Prosecutor to launch consultation on social media guidelines

The Director of Public Prosecutions has announced a consultation to establish clear guidelines on prosecutions involving social media . In a statement on The Crown Prosecution Service website announcing that footballer Daniel Thomas — investigated for allegedly homophobic tweets about Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield — will not be prosecuted, Keir Starmer QC said:

“To ensure that CPS decision-making in these difficult cases is clear and consistent, I intend to issue guidelines on social media cases for prosecutors. These will assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration. In the first instance, the CPS will draft interim guidelines. There will then be a wide public consultation before final guidelines are published. As part of that process, I intend to hold a series of roundtable meetings with campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies to ensure that the guidelines are as fully informed as possible.”

Starmer and the CPS faced severe criticism for the handling of Paul Chambers’s “Twitter joke trial“. Chambers, who was found guilty of sending a “menacing communication” after he joked about blowing up Robin Hood Airport in Doncaster, had his conviction overturned in July of this year.

It emerged today that a man has been arrested under the Communications Act 2003 for allegedly setting up a Facebook page praising Dale Cregan, the Manchester man accused of killing two police officers.

Tales of taboo: Homosexuality in Africa

In East Africa, Homosexuality and lesbianism is totally taboo. At best the  the attitude is to ignore homosexuality, at worst, there are deaths, “corrective rape” of lesbians in South Africa, and communities vilifying and occasionally killing gay citizens.

‘We’ve been together for 15 years,’ says Amina*, 35, married with two children, adjusting her burkhah and niquab.  She is fully veiled; only her mobile phone, customised with trinkets and baubles, hint at individuality. ‘We knew each other from school,’ says Amina. ‘I courted her slowly,  watched her, gave her clues with my eyes, sent her SMS (text) messages, brought her gifts, oud (perfume, usually jasmine or frankinsense). It was, and is, really important it’s secret; we meet only in my bedroom, I would bring shame on my family if they knew.’

Although lesbianism is not actually illegal on Zanzibar, it’s taken over six months of Chinese whispers to set this interview up. The deal is that it has to be done in private, in a place far from any interviewees neighbourhoods, and in the middle of the day, with no real names or photos. And yet, ironically, anyone with an interest in lesbianism will happily tell you it’s everywhere here in Zanzibar, an island off the coast of Tanzania in East Africa.

At  Raju; the only gay and lesbian bar on the island, the atmosphere is staid. Everyone is seated, the atmosphere quiet and the women older, some in burkahs, many dressed to the nines in glittering dresses and low necklines. There are couples, some women in matching clothes, but no outward displays of affection. There are no exclusively lesbian clubs, bars, cafés, no social or political associations offering support, counselling and social networks for lesbians, nor gays at all in Zanzibar or Tanzania. Women and men rely on secrecy and  international internet sites for information and support. Tanzania is slightly more accommodating than our neighbour Uganda, where gay citizens risk death or imprisonment if a recently-revived Bill becomes law.

Across the African continent homophobia seems to be burgeoning: both ideologically, and violently. Barak Obama said this week he is deeply alarmed by the treatment of lesbian, gays and transgender people, and will be looking at linking aid with the treatment of  lesbian and gay citizens. This is important as many NGO’s here ignore homophobia and are actively conservative, preaching against the use of condoms in a bizarre leap of logic between abstinence and heterosexuality. Condoms, for many here. gives permission to people to sleep around, including having gay (male) sex. The reaction of the Ugandan Presidential Advisor, John Nagenda —  “If the Americans think the can tell us what to do, they can go to hell” —  is not, sadly, unique, or unusual (though Malawi did announce today that it will review it’s anti-gay laws).

And David Cameron’s sentiments, whilst worthy, do not really bear scrutiny — there are no Lesbian, Gay or Transgender projects supported by DFID here on the continent anyway.

In Nigeria, where homosexuality is already illegal,  a new bill has been approved that will imprison for 10 years “Any person who registers, operates or participates in gay clubs, societies and organisation, or directly or indirectly make public show of same sex amorous relationship in Nigeria”. Nigerian Lesbian activist Osazeme O speaks for many when she says “ The bill is a distraction. There are so many other things our government could be doing right now Nigeria, people here are concerned with, ‘Will I have light when I get home? Will I have running water?’ Things like that. If we open this gate to this kind of discrimination, what next?”

A common perception here is that it’s illegal under Islam or that gay people are indoctrinated or “Westernised”. Homosexuality is “unnatural” and a threat to social, moral and cultural values. With the exception of South Africa, where lesbians and gays are the cultural emblem of liberal, party-loving Cape Town, and global ambassadors for all kinds of radical HIV activism and arts work, much of Africa has a long way to go. South Africa is the only country on the continent that has a group of active, out HIV positive gay men, who do much to uncover the hypocrisy of the homophobia present.

The rise of Pentacostal and Evangelical churches, (with active strong  links to the USA) here in East Africa has seen a growing intolerance of gays and lesbians, which is associated with Westernism, paedophilia, sodomy, insanity and colonialism. The Muslim mosques and Christian churches in East Africa are vociferously, and often violently, against gays and lesbians. Workshops are held to “make people straight”. It’s even regarded as a mental illness. Variously associated with witchcraft, “shetani” (evil spirits), being “Kafir” (a non-believer, an infidel) or anti-culture, homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, it’s a lifestyle that can cost your life.

Anecdotally, many men and  women in Tanzania and Zanzibar are killed by the Askari Jamani (a vigilante community police force) for having same sex affairs: This is not even considered newsworthy, so accepted is it.

When a local Zanzibar radio phone-in recently tackled this thorny issue of lesbianism, only one caller over five hours had anything positive to say, and she was a Kenyan lesbian. In South Africa the “corrective rape” of lesbian women has received media attention.

But the evidence of lesbianism and gays in Africa is centuries old. The chronicles of the Ibo in Nigeria, the Kouria in Tanzania, members of the Sudanese elite — all feature lesbians. And in Zanzibar, where strict segregation of men and women is the norm, there are plenty of places where people meet illicitly for sex: hair salons, each other’s homes, after the mosque. Massage in hair salons is very common here, and one thing often leads to another…

One completely culturally specific perk of being gay on Zanzibar, Lamu and other Tanzanian coastal areas, is that an older lesbian lover brings status, security and respect.

According to Fatima*, “Older, strong women, with good jobs, salaries and status, often take younger lesbian ‘wives’. They support the younger woman with food, social connections and help getting work, and in return, there’s sex involved. But we would NEVER call it lesbianism; it’s just one of those things in Zanzibar. We were colonised by the Persians and the Omanis; lesbianism is in these Arab cultures — look at the poems — but it’s behind closed doors. Behind the veil, if you like! We are socially isolated, we are teased, talked about, but I don’t care, I am strong.”

Maryam* is a prominent artist and civil servant. She says she’s happy to be seen as lesbian when she travels abroad to America and Europe, but would never dream of being out in Zanzibar. She organises the women’s football team that plays in Zanzibar’s main football ground. It’s a place where lesbian women meet. The team are a collection of women playing football in full hijab. Only “Father” is dressed like a man: she’s an out transgender woman, and has relationships with women. “I am able to marry women because really I am a man. I know I am, they know I am, so it’s ok. It’s not wasagaji,” she explains, using the local perjorative slang term for lesbianism — it means grinding. So here’s the rub; anything goes, as long as you keep up heterosexual appearances.

Women’s sexual pleasure is a completely taboo subject, although it wasn’t in the 50s and 60s, when Zanzibar was “the Paris of Africa”. Older Zanzibari women recall the “kibuki” and “kidumbak” – highly secretive nocturnal rituals from which men are excluded. The kabuki is a spiritual invocation for sexual power and attractiveness. Over copious cups of konyagi (the local gin), women harness the mystical power of female sexuality. The kidumbak is a night-long event of overtly sexual music, seduction techniques and dances, where women mimic  explicit sexual positions with each other.

Through the grapevine, I speak to a lesbian Taarab singer, Khadija Buruma*. She tries to explain the contradiction to me. “We live in an intensely private and secretive society, where gossip is everything. If you are public about being a lesbian then you bring shame on yourself and all your family and neighbours, it’s completely un-Zanzibari. But if you do it in private, or at a Taarab, no-one really cares. You need to keep your reputation  and ‘face’ in order to function in society – deal with the government, do business. The only other people who know if you are lesbian are at the Taarab or kibuki too, and they won’t talk. They can’t take the risk of being called lesbians too.”

Uganda’s outrageous Anti-Homosexuality Bill was rejected last year in parliament, and with the death of activist David  Kato in January 2011, for a brief moment the issue hit the global press. However since October 2011 there are moves to reinvigorate it: in Uganda gay citizens repeatedly caught having sex face execution, while people “who touch each other in a gay way” could be jailed. The death penalty will apply automatically if one partner is under 18, has a disability or is HIV-positive. This punitive and regressive law seems to reflect the feelings of many in Uganda and the surrounding countries; there’s a shocking disconnect between what people in this part of the world do behind closed doors and what they will admit to in public.

 

Free speech strengthened by defending those we find loathsome

This story is cross-posted from the Edmonton Journal.

CANADA – Freedom of speech is such a slippery concept.

It’s easy for us to support the free speech rights of people whose views we happen to agree with. It’s much harder to offer that same support to people whose views and words we find loathsome, hateful, and hurtful.

The proof of our commitment to freedom of speech is how passionately we defend the rights of people to say things we believe to be abominable, vicious and utterly wrong.

You couldn’t ask for a better test of our tolerance than Bill Whatcott, who appeared Wednesday before the Supreme Court of Canada to defend his right to speak and to publish.

Whatcott is one of Canada’s best-known cranks, an over-the-top anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, and anti-gay activist. (Whatcott calls himself a Christian advocate. I won’t, because it would be an insult to most of the Christians I know.) Whatcott has also described himself as a recovered homosexual who was “cured” after his Christian conversion.

Edmontonians may remember him best from his 2007 campaign for the mayor’s job. Depending where you live in this city, you may have found one of his disturbing, graphic and inflammatory pamphlets shoved in your mailbox.

Because I live in the federal riding of Edmonton-Centre, and because Whatcott long had a particular grudge against my former Liberal MP, Anne McLellan, I’ve found many Whatcott screeds on my doorstep over the years. They are invariably crude, gross, and offensive, usually cheap black and white photocopies with print so tiny, no one over 40 can read them without a magnifying glass.

I have a simple strategy for dealing with Whatcott’s ravings. I crumple up his hand-outs and I throw them in the trash, under the banana peels and plum pits, where they belong.

Not everyone favours such a technique. In 2001 and 2002, Whatcott handed out some of his grotesque flyers in Regina and Saskatoon. They called for Canada to outlaw homosexual acts, compared pride parades to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and suggested that gay men were pedophiles and child molesters.

“Our children will pay the price in disease, death, abuse and ultimately eternal judgment if we do not say no to the sodomite desire to socialize your children into accepting something that is clearly wrong,” one pamphlet read.

Four people who received the pamphlet filed complaints with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, alleging the pamphlets “promoted hatred against individuals because of their sexual orientation” and therefore violated the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. The commission originally found in favour of the complainants and fined Whatcott $17,000. The ruling was later overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The court called Whatcott’s language crude, harsh and offensive, but found that it did not rise (or sink) to the level of hate speech. Whatcott’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, said the court, had to be weighed in the balance.

The commission appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Frankly, I’d far prefer that everyone had just allowed Whatcott’s tinpot crusade to sink into oblivion. Instead, all this legal, political and media attention has allowed Whatcott to posture for the better part of a decade as a free speech martyr.

Were Whatcott’s words puerile and hurtful? Absolutely. Were they intended to incite hatred against gays and lesbians? Actually, with all deference to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, I think they clearly were.

But should that make the words themselves illegal, and make Whatcott subject to state discipline and a punishingly large fine?

Whatcott is a zealot. But he didn’t advocate violence. He didn’t propose a pogrom. On this particular occasion, he wasn’t harassing anyone. He simply questioned, albeit in the nastiest of terms, whether and how schools should teach children about homosexuality and gay rights. While I deplore his intemperate choice of diction, I think he was well within his legal rights to address that important public policy question. Any state attempt to censor his speech only feeds the paranoia of those who believe in some kind of “gay conspiracy” to seduce our children. It’s better to expose this kind of noxious, nonsensical thinking to the bright light of day than to attempt to suppress it and drive it to fester underground.

Yet I’m glad to see the Supreme Court tackle this case. There’s far too much legal murkiness around what constitutes true criminal hate speech, as defined by the Criminal Code, and what constitutes a lesser violation of a provincial human rights code.

Is it really the job of provincial commissions to protect us all from having our feelings hurt? Or should they better stick to practical issues like defending tenants and employees from discrimination?

The fight for equal legal rights for gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual Canadians has been long and hard-fought. Despite those many legal victories, homophobia is still a real and damaging social prejudice, and we need to continue to educate and inoculate people against it. But we can’t do that by censorship and suppression. We do it, instead, with informed debate and civil discourse, by responding to ignorance and fear with understanding and tolerance. We can’t win civil liberties for one marginalized group by taking them from another — or by replacing an old orthodoxy with a new one.

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Follow Paula Simons on Twitter: @Paulatics

Gay rights and the church clash

The fact that the governor of the ultra conservative state of Jalisco used public funds to bring Richard Cohen, an author and conversion therapist who believes gays can be turned straight hit the news recently in Mexico causing a political uproar.

In a public event co-funded by the government of Jalisco and the Guadalajara Catholic Archdiocese, Cohen told parents that a cure for their children existed and they could turn straight because there were no genetic reasons for being gay.

News of the event, called “On the Road to Chastity”, resonated throughout Mexico after a complaint by Raúl Vargas, a state congressman for Jalisco for the leftist Partido de la Revolución Democrática, who learned about this use of public funds when he found a poster advertising the meeting with the logotype of the general administrative office for the state government. The three day public event held in late November was co funded by the state Catholic Archdiocese.

The Jalisco State Commission on Human Rights said they would investigate the charges, as there was information that at the meeting the organisers “tried to picture homosexuality as an illness.”

Cohen of the International Healing Foundation, a nonprofit and tax-exempt organisation founded by him in 1990 to treat same-sex attraction told participants that he was raped as a child and became gay but later turned straight and is now married and has three children.

The issue of gay rights is a sensitive one in Jalisco. Emilio González Márquez, the Governor of Jalisco, and Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez, the Archbishop of Guadalajara, have both been outspokenly opposed to gay weddings in Mexico. González Márquez said he felt a little nauseous thinking about gay weddings, while the Archbishop engaged in a spat with Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard.

State-Church relations are tender in Mexico. Although the country has the world’s second largest Roman Catholic population, and the Church has a strong following in all social and family issues, there is resistance to the church becoming involved in politics.  In fact the 1917 Constitution stripped the Church of many powers and forbade Church members from delving into politics—through the famous Article 130.  A bloody war erupted in the 1920s because of Church-State differences which caused the deaths of . The worst persecution of the church took place under President Plutarco Elias Calles, under whom the Cristero, or Christian war, erupted, raging from 1926 and 1934.  By the end of the war, there were no priests in 17 states. It wasn’t until 1991 that President Salinas proposed the removal of most of the anticlerical provisions from the constitution, a move which passed the legislature in 1992.

Most of the progressive agenda favoring gay marriages, abortion and the adoption of children by gays has been promoted in Mexico City, which has been ruled by the leftists Partido Revolucionario Democratico (PRD).

But in Jalisco and other states located in the area known as El Bajio, religious fervour remains the same as three decades ago. They even have a tequila called Cristeros, in memory of the Christian fighters to upheld the rights of the church in the 1930s.