Subscribe to our RSS feed

Articles tagged with: homophobia

Oct24

Not So Closeted Baird & Other Tory MPs say "It Gets Better"

Monday, 24 October 2011 Written by // Brian Finch - Founder Categories // Opinion Pieces, Brian Finch

Is this what's required for the Conservatives to care and to take action; being jailed, suicides, beatings, harassment and potentially the death penalty

Not So Closeted Baird & Other Tory MPs say

Recently I've pulled up my old and somewhat tired activist voice. It's an angry one that I've generally outgrown as I don't particularly like it in me, and I don't in others.

That voice crept up recently, actually blew a gasket when I looked at the newspaper to see that on the day of the funeral of Jamie Hulbey, a gay Ottawa teenager who committed suicide, Tory MPs have dedicated videos on Dan Savage's "It Get's Better" campaign.

The list of Harper's and other Conservative Parties of past and present are far to numerous to list. 

Quietly openly gay MP John Baird believes, no doubt, that sexuality is a private matter. That is his choice. However one does not do an "It Get's Better" video and NOT be open about one's sexuality. Especially on the day of the funeral of a Jamie Hubley. Such cowardliness and hypocrisy only works against the work of campaigns to help struggling teens. Not only that, it dishonours Jamie in such a horrible way. John Baird's private life is not so private when he's hanging out on Church St, at Pride events and Fashion Cares, mincing it up.

It was quite astonishing that The National Post was the only publication that published a critical article. And watch how the "Baird isn't completely out" issue is skirted around. 

MP Randall Garrison, the New Democratic Party critic for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, said the Conservatives' video "fails to understand the basic concept" of the campaign, adding that the message only works if delivered by openly gay people.

"And there's a shortage on the Conservative side," he said. "You can't do these [videos] if you're not an out, gay person."

I remember the days of the 80s and 90s when in Manitoba human rights legislation was amended to protect sexual orientation, and later, in Ontario. The conservatives fought it tooth and nail. The Ontario Liberals were pathetic with Lyn Mcleod. I'm not sure where Bob Rae stood on the issue.

The only slightly positive thing I can say is that Baird and company are going to the upcoming Commonwealth talks on human rights abuses against LGBT people. That's great. However they aren't on the forefront on this. They are following Britain and Australia.

Moreover, given that in 41 of 54 countries of the Commonwealth being gay is illegal, this human rights issue threatens the Commonwealth at its very heart. According to the The Ottawa Citizen's article "Human rights abuses threaten Commonwealth survival: report" unless these human rights abuses are not addressed, there may be no Commonwealth.

I'd be inclined to say given for Harper's penchant for the monarchy, the Queen (whose image is now hanging in every Canadian embassy), and adding in Royals to our navy, he'd like the Commonwealth to stay together. Given those human rights abuses, most notably on homosexuality, Harper has to address these if the Commonwealth is to survive.

That being said, I believe he's under the eight ball on this one and now has decided to join in on this noble cause.

This begs the question: Is this what's required for the Conservatives to care and to take action; being jailed, suicides, beatings, harassment and potentially the death penalty? If you can get through life without these things happening, then you are on your own, kid.

Maybe they are seeing the light, but I highly doubt it. The words have to match the actions, Only time will tell.

Nothing short of a huge cultural shift in the conservative party would gain my acceptance. They can cherry pick a few high profile issues, including (shamefully) a suicide to try to show they are a party of the centre, but their actions do not match their words.

When ministers do not feel they can be completely "out" in a meaninful way, and only demonstrate hypocracy, it says to me that they've got a very long way to do. 

I give them 2.5 points out for trying. 

Oct12

Can freedom of speech go too far?

Wednesday, 12 October 2011 Categories // Opinion Pieces, Revolving Door

Guest writer Randy Verdone is all for free speech but finds offence in ultra-right wing ads which claim to represent “Canadian values”. And what about when those “values” stigmatize minorities?

Can freedom of speech go too far?

Free speech is the right to say what we want. The right to voice our own opinions through any medium we may so choose. But can free speech go too far? Many people have many different views on that subject.   Some believe that if it encroaches on an individuals’ basic human rights then it has passed the line.   Others believe it doesn’t matter; there are no lines that exist. These are very different ideologies and the possible grey area between is quit extensive as well.

Through the use of internet today we can bombard ourselves with information on so many drastically different belief systems that we would not be able to read it all in a lifetime. Remember each culture has its own stigma and in Canada we have a melting pot of many cultures thus many cultures stigma’s. So what should we base our value systems on? Should it change every time that the GOP changes? Should it be based on religion, science or upbringing? Should it be based on our ethnicity or cultural beliefs?

Do a Google search for Canadian Values. You will get quite a few results. One of the sites listed that caught my eye was Canadianvalues.ca. By the title you would assume they speak for all Canadians, possibly providing non-Canadian’s a glimpse into the Canadian Value System. This could be beneficial in preparing them for potential relocation to our country. Perhaps there are Canadians already residing in our great country that are curious and go to the site. To the right hand side of this article is a list of their supporters.

The first word to catch my attention was ‘conservative’, well I vote conservative. Second thing to catch my eye was the word ‘Christian’, well I identify as Christian. On and on the things I saw on that first page I would nod my head in agreement with. Then I got behind that front page façade I realized that this site went way beyond my value system. I found things said on that site that have made me question my political standing.

Canadianvalues.ca have, infamously, also placed ads in the national press. To quote the (right-wing) National Post, the ad “argued against aspects of the Ontario school curriculum that include instruction about certain aspects of human sexuality. Specifically, it objected to teaching young children — those between junior kindergarten and Grade 3 — about transsexual/transgender/intersexed/two-spirited issues” Said the National Post in apologizing for running the ad “ the ad in question was attempting to make the case that the Ontario curriculum was teaching very young children about issues that, at that age, should be the domain of parents. In addition, it made the case that even when parents or teachers may object to the material being taught, they did not have the right, in the case of parents, to remove their children from the class, or in the case of teachers, to decline to teach the material on the grounds that they objected to it.”

xrandy2

You can read The national Pos’s apology here.

Now don’t get me wrong. Every person has the right to voice their own opinion but to claim, through the use of a general name such as CanadianValues.com, to speak for all people of a certain group I find personally unacceptable.

I am Canadian and don’t have their value system.   I have also, up to this point, considered myself Conservative and I don’t agree with everything they say. I am also a Christian and I don’t see things quit the same way they seem to.

Now this was just one of many different sites. What I seen on a lot of these sites is propaganda that feeds various stigmas. I don’t have all the answers but I can tell you that whenever I run into Stigma it hurts. It is like having a knife shoved into you and twisted, whether it is something that affects me personally or it affects others.   It can cause depression, anger, panic, it could possibly even engage the flight or fight response or drive a person to suicide.

Now I am going to clarify here. I believe in free speech. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind. Although upset at some of the content of candianvalues.ca I respect their right to say those things. What I don’t agree with is the fact they named their site Canadianvalues.ca. Don’t claim to speak for me just like I don’t claim to speak for you.

This brings me back to my original question; can freedom of speech go too far? In giving people the right to say what they want have we provided them the right to tear others down? Have we given these people permission to talk for all of us? Have we given them the right to teach our children to be bigots, racists or to subscribe to stigma? What happens if a mentally unbalanced person reads information on a site like that and decides to go out and eradicate a specific group of people? What if newcomers, that would already be facing culture shock and trying to fit in, are misled to believe that these are the values that they must adopt?

xrandy3

We have a ‘Banned Books’ list in Canada so there are already limitations to our free speech. Maybe it’s time for us to stand up and unite against Stigma and people that propagate it, and get the government to crack down on them.   So write your member of parliament and let’s get the ball rolling on this. Let’s make history.

Randy Verdone was interviewed at length by PositiveLite.com on July 28, 2011. That interview with Bob Leahy is here. This is his first article for PositiveLite.

Oct12

Polari, a secret gay language born of homophobia

Wednesday, 12 October 2011 Written by // John McCullagh - Publisher Categories // John McCullagh

John reminisces about the secret language of his youth that enabled gay men to recognize one another and that provided a vocabulary for gay life, sex and sexuality without running the risk of arrest or reprisal.

Polari, a secret gay language born of homophobia

I’ve been thinking recently about how different it is for people to come out of the closet these days compared to my own experience in the early 1960s. This quintessential rite of passage is never easy, of course, but young people today do have access to information about being lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans - from movies and television, from books and the internet - and many will, perhaps, already have friends or peers who self-identify as queer.

It was different for me. When I came out, gay sexuality was still the love that dared not speak its name. In England, where I lived at the time, to be gay was to be labelled a criminal by the state, a sinner by the church and mentally ill by the medical establishment. There were no publicly out gay male or lesbian role models that I could look up to, to give me some positive hope of what my future life as a gay man might look like. It was the same situation in Canada and other English-speaking countries.

So I had to learn what being gay was all about, along with what was acceptable and what was not, from other gay men I met. This, however, had to wait until I’d plucked up the courage to drop into one of the few gay bars that at that time were barely tolerated by the authorities. Eventually, I learned from my peers how to socialize and make friends, how to behave so that I wouldn’t embarrass myself and, most importantly, how to meet other guys for sex or a possible relationship.

One of the things I didn’t expect to have to learn was a new language. But here were other guys in the bars talking about their friends and their daily lives using words I couldn’t understand. But like other gay men of my generation, I quickly learned how to speak like my peers.

What I was hearing and learning was Polari, an argot used by British gay men in the dark and difficult days between the trial of Oscar Wilde in 1895 and the end of the 1960s, when, as in Canada, the U.K. parliament partially decriminalized sex between males. It probably grew out of the theatre world, where many gay people worked, and combined elements of Italian, Occitan (southern French), Romany, Yiddish, American air force slang and Cockney (working-class London) backwards and rhyming slang. It was a way of speaking among gay people so that others would have no idea what you were talking about. This was a necessity in an era when gay men were frequently arrested by the police (“lilly law” in Polari) and subjected to electric shock treatment in a misguided attempt to cure them of their homosexuality.

xjohnpol1

As linguist Paul Baker has written: “In a world where homosexuality was stigmatized through the institutions of law, medicine and religion, [gay] men needed a way to express themselves without getting caught. Consisting of sixty or so core words, Polari described types of people, their body parts and clothing and evaluated them in terms of their attractiveness and sexual availability. So dropping the odd Polari word into a conversation with a new, handsome acquaintance was one way of working out if they might be interested.

“Polari also acted as a form of initiation into the gay subculture, with older gay men teaching the newbies all of the words and “christening” them with their own camp name - Nathan becomes Nanette. Some Polari words labelled the technicalities of cruising, gay sex and various sexual identities - words mainstream society had not bothered to provide words for (or if they had they were nasty ones); others gave new words to existing concepts.”

In his memoirs, the the gay journalist Peter Burton uses Polari to describe an evening in a gay bar during those difficult years:

“As feely ommes...we would zhoosh our riah, powder our eeks, climb into our bona new drag, don our batts and troll off to some bona bijou bar. In the bar we would stand around with our sisters, vada the bona cartes on the butch omme ajax who, if we fluttered our ogle riahs at him sweetly, might just troll over to offer a light for the unlit vogue clenched between our teeth.”

Translation: “As young men...we would style our hair, powder our faces, climb into our fabulous new clothes, don our shoes and wander into some fabulous little bar. In the bar we would stand around with our gay companions, look at the fabulous genitals on the butch man nearby who, if we fluttered our eyelashes at him sweetly, might just wander over to offer a light for the unlit cigarette clenched between our teeth.”

By the time I came out, although Polari was still widely spoken, it was on the decline. It was the 1960s and many of the old stereotypes regarding homosexuality were slowly disappearing. Ironically, Polari burst out of the closet in a popular BBC radio sketch comedy show, Round the Horne, on air from 1964 to 1969. It had a weekly audience of about 15 million people who listened in during a popular Sunday afternoon “family hour”. Broadcast live before a studio audience, it featured an avuncular straight man (in both the sexual and comedic senses of the word), Kenneth Horne, playing himself, who always seemed to be looking for some service or other. He inevitably opened the door of some new retail or service establishment, always called “bona” (meaning fabulous, as in gay, as opposed to “naff”, meaning boring, as in non-gay) this or that - Bona Pets, Bona Books, Bona Caterers, etc. - to be greeted by Julian and Sandy, two out-of-work actors who were trying their hand at a new business venture.

Kenneth Horne: “Hello, is anybody there?”

Julian: “Oh, hello, I’m Julian and this is my friend Sandy”

Sandy: Oh, it’s Mr Horne! How bona to vada your dolly eek again. (Translation: How great to see your pretty face again.)

xjohnpol4

Julian and Sandy, explicitly camp and implicitly gay, were played respectively by Hugh Paddick and Kenneth Williams. Gay themselves, they were able to squeeze every ounce of meaning from their use of Polari words and double entendres. In an era when gay people were often portrayed negatively, their humour was very funny and outrageously over-the-top yet it contained no hint of homophobia.

You can hear a clip from a Julian and Sandy sketch at the end of this post. The Polari words used in it are:

  •  omee (man)
  • bona (great, nice)
  • vada (to look, to see)
  • dolly (pretty, nice, pleasant)
  • eek (short for ecaf, backslang for face)
  • trolling (walking, cruising for sex)
  • bold (daring)
  • palone (woman)
  • lallies (legs)
  • nanti (not, no, nothing, don’t, beware)
  • cottage (a public washroom used for sexual encounters)
  • fantabulosa (fabulous, wonderful)

While Round the Horne popularized Polari among its non-gay listeners, it inevitably contributed to its demise. After all, when even great aunt Agatha got the jokes and understood the meaning of the coded words, the language lost its raison d’être. But Polari’s real death knell was the advent of the politics of gay liberation. A new generation rejected the ghettoized camp stereotypes of their elders and replaced them with a new esthetic of hyper-masculinity that became epitomized by the clone look affected by many gay men in the 1970s.

While Polari was a particularly British phenomenon, a number of Polari words did cross the Atlantic, the most notable of which is the word “gay” itself. Other words that entered popular North American gay slang, though most Canadians and Americans will probably not recognize their Polari origins, include:

  • basket (the bulge of male genitals under clothing)
  • butch (masculine)
  • camp (effeminate)
  • chicken (young man)
  • drag (clothes, especially women’s clothes worn by a man)
  • fairy (gay man)
  • fruit (gay man)
  • mince (affected, camp walk)
  • queen (gay man, often used deprecatingly)
  • trade (sex, sex partner, potential sex partner)
  • rough trade (a tough, thuggish or potentially violent sex partner)

xjohnpol8

Although I miss the camp humour and the sense of special comradeship that Polari provided in my youth, I don’t miss the homophobia that led to it. And I’ve no desire to return to the closeted life that was the lot of almost all gay men and lesbians in those days. Recently, though, I was reminded how easy it is to assume erroneously that this kind of prejudice and discrimination is no longer present in the world today. An recent article in Xtra!, a Canadian gay and lesbian newspaper, described the lives of two gay Liberian refugees living in a camp outside Accra, the Ghanian capital. Paula Stromberg, the author of the article, asked one of the men how guys communicate about sex:

“ ‘Nothing is ever said. When a [bottom man] meets a guy...’ He grabs my hand in a handshake and presses one finger into my palm. Then he switches, pressing his thumb repeatedly on the back of my hand. ‘The top [guy] signal.’ [Such coded communication] is important here. Mistakes can mean lynching, jail or death.”

So let’s continue to make sure that when we in the West wave our rainbow flags and celebrate our queer identities we never forget our less fortunate brothers and sisters in the rest of the world who can only dream of such freedoms.

References

  • Baker, Paul (2002). Polari. The lost language of gay men. London: Routledge.
  • Burton, Peter (1985). Parallel lives. London: Gay Men’s Press.
  • Stromberg, Paula (2011). A good day in Ghana; gay Liberian refugees survive in West Africa. Xtra! No. 702.

A two-disc CD of sketches from Round the Horne, The Bona World of Julian and Sandy, is available from Amazon.ca and BBCshop.com

xjohnpol7

 

Oct11

Back to School

Tuesday, 11 October 2011 Categories // Revolving Door

In this guest post, hivster.com Editor Brad Crelia revisits his old school, remembers starting a gay-straight alliance there and checks in on how that group looks today.

Back to School

Originally posted by Brad Crelia on hivster.com on September 22, 2011. Brad Crelia is the Editor/Publisher of hivster.com. Check out their site here.

Back in 2000 I started a GSA [Gay-Straight Alliance] called Spectrum at Lewis and Clark High School in Spokane, WA; it wasn’t easy. There was a divide between the Principal and Mr. Roberts, the school’s drama teacher, Dr. Dupper, my school counsellor and myself. The three of us against him. GSAs were still fairly new and Spokane was and still is fairly conservative. After a few “no’s”, I had to call in mom. At the time my parents owned a widely read and popular alternative newspaper, the Local Planet.

I remember the day we got the “okay” to start Spectrum. Mom and I had a sitdown with the Principal and she basically said, ”Let my son start this group, a group that will help these kids being hurt and ridiculed or your face will be on the next issue with HOMOPHOBE underneath.” It was settled. We got the go ahead.

When I was running Spectrum, there were maybe six of us. Ten kids at most. We made signs against LGBTQ discrimination, had a great group of guest speakers (a big shot from PFLAG, Spokane’s first openly gay Counciman) and got the school to participate in the National Day of Silence. We were all proud of what we created and had the support of two amazing administrators: Dr. Dupper, a magnificent woman who truly cared for us, her heart one of the biggest I’ve encountered, and Mr. Roberts, an amazing teacher, brilliant actor and like Dr. Dupper, he loved our group.

After I left Lewis and Clark, I lost track of Spectrum, having moved on from high school pretty quick. But I recently had the chance to visit Spectrum again and it was one of the best days I’ve had for quite awhile. The room was full, with somewhere between thirty and forty students making signs to post around the building, and it was only their second week of school.

It surprised me how enthusiastic these students were, three weeks in and already hitting it hard.

I had a chance to speak to them, talking about Hivster and asking for them to submit their stories. I asked them about the group and how they were treated at the school. That’s when things got a little disheartening.

“The last few years were okay, but this year it’s gotten pretty bad,” says one student. “Not anything physical, mostly verbal stuff, like getting called faggot,” said another. Severely worse was mentioned. I handed out some Hivster stickers and condoms, and wrote my email on the board for submission right as the lunch bell rang.

I was off to the Vice-Principal/Disciplinarian’s office. I asked the VP about the escalating verbal harassment. How many complaints? Does he know of any instances? None. No one reported anything to the office, which was exactly the problem I had when at the school: You tell; you get beat up.

He did tell me that Lewis and Clark students are given a handbook the 1st week of school that includes their non-discrimination policy, including sexual orientation. The 2nd week bullying and harassment policy is discussed in the classes and the 3rd week they go over the “3 R’s” (Respect, Rights and Responsibility). He also mentioned that by law ,both students and teachers have to go over the bullying/harassment policy from the school district.

One somewhat worrisome comment made by the VP was when I asked if a teacher would stop a bullying situation in the school. He replied, “Ugh, well I would hope so.” I would hope so too.

But overall, I was so happy to see this group still going, thriving. After I was done speaking with the VP, I was able to spend some time with Dr. Dupper.

I was pretty upset to hear that Mr. Roberts, who helped start Spectrum with me, died of kidney problems a few years ago. June 23, as I said earlier: He truly was a brilliant teacher and actor and activist. And I miss him greatly. After his death, there was a substitute teacher who watched the group for a short time, then Dr. Dupper found a really nice debate teacher to take over and she seems to be very supportive and interested in the group. Spectrum’s in good hands.

Dr. Dupper said, “You changed diversity at this school,” which really meant a lot. I honestly thought that when I left, the group would dissolve, but it didn’t. It grew and is everything I wanted it to be. I am so proud of these kids. Dr. Dupper said at the time there were 60-75 students at Spectrum meetings. These kids are making a difference and so fucking courageous for everything they’re doing.

Dr. Dupper says that there is more bullying now, compared to her class of ’67, but I think the school’s in good hands. There’s a pretty awesome group of strong, queer-straight allies and administrators that will make a difference. They are making a difference.

You can check out the Lewis and Clark Student Handbook, which covers Non-Discrimination Policy, on the school's site.

 

Aug05

Don't bother locking up your daughters, just lock up black men with HIV

Friday, 05 August 2011 Categories // Guest Authors

Edwin Bernard, a UK expert on international criminalization issues, weighs in on the latest development in the Canadian criminalization saga, “dangerous offender" status.

Don't bother locking up your daughters, just lock up black men with HIV

This article By Edwin Bernard first appeared in the online version of POZ, here. Go to that page for a selectioin of the comments received.

Edwin Bernard is a writer, editor and advocate specialising in HIV criminalization. He also writes and edits a widely read blog that reports and comments on laws, prosecutions and media reporting of criminal HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission cases from around the world, and which encourages and highlights advocacy against such laws and prosecutions. 

The case being discussed here was summarized by POZ as followss:  

A Canadian court has handed down an indefinite sentence and dangerous offender status to John Aziga, a man believed to be the first in Canada to be convicted of first-degree murder through HIV transmission, The Vancouver Sun reports. The dangerous offender designation is reserved for notorious criminals, serial killers and sex offenders and comes with an indefinite prison term, a lifelong supervision order and registration with the national sex crimes database. Aziga, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1996, was convicted in 2009 of two counts of first-degree murder, 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault. He already faces an automatic life sentence of 25 years for the murder convictions but has commenced the appeals process.

Johnson Aziga, 55, an African migrant living with HIV, is a now officially a "dangerous offender" according to Canadian criminal law.

Mr Aziga is already considered a "murderer" two times over. He was convicted in 2009 of two counts of first-degree murder, ten counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of attempted aggravated sexual assault, because he had unprotected sex with eleven women without telling them he had HIV. Seven of the women subsequently tested HIV-positive, and two died of AIDS-related cancers within a couple of years of having had sex with Mr Aziga.

[A number of articles and blog posts on Mr Aziga's trial - and the media's reaction to it - can be found on my blog.]

Being a "dangerous offender" means he will likely remain in prison for the rest of his life - even in the unlikely event that his life sentence without the possibility of parole for 25 years for the murder convictions is overturned on appeal. [The whole "dangerous offender" process is considered by some legal experts to be discriminatory and "dangerous" because "putting the onus on criminals makes it too easy for the court system to declare people dangerous offenders.]

xrevedwin2

Johnson Aziga would have been at least 78 years old if he had been able to be considered for release after 25 years. And yet, somehow, the Canadian legal system considers that at this age, Mr Aziga's libido would be so voracious, his appeal so alluring to Canada's heterosexual female population, that he must be locked up for life.

Mr. Aziga's sex drive "is head and shoulders above" the average man's and "knowing his need for sex is not going to be satisfied" could deter him from disclosing his HIV status to potential partners, [Crown attorney Karen Shea argued]. "He didn't abstain from sex knowing what he knew (about having HIV), he didn't discuss his HIV status knowing what he knew and he didn't wear a condom knowing what he knew," she told the court.

I am the only person that sees this as absurd - as both racist and HIV-phobic?

The legal characterization of men of African origin with HIV as 'monstrously' hypersexual is not new. Back in 1993, Canada tried to convict Charles Ssenyonga of similar 'crimes' (His 'victims', like Aziga's, were all white women; his virus, like Aziga's, a "rare African strain".) Ssenyonga died before the trial concluded. The prosecution (and media's) focus on his hypersexual Africanness was explored in a fabulous 2005 article by by James Miller, 'African Immigrant Damnation Syndrome: The Case of Charles Ssenyonga' published as part of a special issue of the social science journal, Sexuality Research & Social Policy called 'Reckless Vectors: The Infecting "Other" in HIV/AIDS Law.'

In the introduction by the journal's editors Heather Worth, Cindy Patton, and Diane Goldstein, they highlight the issue of racism in HIV criminal cases.

...the fact that the accused is African is used to indicate a priori an excessive and lethal sexuality and to position Africa itself as a deviant and viral continent and as the source and cause of AIDS. This prejudice extends to successive generations of African immigrants, as can be seen in the case of Nushawn Williams, an African American man from upstate New York. The same focus on Williams' Black, eroticized body is evident in the numerous media accounts of the case.

xrevedwin3

Interestingly, Nushawn Williams is currently going through exactly the same process as Mr Aziga, having already served the maximum sentence of 12 years for the 'crimes' he pleaded guilty to back in 1998. Back in May 2010, a New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that Mr Williams "poses a danger to society and as a result, must remain behind bars even though his sentence is complete." He is now awaiting the outcome of his civil confinement hearing that has been delayed for almost a year.

Mr Aziga and Mr Williams are being punished twice over. The idea that society is protected from HIV by keeping them in prison indefinitely is erroneous and outrageous. In the past men used to "lock up their daughters" when a man of purported huge sexual prowess came sniffing around, as if their female offspring did not have a sexuality or a choice in whether or not to have sex with their suitor.

Now, society locks up "HIV monsters" because it thinks female members of society need protecting from them, as if they did not have a sexuality or a choice in whether or not to have sex with their suitor.

But the real problem is that focusing on Black or African HIV (in the guise of Aziga or Williams) creates a false sense of security because all sex comes with risks of HIV infection (and these risks are usually much higher from someone with HIV who is undiagnosed, and therefore unable to disclose).

Wouldn't it be better - and more cost-effective - to spend some money on HIV prevention education for the general public, so that white heterosexual women, and others who think that they are not at risk for HIV because they haven't been targeted with HIV prevention information (usually aimed at 'key populations' like gay men and Black or African communities) can learn how to protect themselves from HIV rather than foolishly relying on the criminal law to protect them after the fact?

*****************************************

Want more? POZ maintains an excellent selection of articles about HIV criminalization. You can find their page listing them here.

Jul21

Sexuality and Satan: The Devil IS in the Details

Thursday, 21 July 2011 Categories // Spirituality, Opinion Pieces, Sex and Sexuality

Steve Lincoln on Michele Bachmann and the demonic perspective

This may sound presumptuous, but despite the fact that I was raised in small-town Ontario, I didn’t have much of a religious background. And, while I grew up with a reasonably good understanding of right and wrong, I must admit that my perceptions of that which we call evil or the devil were, for want of a better term, somewhat skewed. This by no means meant that being gay was perfectly acceptable; however, the specter of Satan simply wasn’t part of my own experience. Allow me to elaborate.

Some of you may remember the American comedian and actor known professionally as ‘Flip’ Wilson. In 1970, Wilson debuted his NBC variety series on which he showcased perhaps his most famous character, Geraldine Jones. For those unfamiliar with Wilson’s much beloved (and later besmirched) efforts at comedic cross-dressing, Geraldine’s catchphrase “the devil made me do it” became a national phenomenon. At the time, I was but nine years old, yet I can recall Wilson’s voice as clearly as if it were yesterday. And I can honestly say this is my first childhood memory of hearing any consistent reference to the devil -- still, what or who the devil was remained to be seen.

xstevedevil2

Only three years later in 1973, the devil reemerged (for me) in The Exorcist, in which a 14-year-old Linda Blair served up a far more serious and, at the time, genuinely terrifying portrayal of the consequences of demonic possession. Admittedly, the memory of Regan MacNeil vomiting on Father Damien Karras still kind of creeps me out. And this, believe it or not, is my first memory of the downside of this “unholy” alliance. That being said, I’m sure many of you could offer your own renditions of evil or Satan -- images and experiences that resonate far more profoundly than mine.

Interestingly, while Wilson and Blair helped burn into the North American psyche very different images of the devil, both worked to keep alive a longstanding tradition in their appeal to the supernatural to explain away immoral, evil, criminal or otherwise (and I use this term very broadly) deviant behavior. It is a tradition -- indeed a perspective -- on human behavior that, while not necessarily preeminent, seems always to lurk somewhere in our collective backgrounds and with potentially serious ramifications.

In fact, we need look no further than our neighbors to the south, where U. S. Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has resurrected -- or perhaps more appropriately, has had resurrected for her -- the “demonic perspective” in her political platform on homosexuality and all its deviant variations. Most, I expect (and I include myself here), are more likely to simultaneously smile and cringe at Bachmann’s claims; however, a closer look at the fusion of sexuality and Satan is an interesting exercise in and of itself. Bachmann may be by most accounts be a political long shot, but her political rhetoric speaks volumes.

Here’s a selection from a lecture to the National Education Conference in 2004, one that remains especially alive and well in the 2012 presidential candidate debates:

“We need to have profound compassion for the people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life, and sexual identity disorders. This is a very real issue. It’s not funny. It’s sad. Any of you who have members of your family -- we have a member of our family who is. It’s a very sad life. It’s part of Satan, I think, to say that this is gay. It’s anything but gay.”

xstevedevil3

Grammar, logic and concrete evidence aside, while Bachmann refers to “disorders” and “dysfunction”, her reliance here and elsewhere is primarily upon what academics (and others) refer to as the “demonic perspective” -- one that relies upon at least three fundamental beliefs with which most are familiar. Indeed, it is worth elaborating what Bachmann and so many others take for granted when they make such “compassionate” arguments. (In a quick aside, anyone else think she’s being politically preemptive here?)

First, this is a perspective that rests on the view that the human world is essentially an arena or theater in which the supernatural forces of good and evil struggle constantly against each other. Second, it is a world in which the consequences of deviance are not limited to those immediately involved but, by contrast, affect most others -- if not all of human existence. And third, the elimination or control of deviance cannot (for the most part) be achieved by ordinary individuals, but rather only by what are assumed to be specialists or professionals.

The first assumption is interesting and certainly familiar to many of us. How many times have we heard, in one form or another, the claim that there is a “natural order” to things and that the deviant in some manner has violated that order through one of two ways: demonic possession or by succumbing to evil temptations. Indeed, human beings are assumed, more often than not, to be vulnerable by virtue by the very fact that they are “human” beings.

How many of you have also been warned that there were “forces” out there looking to lead us astray, or not to give into our “weaknesses” as individuals. The “demonic perspective” necessarily depends upon one or both -- but the fact remains, in all cases these struggles are incessant. The individual, as such, may be punished for giving into temptation or, if possessed, gives over responsibility and seeks professional help.

xstevedevil4

As such, while certain control efforts may appear to us coercive, they are driven by some underlying compassion, very much in line with Bachmann’s seemingly sympathetic observations -- and how many of us haven’t heard the expression “love the sinner, hate the sin”? It is worth noting here that many (including academics) have drawn a number of interesting parallels between the longstanding concept of demonic possession and more contemporary understandings of certain behaviors we now call mental illness. Some interesting food for thought.

The second assumption speaks to the urgency with which we must confront the deviant or deviance. More specifically, as noted, the consequences cannot be contained and it is all of existence -- the “natural order” itself -- that is affected so long as deviance persists. There is thus a greater immediacy to restore that order through the identification and redemption of those involved -- to save the very soul of society.

Little wonder then that advocates of such an approach feel such a great responsibility to purge or “cure” others of their respective maladies. Indeed, failure to do so inevitably means the suffering of all, if not the wrath of God himself. These are hardly my own words, and one need not look very far to find such arguments. But what seems especially compelling here is that this reveals that the “demonic perspective” is far more than simply a tool of the political right. Politicians, social leaders, and religious crusaders of all faiths and political convictions make frequent use of such religious imagery. Just consider those on the left who speak, for example, of the national sins of poverty and political inequality just as often.  

The third assumption puts efforts at the “social control” of deviance into the hands of professionals and, very often, involves religiously-administered and routinely public rituals to purge society of the “problem” and to restore order and society’s relationship with God. Here, I admit, there are some obvious limitations for contemporary society -- and while I cannot estimate with much certainty, I would expect the frequency of such things as exorcisms (here and elsewhere) is probably relatively low.

But it is here that I would be remiss in not returning to my earlier references to Father Damien Karras (the psychiatrist) and the parallels drawn between demonic possession and contemporary understandings of what we call mental illness. In fact, very conveniently, this brings us back to the very heart of Bachmann’s religiously inspired and superficially scientific references to disorders and dysfunctions. Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association may have removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-II) in 1973. Unfortunately, many seemingly well-meaning, spiritually-driven individuals continue to disagree. Like it or not, the devil remains forever in the details.  

MarketPlace