then Peterson probably has nothing to worry about. Speech can indeed be hateful, and yet still not be legally actionable as hate speech.

But given that he seems only (or at least primarily) worried about human rights and hate crimes legislation when it pertains to LGBTQ people, one has to wonder if the concerns are cover for fears about the growing acceptance of trans* people in society.  He stated from the beginning that he will not use non-binary pronouns for other people, even if they request that.  He also said in his first video that he is “scared by the people behind the doctrines,” and attributes them to a radical Marxist ideology (reminiscent of the “cultural Marxism” panic making the rounds among social conservatives). He even compares the latter to Naziism, because of what he considers “murderous” and “Marxist” policies around the world.

Peterson frames his views in an academic and perhaps libertarian perspective, rather than a religious perspective, but he has been enjoying the support of religious conservatives.  This is probably because his views are quite compatible with the right-wing narrative that accepting and acknowledging trans* people as they need to live is (as enunciated regularly at LSN) a “disservice” and “false compassion because it’s not true.”

Peterson’s remedy to all of this dreaded political correctness — and what he calls upon listeners to help him with — is to propagate a “No PC” sticker campaign across the campus, and beyond.

The response to his videos has been mixed, with fierce supporters and opponents.  It has reportedly spawned threats, and affected some students’ class attendance.  In recent days, personal information about trans* students was circulated in far right subreddits, and protesters were nearly overwhelmed by an angry mob that allegedly included neo-Nazis.  This puts the University of Toronto in a quandary, as calls for reprisal — including possibly firing Peterson — have arisen.

From my perspective, reprisals like firing are not really a preferable end goal. We do value freedom of speech in Canada, after all — especially in academic settings — so there is that kernel of validity, even if Peterson’s speech is disrespectful or hateful. He’s entitled to his opinion, and also to be a jerk about it, on his own time.  Restrictions on freedom of speech are too often used to oppress minorities rather than people of privilege, anyway — much like the “homosexual propaganda” ban in Russia, which conservatives are still trying to figure out how to lobby for in North America.  It’s that extra step that Peterson wants to take it with students and colleagues which makes the question particularly difficult.

When I say this, though, it’s also partly because I’m an avid reader of social conservative media, and understand the undercurrent of persecution narrative activism. It’s why I can recognize what likely motivates someone who — without anyone ever asking him to respect trans* people in the first place — took it upon himself to loudly and energetically pursue free speech martyrdom anyway.

And personally, I see no value in giving it to him. Peterson’s actions — whether deliberately or by coincidence — are destined to place him in a growing collection of social conservatives who self-immolate for a few moments of anti-LGBTQ fame. It’s become trendy to seek a place on the Kim Davis speaking circuit, alongside Fundie cake bakers, and the twice-suspended Alabama Chief Justice who tried to singlehandedly overturn marriage equality in the United States.  Free speech martyrdom is also Ezra Levant’s entire schtick (which he’s still trying to parlay into a media network), so it also has just as valid and active a presence in Canada outside of overtly religious circles.  Whining that someone’s “special right” to dignity and equality is trampling your perfectly ordinary right to discriminate seems to make you a far right folk hero, these days. One of the end objectives of this, of course, is to insert a special religious exemption in human rights laws, so that people can practice their faith by refusing to sell to, hire, or otherwise co-exist with heathens (I might have got the precise wording wrong on this, because I don’t remember the particular scripture where Jesus commanded his followers to willfully disrespect and refuse to do business with sinners — I keep getting hung up on the “love one another” and “give unto Caesar” parts, for some reason).

Anyway, free speech martyrdom will allow Peterson to play hero… or at least until some other dupe comes along. After all, the whole value of the Kim Davises and Melissa Kleins to conservative activists only lasts as long as they’re useful to the two legal groups (Alliance Defending Freedom and Liberty Counsel) trying to etch anti-LGBTQ discrimination into American law, plus the allied think tanks, religious organizations and media outlets that are parasitically fundraising off both their successes and their failures. The Kleins, for example, recently closed their bakery, ruined because they thought that refusing to do business with a lesbian couple was a noble idea — and now they’re almost forgotten, except by the vaguely-phrased legend of the cake bakers. In that circuit, the fate of someone like Jordan Peterson is irrelevant.  The point of beatifying the speech martyrs is to entice more dupes into creating more situations that help build a narrative which frames LGBTQ peoples’ rights to live, work and do business as automatically and inherently persecuting to people of faith… something that Peterson’s firing would fit into just as beautifully as any technical victory he might (though it’s a longshot) find some way to score.

Either way, giving Peterson the glory he seems to seek really only feeds an ongoing anti-LGBTQ political tactic — even if deceptive — and gives it power.

Yet, there does have to be some form of limit. There’s no denying the destructive effect of cumulative aggressions and microaggressions. It’s one thing to be told by someone that they think you’re deluded and that they refuse to respect you. It’s quite another to be told that in billionuplicate, at every turn, by several people you don’t know (and even worse: some you do), without you ever having done anything to warrant the hostility. If you pay attention to news related to trans* people, you know that stories of suicides due to bullying and harassment arrive on a weekly basis… and that’s only the reported instances.

Because as valid as the need to protect free speech is, it is also very often weaponized, and used to gaslight entire communities that just want to be able to participate in society and be accorded the same dignity and respect as anyone else. It’s used to minimize them, tell them they ask too much, and shame them into going away — back into their closets would be just fine, for example. Remember what I said about free speech in the real world being often a one-sided or lopsided thing.

But where to draw the line on hateful speech is almost impossible to determine. It’s easy to limit speech in cases of libel and direct harassment or incitement. Cumulative hatefulness, though, is difficult to realistically pin on an individual, especially given that an individual doesn’t always intend the hostile fallout generated by their supporters or the like-minded. I don’t know that it can be done legislatively, except in extreme and / or intended instances.

What has to happen is a mass awakening, and a mass rejection of ignorance — and unfortunately, the pace of that kind of change is glacial. Of course, mass backlash will still be framed as persecution and censorship, but it will be better recognized widely as a reasoned response to bigotry.  And that takes time and awareness… and continual revisitation.

And if there is no clear legislative solution, then there’s not a lot of guidance outside the court system, either. So I understand the position this puts the University of Toronto (and potentially the Ontario Human Rights Commission, if it came to that) in… particularly with the issue of pronouns.

The thing to keep in mind about pronouns is that deliberately misgendering someone is itself an act of hostility — an act of asserting that you know better than someone else who they are, what they need and what their life experiences mean. It’s putting your inconvenience of having to adapt ahead of the reality of their entire lives. It’s not just about invalidating one’s choice of pronoun — it’s about claiming the right to authoritatively invalidate everything that they know about themself(/ves)*.

[* And if you paused for less than five seconds to look at that, understood it — however awkward that pronoun might have looked — shrugged and moved on, then congratulations: you’re far better able to cope with gender neutral and / or singular “they” pronouns than a UofT prof!]

Allowing Peterson to speak his opinions about “gender ideology” is one thing. Having him publicly vow to deliberately antagonize and disrespect students and other faculty members is quite another.  And as the increasing tensions and threats over the course of his campaign have shown, sustained, hateful free speech can have serious consequences.

So what is to be done?  The best scenario would be if Peterson would recognize where he has stepped beyond speech into deliberate antagonism and borderline incitement, maybe apologize, or at least leave things be, but that’s obviously not going to happen.  Probably, the only result that both he and trans* advocates and supporters will be satisfied with is some form of free speech martyrdom, in the form of firing or some lesser kind of censure.

And this will inevitably once more feed the conservative persecution complex, and the dreams of a Trump-like saviour to free them — in the words of the inimitable Samantha Bee — “from that prison, and the cruel shackles of empathy and mutual respect.”

(Crossposted to rabble.ca)

No Rainbow for Queer People: A Right-Wing Support for Russia Roundup

While much of the attention surrounding Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” law has been about whether there should be a boycott of the Sochi Olympics, the saga has continued to ripple outward in several directions, including statements being made in support of the law by Canadian and American far-right spokespeople.  Here is a round-up of several developments outside the Olympics debate, and some thoughts about what these statements of support are actually saying.

(And before proceeding, I do want to make an important point clear.  While many anti-gay / anti-trans groups phrase their revulsion for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans — a.k.a. LGBT — people as being a Christian position, it’s worth noting that not all Christians subscribe to it, and many argue that the framing of this struggle as one of “gay rights versus religious freedoms” is un-Christian, and abuses faith to justify bigotry.  An online project has been started for affirming people of faith to let their views be known, and is worth checking out.  For this reason, I refer to these groups as being far right groups, as opposed to being Christian groups)

1. R.E.A.L. Women of Canada and the Collective Letter of Support

Since making national headlines by speaking out against Foreign Affairs minister John Baird’s support for LGBT people in Russia, Uganda and other hotbeds of violence, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada (RWoC) has joined over 100 international anti-LGBT groups to sign a statement expressing support for Russia’s “Homosexual Propaganda” law.

The letter characterizes Russia’s Federal Law 135-FZ passed on June 29th as “[protecting] innocence and moral formation of children by prohibiting propaganda of “non-traditional sexual relationships” among them.” What the law effectively does, though, is to ban any public affirmation or support toward LGBT people, including public Pride events, LGBT community support services and more.

The organizations claim that they are defending families in the name of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 16 (3)).  R.E.A.L. Women of Canada has special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

The organizations go on to make it clear that they refuse to acknowledge the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people, which they consider “fabricated”:

“With its new law Russia is protecting genuine and universally recognized human rights against artificial and fabricated “values” aggressively imposed in many modern societies. We also note that the concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are not outlined in the existing binding international treaties and agreements…”

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada faced a backlash over dismissing violence in Uganda during their previous statement of support.  After receiving criticism from even traditional right-wing supporters, RWoC went to great lengths to state that they oppose violence against LGBT people.  They then blamed the CBC for RWoC leader Gwen Landolt’s dismissive comments.

Yet, not once in this new letter of support for Russia do the organizations condemn the violence and the volatile situation that has arisen in the wake of the law.  That decision wasn’t entirely RWoC’s, of course, but they certainly had a choice about whether to raise the issue with other signatories, and / or whether to sign on to a statement in which this wasn’t addressed at all.

2. C-FAM Claims “Human Rights Groups” Support Russia’s Law

The letter that RWoC added their organization’s support to was also signed by Mission: America, GrasstopsUSA, the World Congress of Families, a few Islamic groups, and many Eurasian organizations, some of whom are lobbying for similar laws in their countries, or have such laws in development.

C-FAM and Population Research International (PRI), who are regular contributors at the Canadian website LifeSiteNews, also signed on.  Both C-FAM and PRI are offshoots of Human Life International (HLI), an organization that was indicated as being one of the major groups stirring up anti-LGBT sentiment in Africa.  HLI itself is not listed as a signatory. C-FAM wrote about the letter of support for Russia as though it were a news item, under the headline of “Human rights groups support Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law,” and without disclosing to readers that they’re one of the groups on board:

“A statement from civil society affirms the recently enacted Russian law, which imposes fines on individuals and groups that promote homosexuality among minors, as important steps towards fulfilling international obligations towards the family and minors…”

I previously challenged LifeSiteNews both publicly and privately to clarify its partnership with HLI, and its stance on the latter group’s alleged fomenting of anti-LGBT hatred in Uganda.  While there has been no response to that challenge, there appears to be a marked shift of public advocacy from HLI to its subsidiaries (C-FAM and PRI), possibly because of the report that identified their activities in Africa.

3. Scott Lively Even Wants to Take Away Your Rainbow

Scott Lively, the Massachusetts author, lawyer and activist who gladly takes credit for being the self-described “human rights consultant” who lobbied Russia, Uganda and others to ramp up their anti-LGBT laws, also wrote an open letter to Vladimir Putin, in which he repeatedly compared LGBT people to Nazis (which isn’t new to him), and urged Putin to stand firm against international pressure to undo the law:

“The battle to protect your society from homosexualization has only just begun, and you may be surprised to discover in the coming months and years just how aggressively many world leaders will work to try to intimidate and coerce you to capitulate to homosexualist demands…”

In 2006 and 2007, Lively toured Russia and some Baltic states, lobbying for several laws, of which the propaganda law was only one part:

During that tour, which began in the Russian Far East city of Blagoveschensk and ended in St. Petersburg, I lectured in a variety of venues including numerous universities, churches and conference halls, and met with numerous government leaders at various levels of influence.  The entire tour spanned approximately 50 cities in seven countries: Russia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus (we also passed through Kazakhstan but didn‘t speak there).

With Lively’s encouragement, the first “homosexual propaganda” ban was enacted by the City of St. Petersburg, Russia, and several other cities, states and countries that Lively lobbied are in some stage of considering or enacting a ban, including Ukraine, Moldova and Lithuania.  Lately, he’s been pushing for the opportunity to lobby the conservative governments in Australia and Britain.

And his latest strategy suggestion to Russia?  Sabotage any attempt by athletes to make a small visible gesture of support for LGBT people, by taking away the rainbow:

This article is a call to Christians and Jews (and Moslems — who also revere the book of Genesis ) to take back the rainbow from the “gays.”  I am urging pro-family leaders and advocates everywhere to start using the rainbow again, especially in ways that clearly link the symbol to Biblical opposition to the “gay” agenda, or which remind the world of its true meaning.  One way to do this is to create our own rainbow flags and banners bearing the slogan “The Rainbow Belongs to God: Genesis 6-9, 19” or a similar message.

4. LifeSiteNews’ Sensational Scoop

LifeSiteNews is also attempting to make issue of the concerns that LGBT-positive athletes have, and discussions about the possibility of showing some gesture of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people in Russia during the Olympic Games.  To this end, LSN is fixating on an audio recording made by MassResistance in which Patrick Burke acknowledged that some athletes do intend to show some gesture of support, and are still considering how.  LSN frames the discussion as being about smuggling LGBT pride symbols and propaganda:

“Here at a journalism conference someone gives a presentation on how they’re planning on disrupting the Olympics, and it’s not news,” Brian Camenker, director of MassResistance, told LifeSiteNews.com. “CBS News was there, CNN was there, Fox News, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Time-Warner, National Public Radio – all of these people were there, and it’s not news.”

“It’s an international incident, and no one seemed to think” it is newsworthy, he said in disbelief. “There’s been a lag time for somebody to say something on this, and nobody seemed interested in reporting this.”

“You’re the first people who have called on this,” Camenker told LifeSiteNews.

If LSN’s and MassResistance’s efforts result in athletes or teams being refused admittance to Russia for the Games, of course, it appears to be of no consequence to them, just as long as support for LGBT people is silenced.

5. What Other Far-Right Spokespeople Are Saying

These have hardly been the only far-right ideologues to voice support for Russia’s bill.  Some other examples:

Bob Vander Plaats, head of the group The Family Leader:

Vander Plaats praised Putin for taking a stand and saying “don’t bring this homosexual propaganda into my country for the Olympics; we believe in one man, one woman marriage; there is no homosexual marriage in Russia.”

Linda Harvey of Mission America (another of the signatories of the aforementioned letter):

In our country the sexual anarchists are whaling [sic] because Russian children and teens will not be allowed to hear homosexual propaganda. Children won’t be told, falsely, that some are born to be homosexual. They won’t be encouraged to declare themselves homosexual at age twelve or thirteen and label themselves for the rest of their school years. Russian children won’t be taught that they are victims of the mainstream, straight world, that they should develop deep resentments and hostiles and shouldn’t trust anything tradition-minded people say or do. The risks of same-sex relationships won’t be carefully hidden from them, as they are here, and they just might have healthier, more stable lives as a result.

They won’t be told that biblical moral standards are hateful and harmful; that abstinence until marriage is impossible and recommending it is discrimination; nor that sex as a young teen is perfectly normal, constructive and manageable with latex. They won’t learn that two men or two women should be seen as a married couple and that no one should ever blink an eye at the terms ‘her wife’ or ‘his husband.’ They won’t be taught that Jesus now suddenly accepts homosexuality and always did and that modern, enlightened theologians have discovered pro-homosexual meanings in Scripture that no one else did over several thousand years and that all those verses that call homosexuality sin really mean something else. In other words, the kids in Russia may get to live lives as kids and not be weighed down with adult agendas laced with adult deception.

Now I would never give a stamp of approval on all that might be going on in Russia but this is one area where it seems I agree with them. They have apparently observed the harm being done to kids in the West as a result of homosexual exploitation and are pursuing a much wiser course before global gay activism gets a foothold there. If there is room in our prayers for the people of Russia friends, and I’m sure there is, let’s pray that children there continue to be allowed protection in this way and in every other way God would want as well.

Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association:

They understand that homosexual behavior is a moral evil among teenagers.  Now, they need to get to the point where they realize that it’s a moral evil for anybody, but at least they’re ahead of us on recognizing that it’s a moral evil to propagandize this lifestyle among teenagers…

… in my mind, we ought to be celebrating this, and I don’t know what the timidity is, why there is such a hesitancy in the pro-family community to support this law… but this is public policy that we’ve been advocating and here is a nation in the world that is actually putting it into practice.

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

Folks, I’m afraid that the lessons that the United States of America has to teach the world on homosexuality these days are mostly negative: Avoid our mistakes. Don’t become like us. Don’t foster the promotion of radical sexual and gender agendas to your young people. Don’t allow your government schools to become ‘pro-homosexuality zones’ for impressionable students. Don’t treat unhealthly sexual perversions and gender confusion as a “civil right” or “human right,” etc.

Ron Gray, of the Canadian podcast, Roadkill Radio, and former leader of the Christian Heritage Party:

You know, that makes good sense.  People who take children to watch a gay Pride parade, for example, or in any way push such propaganda on innocent children are inmy mind actually guilty of child abuse.  And that goes for teachers, politicians and media types who tell children the lie that homosexuality is praiseworthy.  Look, lying to our kids in any form is shameful and wrong.  

Homosexual behaviour is, in fact, dangerous.  And that doesn’t mean that homosexual people should be persecuted or maligned.  They’re unfortunate, and they should be helped to overcome their dangerous addiction to unnatural behaviour.  But we shouldn’t tell children that homosexuality is commendable or admirable.  It’s not.  It’s dangerous.  It’s a vector for diseases that have become epidemic among homosexuals and among other sexually promiscuous people…

We’ll discuss Ron Gray’s emphasis on conflating homosexuality with disease and harm, in a moment.

The Ripple Effect

The “Homosexual Propaganda” law has been at the centre of controversy since it was passed, and has sparked an enormous wave of violence against LGBT persons.

It’s an issue that seems to take a new twist every day, and in several directions — with the question of Russia’s hosting the Olympic games only being one.  The Russian lawmaker who proposed the bill has been having authorities investigate her critics. A prominent LGBT activist unfortunately also caused controversy when he apparently made abhorrent anti-Semitic comments on Facebook and Twitter.  A number of Russian citizens have sought refugee status in order to avoid returning to the country, and the Deputy General Director of the Russian State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company (RTR) has declared that the hearts of LGBT people “should be buried in the ground or burned as unsuitable for the continuation of life.”

The controversy has even spilled over into western nations, such as with a UK Department for Education policy ban on affirming LGBT students, which drew comparisons to the Russia’s law.

Several videos of beatings of gay and trans people have surfaced since the law was enacted.  One group oddly co-opted the naming and language of the “Occupy” movement, has conflated those targeted by the law with pedophiles, and advocates for violence:

Martsinkevich, who sports a mohawk and often appears bare-chested in his videos, founded Occupy Pedophilia and encouraged his followers to pour urine over their victims’ heads to “cure” them of homosexuality.

Never Mind the Violence.  Or the Hypocrisy.

The support for Russia has revealed several hypocrisies among the ideological far right.

Several of the organizations that have signed the letter have previously complained that having to respect LGBT human rights violates their freedom of speech and conscience.  Yet they have clearly supported restricting LGBT-positive speech to the point of banning it from public view and discourse entirely.

Many have also complained that their nations have not done enough to safeguard the human rights and safety of Christians around the world.  But when it comes to LGBT people, their concern is that attempting to do so would violate nations’ sovereignty.

Why Anti-LGBT Laws are Proving Popular Overseas

The comment on sovereignty is key to understanding why bans laws like Russia’s are proving popular.

Discussions about colonialism and sovereignty are the means by which American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have successfully swayed discussion in many African, Asian, South American and European nations.  Given that some of those countries suffered under colonial rule and others fought pressures by western corporate and political interests, it is an accusation that resonates with many nations, who still resist western influence and wish to assert their own power.

By phrasing homosexuality and transsexuality to sound like western inventions and a plot, attitudes like Lively’s have found fertile ground.

What Anti_LGBT Groups Are Actually Saying In Supporting Them

If it’s not already obvious, it’s important to recognize that “protecting” children from anything that might affirm and validate LGBT people is simply seen as a stepping stone to “protecting” anyone from that message.  If not, re-read the quotes above.

The far right has realized that in the modern world, people have largely started to realize that people don’t simply choose to become gay on a lark (or transition between sexes on a whim), and that the old mythic characterizations of LGBT people have failed as more friends, relatives, co-workers, celebrities and more have come out of the closet.  The first strategy for the far right, now, is to shame, intimidate and silence the next generation back into hiding, and then try to extend that to the rest of society.

This is why education is such a major fight.  I previously noted (parts 1, 2, 3) how the far right conflates anything that supports and affirms LGBT students with indoctrinating propaganda.  Much of this argument requires the public to believe that schools are encouraging kids to try same-sex encounters, when what they’re really concerned about is anything that contradicts the far right message that homosexuality, transsexuality and such are abominations and unacceptable.  It’s what resides between the lines of what many of the aforementioned folks say on the subject, such as this comment from Linda Harvey of Mission America:

Why are we in such a place friends where children learn that homosexual behavior is noble, that amputating healthy body parts [Harvey’s way of referring to sex reassignment surgery] is admirable but the mention of Jesus Christ during a graduation ceremony is controversial? I’ll tell you how: it’s because not enough of us are calling this lunacy what it is. We need to have a clear idea about what is evil and speak up about it in order to preserve the good. These actions are pure evil and should be declared child abuse. This all starts with the lie that homosexuality can ever be a good thing or that changing one’s gender can ever be in the child’s long-term best interest when it’s easy to demonstrate that it’s not.

It also requires the public to believe that simply being gay or trans is harmful, and not in the public good… because that is the far right’s second strategy, and it’s easier for them to simply state it over and over as though it were factual, in hopes that the public will follow that lead, rather than to have to quantify it with anything more substantial than pointing to HIV and some faulty or cherry-picked studies that fall apart with a few questions.

Allegations of Harm

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada has not satisfied itself with merely signing a letter to support the Russian law.  The group has also posted a brief by an anti-LGBT legal organization which regularly embroils itself in attempts to fight or overturn LGBT human rights advances, Alliance Defending Freedom.

In the brief, ADF claims that Russia’s “propaganda” law is not discrimination, does not ban organizing, does not silence LGBT persons or groups, and does not result in detentions of LGBT people… even though these things have already been evidenced in the way that Russia has applied the law. ADF’s lead author, Roger Kiska, can’t be said to be without bias either, since he has previously signed onto similar letters, including this protest of American support of a Pride Parade in the Czech Republic.  ADF does curiously and correctly note that another law passed in Russia calls for sentences of up to three years for “offending religious feelings,” and has not garnered the same response from international media — but ADF attributes this to hypocrisy rather than a failure of reporting and public response.

ADF’s brief, says RWoC, is evidence that the “propaganda” law is not discrimination, and is merely protecting children.  To accept this argument, you have to accept their premise that if children hear anything positive or accepting of LGBT people, or are in their proximity, then that is inherently harmful to them.

In 2011, B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman’s polygamy ruling stated that rights and freedoms — including religious freedom — could be limited, provided harm could be demonstrated:

“In my view, the salutary effects of the prohibition far outweigh the deleterious. The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times. It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.”

Some far right critics have already seized upon this as being contrary to Canada’s rulings legalizing same-sex marriage, and an indication that it could be re-criminalized if enough “harms” could be raised to justify doing so.  In applauding Russia’s “propaganda” law, RWoC is expecting Canadians to accept the premise of harm caused by children merely hearing or seeing anything that affirms LGBT people, but without having to quantify that harm.

Russia Isn’t Sitting Still, Either

Russia is now proposing a law to remove children from the homes of LGBT families, in order to protect them.  The bill’s author, Alexei Zhuravlev, said that the ban on homosexual “propaganda” should not simply be applied in public spaces, “but also in the family.”  He was later asked if a child should be taken from a single mother if she were discovered to be lesbian:

‘Of course she should definitely be deprived of her rights to the child,’ he said.

‘Homosexuals must not raise children. They corrupt them. They do them much more harm than if the child were in an orphanage. I am deeply convinced of this.’

One would expect organizations that claim to be standing up for families and the best interests of children to oppose this new proposal, regardless of what they thought about the parents in question.

But then, you never know.

REAL Women of Canada, and the naked far-right truth.

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
¹⁶ You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
¹⁷ Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
¹⁸ A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
¹⁹ Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
²⁰ Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
— Matthew 7:15 – 20

Gwen Landolt, of R.E.A.L. Women of Canada (RWoC), has drawn fire for a press release she sent out last week, in which she condemned Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s support for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people in highly oppressive nations like Uganda and Russia.  Landolt takes issue with government agencies advocating for their safety both publicly and behind the scenes.

What her action has really done, though, was to expose the naked truth about the attitudes held by some of the leaders and spokespeople of some of Canada’s far-right organizations, and the depths of their intolerance.

What remains to be seen is whether Canadians will sit up and take notice of what has in fact been a growing trend.

The press release criticizes Baird for “[abusing] his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia,” saying:

“He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage…

“Last week, Baird admitted working extensively behind the scenes to prevent Russia from passing legislation designated to protect Russian minors from homosexual propaganda.  Baird blasted these laws as hateful, anti-gay and intolerant.  Russia has also restricted foreign adoption of Russian children after incidents of horrendous child abuse; for example, adoptive “fathers” in Australia together with other men, sexually abused a 6 year old boy, starting at 22 months of age, born of a Russian surrogate mother…”

“Pro-Life” Apparently has an Exception

What Landolt is deliberately omitting is the fact that the attention being paid to Uganda specifically has to do with its Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which had at its genesis included a death penalty for homosexuality.  While this death penalty may or may not still be in the bill (which is awaiting reintroduction and being kept somewhat secret, at the moment), homosexuality is already criminalized in Uganda with sentences of up to 14 years in prison, and the bill would add several alarming new dimensions, including:

• 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.  If the death sentence remains in the bill, then aggravated homosexuality is the charge to which it would apply;
• 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 (criminalization of LGBT advocacy has also been an objective in recent bills proposed in Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others); 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.

Landolt’s characterization of Russia’s “homosexual propaganda” bill is no better.  She repeats the Russian claim that the bill is to protect minors, even though the law applies to virtually any positive portrayal of LGBT people, and in any public or Internet space.  Emboldened by the passage of the legislation and the sentiment surrounding it, violence and predation has surged dramatically.

More importantly, Gwen Landolt demonstrated that she is aware of the facts she is omitting… and doesn’t care.  In an interview with CBC, she made a weird argument that a human rights issue isn’t a human rights issue if the nation in which it is occurring doesn’t consider it to be a human rights issue.  And then, she went further:

When asked about reports that Uganda has considered the death penalty as punishment for having homosexual relations, Landolt said, “It may be unwise by Western standards, but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?”

A Far Right Group Implodes

This was too much for even Canada’s ideological right, drawing criticism from Barbara Kay, of the National Post, who said that Landolt “set at an unbridgeable distance well-wishers and occasional collaborators,” herself included:

Does  she realize the implications of what she has said? And from whose moral-relativist playbook she has drawn this leaf?

… If Ms. Landolt believes it is justifiable to ignore the persecution of people whose beliefs or behaviours she is unsympathetic to, as long as it is happening elsewhere, she has lost the moral authority to criticize persecution in other countries of those whose beliefs and behaviours she *is* sympathetic to.

Kay closed by speculating that R.E.A.L. Women of Canada “may just have imploded,” while other conservative writers are dismissively writing off RWoC with characterizations like “a housewives’ advocacy group that’s view of women was frozen in time around 1958.”

R.E.A.L. Women of Canada presents itself as “one of Canada’s leading women’s organizations,” but has for decades has been directly opposed to feminism and womens’ issues that they find theologically offensive, such as abortion, contraception, sex work, affirmative action and even unions (which have driven several of the gains that women have made in the workplace).  RWoC also has a reputation for trying to stymie international initiatives to better the lives of women, if those initiatives include reproductive rights (i.e. contraception), LGBT rights, feminist objectives and more.  They have acted as legal interveners on nearly every major social issue that has come before Canadian high courts, including a 1993 attempt to prohibit abortion, the 1999 ruling that gave same-sex couples the same legal and economic rights as opposite-sex couples, the legal battle over whether spanking was child abuse, a court decision on whether safe injection sites could be legalized, a few different cases where they attempted to establish legal personhood for the foetus, and the Supreme Court’s hearing on the sex work.  Gwen Landolt is famous for apologizing to the world on Canada’s behalf when Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and earlier this year, R.E.A.L. Women of Canada claimed that extending human rights protections to trans people was a plot to normalize pedophilia.

It remains to be seen if the group’s special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations will be affected by Landolt’s antics.

Fringe ≠ Alone

Gwen Landolt’s devil-may-care attitude is far from unique among the Canadian far right.  (And it is at this point that I need to clarify why I use the phrase “far right” so much, and “Christian” not at all.  Although many of the ideological far right phrase their perspective as being Christian, it is not truly representative of Christian faiths, at least a few of whom are LGBT-affirming.  I believe it’s important to make that distinction for many reasons, including the fact that this clarification dispels the belief that there is an inherent and irreconcilable conflict between LGBT human rights and religious freedom).

Indeed, it takes little time to find other far-right figures sharing similar perspectives.

RWoC’s frequent collaborator, LifeSiteNews (the media arm of Campaign Life Coalition), has lauded Nigeria for its anti-LGBT legislative proposals, and also applauded Uganda’s refusal to bow to pressure to drop the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, in 2009.  They later softened the stance on Uganda’s bill, but continue to collaborate with an organization singled out as one of three key groups fomenting anti-gay hatred in Africa.  LSN and C-FAM have also portrayed Russia’s anti-gay law as one of protecting children from the promotion of “deviant sexual behaviors,” saying that the suggestion that the law is a form of discrimination “appears to be more hyperbole than anything else.” LSN even recently attacked American televangelist Pat Robertson for not being extreme enough.  Naturally, the website has also posted a more-or-less one-sided article echoing Gwen Landolt’s sentiments, and posting the Prime Minister’s office information so that readers can flood him with same.

Although less known, Ron Gray, RoadKill Radio host and former leader of the Christian Heritage Party, also touted Russia’s anti-gay law as something that Canada should strive for, adding (barely a minute into the video):

“People who take children to watch a gay pride parade, for example, or in any way put such propaganda on innocent children are in my mind actually guilty of child abuse.  And that goes for teachers, politicians, and media types who tell children the lie that homosexuality is praiseworthy…”

RKR has also campaigned against LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying education, networked with Scott Lively (an architect of both Uganda’s and Russia’s infamous laws), and has also been guilty of obscuring facts about Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

When Was the Last Time an American Conservative Wanted to Emulate Russia?

Gwen Landolt’s comments also come at a time when American far right groups are trumpeting Russia’s law in similar fashion, and encouraging developing something similar on this continent, such as this declaration from a National Organization for Marriage spokesman:

With the battle for the family waging across this nation, instead of condemning a sovereign nation for its laws we need to be changing ours. The family unit is under attack and we must stand against those who want to redefine and destroy it. The family is the foundation of a society and the glue that holds it together. I applaud the Russians for taking a stand for children!

The day may be coming soon in which Canadians will need to decide whether these things are truly representative of the Christian perspective, or whether “Christian” is being exploited as an excuse to hate.

While it is tempting to dismiss Gwen Landolt and R.E.A.L. Women of Canada as being “fringe,” it’s important to realize that their ambivalence toward the lives and well-being of LGBT people is not occurring in a vacuum.  It’s also important to know that given the group’s seeming ability to regularly circumvent Parliamentary process so that they can be added on to committee and Senatorial meetings (as happened on at least two occasions with the recent trans human rights bill C-279), it has not been without its influence.  Indeed, the press release was just starting to appear on news sites’ front pages, when senior Foreign Affairs officials already met with RWoC representatives to hear their grievances.  “Fringe” isn’t supposed to have government departments on speed dial.

They Hypocrisy of Crying Colonialism

And what’s more, Canada’s ideological far right seems to be unable to recognize that these attitudes are indeed hateful, and out-of-step with Canadians.  Instead, Landolt says:

Mr. Baird’s actions are highly offensive to conservative taxpayers.  He cannot and must not undermine other countries’ sovereignty and dignity, rooted in stable family structures and religious faith, in order to impose his own value system on them.

Incidentally, Landolt’s discussion of sovereignty and accusation of colonialism is curious, in that this tactic is the means by which American Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have successfully swayed discussion in many African nations.  Given that many countries on that continent suffered under colonial rule and are still relatively recent to sovereign status, it is an accusation that resonates with many African peoples, who still desire to resist western influence and remain self-determining.

Ironically, the tactic is being used to deflect attention from the fact that those same Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are attempting to export their homophobia to Africa, a continent where anti-gay sentiment and rhetoric was not previously of any significance.

And if RWoC is aware of and careful to use similar talking points, then it’s safe to say that their — and Landolt’s — attitudes have not developed in a vacuum.

What LifeSiteNews’ attack on Pat Robertson says about religious freedom.

Last week, there was some curious notice given to American televangelist Pat Robertson, after he expressed support for transitioning trans people, and their access to sex reassignment surgery.  Less noticed was the backlash from other far-right groups over the same comments.  But it’s worth revisiting, because of what that backlash says about the far right’s battle cry over religious freedom.

It’s very common for far-right ideologues (who I try to distinguish from “Christians,” because they don’t speak for all Christians) to hide behind religious freedom, and cry censorship when they are called out for transphobic and homophobic comments.  It has created a public perception of there being a false dichotomy between LGBT human rights and religious belief / practice.  It also creates a weird conflation between holding people accountable, and “persecution.”

Personally, I’d rather that folks speak freely.  It’s much easier to challenge the content of what is being said, and demonstrate the authentically bigoted attitudes underlying far-right agendas.  We’ll probably never change the minds of the Fred Phelpses of the world, but their words and actions say a lot to society at large.

That’s probably why I keep coming back to LifeSiteNews.

LSN is a Canadian faux-news website under the aegis of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), which is pretty unabashed about wanting to end or restrict abortion (with no exceptions), contraception, hormone therapy, in-vitro fertilization (IVF), feminism, organ donation, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, LGBT relationships of any type, LGBT parenting, cohabitation and divorce, and far more.  LSN has cheered on Russia’s highly punitive and violent legislation against LGBT people (Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be a champion of religious freedom to LSN, of late), and continues to support organizations that foment anti-gay hatred in Africa, despite having been called out for doing so.  LSN has been known to deliberately omit important information, like when the website cheered on new anti-gay legislative proposals in Nigeria, while “forgetting” (despite reminders) that 14 Nigerian states already have the death penalty for LGBT people.  Other coverage will sometimes conflate homosexuality and pedophilia, or make a total ban on LGBT expression and advocacy sound like it’s protecting children from pornography.  But overall, LSN’s agendas are usually fairly nakedly obvious with just a little bit of examination.  So it often provides vivid examples to clearly demonstrate what the ideological far right wants to do.

CLC has also regularly used the LSN blog to attack Catholic organizations that don’t follow exactly the kind of path that CLC believes is proper and Catholic.  LSN has attempted to punitively police the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, and was sued when they went after a Quebec priest who LSN portrayed as a “former homosexual prostitute” and a “so-called priest who supports abortion.” Recently, American and international Catholic hospitals, agencies and charities who provide (or support organizations that provide) access to birth control have come under fire.

LSN has even “clarified” the new Pope.  (But to be fair, LSN was not the only ideologue to do so).

Now, LSN is encouraging readers to swamp the Christian Broadcasting Network main switchboard with complaints about Pat Robertson, partly for saying that contraception is an acceptable way to provide assistance to impoverished people in Third World nations (specifically, Robertson showed some racism by referring to “Appalachian ragamuffins”), and partly for expressing support (for at least the third time) for sex reassignment surgery and the trans people who seek it.

LSN’s attempt to police Pat Robertson and American Evangelicals on these issues puts the lie to cries of religious persecution, censorship and infringement on religious freedom.  As the website and its contributing allies continue to play banhammer on Catholics For Choice, the National Catholic Reporter, Catholic Relief Services, affirming churches, priests and congregations, and more, it shows no qualms about attempting to censure or silence the religious freedoms of other Catholics and of Protestants as well:

In addition to complaining that CRS was involved in distributing abortifacients and contraceptives, the clergy expressed dismay that the majority of CRS’ employees in the country are not Catholic and that it does its work apart from the local church.

“Maybe CRS’s participation in artificial-contraception-promotion programs is the reason that CRS mainly hires Protestants, who have no objection to family planning,” suggested Fr. Liva, SMM, Pastor at St. Thérèse Parish in Tamatave. “If CRS hired Catholics, some of those Catholics might object more strongly to CRS’s participation in that kind of thing.”

Back in January, LSN’s Managing Director Steve Jalsevac declared that affirmation of LGBT people in Catholic congregations, teachers’ unions, hospitals, universities and schools was something that needed to be dealt with “urgently and forcefully:”

When the various Christian churches, not just the Catholics, are largely cleansed of this rejection of authentic Christian morality, then a power of faith will be unleashed that nothing can stop.

In fact, with this attack on Robertson and other insinuations about Evangelicals, LSN now appears to be trying to police who can and can’t be considered Christian.  This is also apparent in the website’s latest posturing over poll results which show that a majority of Catholics and a significant number of born-again Evangelicals still support the availability of abortion in at least some cases (let alone contraception), as well as calls to excommunicate legislators who support abortion access and LGBT human & marriage rights.

Granted, there has long been a hypocrisy in the religious freedom argument, with Evangelicals like Bryan Fischer and Pat Buchanan arguing against allowing religious observances of people of other faiths, like Muslims. But at this point, it should be obvious to all that for the people now attempting to define and drive what qualifies as “Christian,” the only religious freedom that matters is their own.

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project)

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)

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)

Trans rights bill supporters being targeted. Also, a flag for you.

On Wednesday June 6th, Parliament voted to send Private Member’s Bill C-279: An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) to committee for review as part of its trek toward passage.  I had expressed concerns at that time about some possible changes that were being considered, but it remains to be seen in committee stage if that will happen.  I do know that if Parliamentary support for the bill drops, those changes will become more likely, while better awareness could help to avert them.

15 Conservative Members of Parliament joined with opposition MPs to help the bill get to this stage.  LifeSiteNews, BC Parents and Teachers for Life, Campaign Life Coalition and several other large right-wing groups and media websites have called upon their legions to write to these MPs and excoriate them for supporting basic human rights protections for transsexual and transgender Canadians.

Recently, The Barrie Advance interviewed one of the targeted MPs, although the Advance spent several column inches signal-boosting opposing organizations at length, before getting to his reply.  The Advance didn’t bother to seek out any trans people or question whether transphobic marginalization exists and needs to be addressed.  Fortunately, the Member of Parliament they interviewed stood his ground:

“I’ve heard from people in our own riding that are conflicted in this way and that are discriminated against,” he said. “It’s a great source of anguish…. I believe that this group of Canadians deserves to have the same tools available to them in the law to prevent that kind of discrimination.”
— Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton

Thank you Mr. Stanton.

LifeSiteNews posted links for people to write to the Conservative MPs who supported human rights protections for trans people:

Mr. Chris Alexander (Ajax-Pickering)
Mr. Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North)
Ms. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Delta-Richmond East)
Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Oshawa)
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface)
Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre)
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore-St. Margaret’s)
Mrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo)
Ms. Lisa Raitt (Halton)
Ms. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Centre-North)
Mr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North)
Mr. Bernard Trottier (Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Madawaska-Restigouche)
Mr. David Wilks (Kootenay-Columbia)

If you support trans human rights inclusion, I’d like to encourage you to send them a letter as well.  Remember, paper works better than email, and it’s free to send via the House of Commons.  I’d suggest you also include a copy to the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson and bill sponsor Randall Garrison.

[MP name]
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A6

Be civil, be gracious, and if you have concerns that defining the terms in a way that could potentially exclude people from basic protections, express that as well.  Don’t forget to ask them to continue their support of the bill through Third Reading, because this isn’t over, yet.

I’d recommend that you start your letter like this:

I’m writing with regard to your vote in support of Bill C-279, which proposes to extend human rights protections to transsexual and transgender Canadians. 

It has come to my attention that Campaign Life Coalition, LifeSiteNews, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, REAL Women of Canada, Canada Family Action Coalition and other groups are urging all of their members across Canada to flood you with angry correspondence for your support of this bill.  So while I might not be a constituent, I’d still like to send you a note and express my thanks for supporting the right of trans people to live, work, travel, access services and not be targeted for violence simply because of who they are.

Because these supporters should probably know that the flood of irate mail they’re receiving is from biased interest groups, and not necessarily the constituents who they answer to.

And if you have a story of discrimination that you’ve experienced, tell them.  Because it matters, and because stories about why these protections are needed are still going untold and unheard by mainstream media.

And if your MP is Conservative but not on the above list, send them a note too — civil, as before.  If you’re trans or have a loved one who is, make an appointment to meet with them.

And if your MP is an opposition party member and supported the bill thus far (which I think is every one who voted), don’t forget to send them a note of thanks.

——————————————-

As sort of an aside, a few people have asked about the adapted flag I’ve used in a few places (blog, Facebook, etc).  That dove / hand symbol is the result of a 2011 competition by the United Nations which sought a universal symbol representing human rights.  It’s originally blue.  Not only is it royalty free, they encourage people to use it.

Likewise, my adaptation of that logo to the Canadian flag is also free for you to use, whether to express support for trans human rights inclusion in the Canada Human Rights Act, or to express your desire to restore Canada to the position it once had as a respectable champion of human rights.  It seems to me also an appropriate way to signal opposition to the anti-protest policies of this administration, the heavy-handed way it has handled security issues since 9/11 and its participation in human rights scandals around the world.  Canada should be better than that.

Show the change you would like to see.

(Crossposted to The Bilerico Project and Rabble.ca)

Archive: Anti-Abortion Lobby Dances on the Graves

(This post previously appeared at The Bilerico Project)

Recently, leaders of Commonwealth nations met to discuss pressing international issues, and leaders from the U.K., Canada and others pressed for human rights reforms for LGBT people.  British Prime Minister David Cameron went so far as to threaten to cut off aid to member nations that still criminalize homosexuality — something that was met with accusations of “bullying.”  Nigeria responded by redoubling efforts to symbolically pass a bill to ban same-sex marriage (even though homosexuality is already illegal there), including witnessing, participating in and “abetting” a same-sex marriage (it’s unclear from the text of this bill if this is limited to marriages performed in Nigeria) which had been simmering for a few months.

Anti-abortion “news” websites Human Life International (HLI) World Watch and Canada’s LifeSiteNews (LSN) have taken encouragement from this, and co-published an article cheering Nigeria on, calling the bill something that “pro-life and pro-family supporters” should rally behind.  The two often partner, and at least one of the organizations is engaged in ongoing work against LGBT people in Nigeria:

“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.

… Last week, HLI Nigeria sent a letter in support of the bill to outlaw same-sex “marriage” to the Nigerian Senate ahead of a public hearing on the bill on October 31, 2011.

Did I happen to mention that in Nigeria, homosexuality is already punishable by death in 12 states and up to 14 years imprisonment everywhere else?

Neither do Human Life International or LifeSiteNews.

Opponents of Social Progress (In The Bedrooms of the Nation II)

Update:

Due to a moderation queue flooded with mind-numbing racist, Islamophobic and homophobic freeps as well as a reasonable question about singling people out, this post is withdrawn for the moment, until I can decide how I should address that question and also re-examine my moderation policy.

I’m normally not that big on censorship, but apparently, I’m going to have to make exceptions.

This post will be back, although perhaps tweaked.