Homosexuality in Africa
In Uganda, people were celebrating that anti-homosexual laws, voted in the Parliament came into law. People even involved children in the celebrations, thus
indoctrinating them to become dangerous towards gay people (and those they
think are gay). This because some people spread rumours that gays are evil.
 |
| A poster promoting a film about gay love in Africa. |
In January it was Nigeria where president Goodluck Jonathan signed an anti-gay
bill into law while
recently also Uganda got its laws after president Yoweri
Museveni signed them. But
also in many other African countries the situation is bad. These laws include
imprisonment for everyone who is gay but also for everyone who doesn't report
homosexuals to the police (and
thus prisons may fill with homosexuals but also with those who look gay or
those who do not report but even with those who are suspected of not reporting
homosexuals such as parents and other family or friends; in summary only the
worst people may remain free: those who betray others) while the laws are supported by many
religious people. The laws
were signed because it now seems that it is even proven people are not born as
homosexuals but choose it while one can then wonder why people may even
consider to be gay if it may cost them their freedom or even their life. Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South-Africa (friend of Mr Mandela who was a moral example for many African leaders)
condemned these laws (but I doubt whether ambitious black people
will listen to a black man from Africa and not to white (male) preachers
from the mighty Western world while also the poor may think the white seem to
be blessed with wealth by their god for spreading hate although some Western religious leaders criticised the law (and it seems one small church is courageous enough to
help gays, knowing they are
taking a great risk)). But, as this article shows, it may be the incompetence to protect his
people from the killings by mad people belonging to Boko Haram that drives the Nigerian
president and other parliamentarians to prosecute those who have done nothing
except demand equal rights for themselves (and many don't even ask that and
accept to live in the closet). And thus it is sad that these poor people are being attacked from different corners although, if people celebrate that
innocent people are prosecuted, should one still feel sorry for what may come
to everyone?
Still, I support previous PM Gordon Brown who says we should help the country finding the girls after the kidnapping although I find we should only
after the country asks for our help and I think by sending people from
Intelligence Agencies so they can help with the investigation while we should
also demand that the politicians stop increasing religious divisions by blaming homosexuals. And indeed, it seems the UK and USA are thinking of helping the country.
Here a video
in which a man talks about how white evangelical Christians try to convince
black people to believe them, and many do while they condemn for instance a
black president in the USA or Archbishop Tutu from South Africa when they call for the protection of gay
rights, although some people will pretend they follow those preachers to stay
alive. Uganda claims they are a sovereign country that can have its own laws.
This is correct, Uganda is a sovereign country as are other countries and thus
it should accept the consequences when other sovereign countries decide to
withdraw aid to another sovereign country when those countries decide a country
behaves badly: each country acts as it thinks it should but should also accept
the consequences of its actions. On the other hand, the West should also act
against those from their own country who spread hate as abuse of freedom of
speech can't be tolerated.
And it seems already
people are starting to
treat gay people badly as judges sentenced
some men to receive lashes while some people even wanted to stone those
men. It seems that some men
suspected of being gay were forced
to walk naked through the streets or
even to have sex in public (thus straight people forcing others to have same-sex sex and often these people don't mind raping women too) while one extremist newspaper published the names
of people they believe are gay, in the hope people will act against them. And in Uganda the first men are facing trial under the new laws.
 |
| The love that in many countries still can't show its real face in public and even is prosecuted. |
But while people are
now celebrating these laws, one day these laws may return like a boomerang and
punish the people who celebrate such bad laws: in the beginning mainly gay
people may be arrested and trialled, maybe even murdered when governments continue
to blame gay people, but there may be some errors when some straight people may
be arrested or killed by accident because people think they are gay. But the
fewer gay people will be around and the longer people are indoctrinated by these laws,
the more paranoid people may become so they start thinking that someone who
claims to be straight is in reality gay, e.g. after toughing a friend or for
holding his hand in a certain way or for wearing certain clothes. People may
even start thinking that certain children are gay and thus arrest or kill them.
Other people will betray people because they don't like them by claiming they
are gay and should be punished. That moment people will start cursing
themselves that they ever celebrated that innocent people were victimised. Then
people may fear each day because each day they may become a victim themselves.
Then people's eyes may open and see that gays are not evil except a few, and
that they are human like everyone else. Then people will hope the nightmare
will stop. However, for now, it may unite people from different religions and
even non-believers until most gays are no longer visible and fights between
religions and within religions may return as each religion may try to receive
most praise for the evil done. Then people may also turn against their leaders. In the end, only evil people may survive, those
who don't mind betraying their own family and friends.
And to demonstrate
the absurdity: the presidents of these mainly black countries don't want that
their society becomes corrupted by the decadent white Western society (thus
there is also an element of racism against white people). Therefore, it seems,
the Ugandan
president threatens to change direction by turning away from the black US
president who supports gay rights towards the white Russian president who
recently strengthened anti-gay laws. Indeed, people with little respect for
human rights often turn to those who have little respect for human rights.
Homophobes also often claim homosexuals are a threat to humanity for not having
children while killing gays will certainly result in a decline in numbers of
humans.
Other countries
But not only Uganda
and Nigeria, also other countries around the world limit gay rights such as
most religious countries while in other countries some use the crisis to gain
power and try to reduce human rights, including gay rights. But equally, in
most of these countries, the rights of women are also restricted as they too
are considered to be Untermensch.
For
instance, it now seems also Egypt is limiting the freedom of gay people, although the military rulers claim to fight
religious extremists by arresting many Muslim Brotherhood supporters and sentencing hundreds to death. How the evil part of religion really infiltrated
most people's DNA, even when they claim they are not religious.
It now also seems that
Brunei will increase its punishment for gays from imprisonment to stoning;
indeed, hate laws always result in harsher punishment. Also gay rights in Russia have been limited as the Russian president seeks approval from the
Russian Orthodox Church (if some in the
West were not so anti-Russia, they too would support Russia for its anti-gay
laws but that is maybe something for the (very-far?) future).
On the other hand,
in a number of other countries, mainly those in Europe but also America and
even Africa, people start to evolve to accept people who are different, even
allowing them to marry (although if some in those societies could, they would
reverse time).
And the West - guilt-free?
No, because in the
past Western countries introduced in their colonies the idea that gay people are evil and although probably societies existed where gay people already suffered,
in others they didn't until the coloniser came who oppressed people in their
god's name. Indeed, colonisers often enforced their religion upon the people so
they could justify occupying others.
But as I already
mentioned above, even today there are extremist preachers from the West (thus non-Muslims) still
trying to gain power by preaching in countries where people have little
education while many in the West know this but rather ridicule the uneducated for listening
to these preachers. Why are those preachers not condemned for spreading hate?
Some preach they have to stop the gay agenda (this is: the possibility for gay people to live
in the same way as other people). But as Hitler who feared the prediction
that Jews may one day rule the world and thus tried to prevent this, these
preachers spread hate because they want to prevent that one day gay people may rule
them.
And of course, poor,
hungry and little educated people will listen to people who became very successful
by preaching hate. But by spreading hate, they may win in the short-term
but one day it may turn against them and indeed, in
the West many despise these preachers who spread the message to hate others
to gain for themselves (power and heaven). Why should people fear gay people
unless they are hurt by them? Indeed, the numbers of people who are tolerant towards people unless they behave badly is growing and this angers those with issues in power.
But
even in the West we still have people at positions of influence whose policies
are influenced by religion and not by human rights. Indeed, after major storms
battered the UK in January and February, an MP said it was a punishment from God for allowing gay marriage, and although he was ridiculed, others may
believe him or like his attack against gay people (others claimed after a powerful earthquake killed tens
of thousands in Haiti
that it was a punishment by God because people ones liberated themselves from slavery). Even many non-religious people agree with religious people that gay
people should not have the same rights as others because they fear them. In Greece, the Golden Dawn party now even dare to say openly before the elections in
May that they fight gays, immigrants but also other religions such as Islam as
they hope this will increase their chances during the next elections as people
suffer as a result of the financial crisis (and
for this, many Orthodox (priests) support them). It also shows how a society can change from openness (before Christianity) to gay haters (today). In addition,
many major players in religions refuse to condemn homophobic violence and thus
seem to approve it, although there are exceptions.
Recently
news reported that it seems a network of gay priests exists within the Vatican although this probably always existed. Some claim these networks are harmless as
gay people are nice people and only try to change the system from within.
Indeed, some may try to change the system but probably would never have reached
that level if they were open while even if a gay person may become pope,
"real" believers probably wouldn't accept him. Nevertheless, I don't
like these kinds of underground networks of powerful people, pretending in
daylight to have no sex or even preaching against openly gay people to remain
influential, spreading misinformation and hate against those who do not lie
while they anger many. Their behaviour is often the same as those who abuse
their position to rape children, then claim gays are evil: some even abuse their powers against other adults who are in a minor position as the Swiss guard testified. And then we wonder why some people
start hating gays. Those priests are like straight men
who misuse their powers towards women. Because today, openly gay people go to
(gay) bars and don't need the darkness and closed doors of Abbeys to hide what
they are doing. Indeed, people sometimes need the love of others and when this
is denied they will take it in secret. However, those in networks, to remain in
power, they have to deny everything and will threaten those who dare to speak
as that will undermine their position. Often, they are the worst enemies of homosexuals.
Of course, not all priests are like this and some try to be themselves but often the
resistance from the others become very big and many become very unhappy within
the Institution because in our open society, honest people don't want to live a
hidden life anymore.
But I
can also understand the anger of a Church when people who want to join and
promise to obey the rules, break them or even try to change them. Indeed, in
the West people who want to play priest can start their own church without
trying to change an old Institution and awaking even more homophobia. As long
as bigots grumble inside their own buildings without causing damage to others,
let them grumble and ignore them while if they misbehave report them with the
police. The problem is that they cause troubles because many people want to
belong to them and thus they remain powerful while if they are ignored as many
do in the West, they become less important and fewer people will listen as long
as the institute is against human rights. Nevertheless, let's wait how the
current pope will react to the growing numbers of homophobic countries as he
may be different. For instance, forcing churches to accept gay weddings can open a can
of worms and may result in a battle
because conservative religious people see it as their duty to fight the
enforcement to accept people they regard as devils. I even wonder why gay
people want to marry in an institution where main players wish them the worse
possible. On the other hand, it is the duty of governments to ensure that all
people are treated equally in society, including the possibility that all
people can marry or have a civil partnership or stay single on identical terms (thus no more advantages for those who marry, it should
be out of love, not for the benefits)
while private organisations such as churches should be allowed to offer the
services they want to offer, including the possibility not to provide certain
services to certain people although those people should then be sure their tax
money is not spend on those institutions (why
should religions receive tax money? People will more then happily pay their
priest if they want them or we don't need priests). Thus governments should be sure everyone can use the
same facilities such as town halls as everyone pays taxes while fire civil
servants who refuse to marry people for religious reasons as those people can
choose to become priest. In the longer run, religious' intolerance will result
in the collapse of the Institutions they want to defend and keep important,
even when not immediately and thus they become insignificant and can continue
to exist as something small that attracts only some eccentrics. If they want to
earn more, they will need to accept the money of larger proportions of society
by e.g. organising gay weddings. Indeed, money can do wonders.
Comments