Following the recent calls from a senior member of the government for greater recognition of rights for homosexuals in Kenya, the former leader of Botswana, Festus Mogae, has argued against the introduction of laws that criminalize same sex relationships. He is also opposed to laws that criminalize sex work. Both of these moves could help reduce discrimination and persecution.
Mr Mogae was discussing these issues in relation to reducing HIV transmission. The combined contribution of men having sex with men, sex workers and their clients to HIV epidemics may be as high as 20%, perhaps even higher. Although both same sex relationships and sex work should be decriminalized for reasons independent of HIV transmission reduction, Mogae's frankness is a big step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, the president of Zambia, Rupiah Banda, doesn't agree. Nor do a large number of current African leaders. But many people are afraid to even campaign or express an opinion about same sex relationships or sex work, especially if they are involved in such relationships or depend on sex work for their income. Whether Mogae is speaking for them or clearing the way for them to speak for themselves, the issues should no longer remain in the hands of extremists.
Despite the relatively small contribution that same sex relationships and sex work make to HIV epidemics, perhaps it doesn't matter why governments discuss the possibility of decriminalizing or avoiding criminalizing these activities. Perhaps the important thing is that the issues are discussed openly and fairly, with the hope that leaders will make decisions based on human rights principles, rather than on tabloid whim.
On the subject of tabloid whim, a Ugandan newspaper is calling for gay people to be hanged. The article has even named people it claims are gay. Uganda's government is not known for discussing homosexuality sensibly, or even for discussing it, and a lot of 'information' on homosexuality in the country is thought to have been disseminated using money from a US Christian church.
Such campaigns are always based on misinformation and hatred. Things associated with homosexuals are suspiciously like things associated with other monorities, such as albinos. Here in Tanzania, literature about albinism often has to explicitly point out that you will not become an albino by touching one, that they are not some kind of mysterious type of human. And there are numerous other myths that need to be dispelled, over and over again.
Homophobes like the public to think that gay people 'recruit' others, adults and children, and somehow make them gay. There are many myths and they are easy to propagate, especially as so many of them are familiar. Stigma that associates HIV transmission with 'unsafe' sexual behavior and some kind of vague 'immorality' also eases the propagation of prejudice. As a result people are persecuted, attacked and often killed.
The belief that Africans have some kind of unusual sexuality, or that they are more sexually active than non-Africans, also feeds the prejudice against same sex relationships. It's all part of a form of human behavior that results in people believing things that couldn't possibly be true solely because they confirm other things that also couldn't possibly be true.
This is dangerous behavior. What Uganda and other African countries need is legislation that prevents such myths being propagated in any way, especially in newspapers and other media. Lying may be common in the media, but the sort of fabrication that goes on in relation to same sex relationships and other sorts of behavior that are said to be 'wrong' has been responsible for many acts of violence. It is likely that there will be more violence.
Failure to recognise the human rights of one minority is a failure to recognise the human rights of all minorities. Because human rights are granted to all humans, arbitrarily selecting one minority and denying them their rights is a denial of the concept of human rights. So it is not only those who engage in same sex relationships who should be rejecting the current rash of homophobic nonsense we are being subjected to by many national media in Africa; everyone who cares about human rights should be concerned.
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
A Vote For Minister Murugi is a Vote for Human Rights
There are senior people who still hold powerful positions, despite facing trial in the International Criminal Court; there are some who have stolen money intended for internally displaced persons; others who have stolen food intended for the starving. Education, health and infrastructure funds have gone missing, having passed through the hads of the most powerful leaders in Kenya. Yet calls for the resignation of these powerful individuals are rarely heard.
But one minister calls for greater acceptance of gays by society and religious leaders want her to resign. The part that religious leaders have played in various scandals in Kenya is often quite unclear and it is alarming to hear that when someone in authority advocates greater tolerance, it is religious leaders who protest the loudest. Condemnation precludes the tolerance that they only seem to preach when it suits them.
The word 'promote' is often used in these contexts. In this instance, Minister Murugi is said to be promoting 'un-African' acts. Do people think the minister is recommending that everyone should try having sex with someone of the same gender? If the minister is promoting anything, it is that people accept that there are others who are different from them. And you don't have to be gay to be different. Difference can refer to gender, tribe, religion, politics, wealth and much else.
And there is another message I am hoping Ms Murugi would like to spread and that is the message of thinking independently. Since when have churches and religious leaders adequately represented the interests of ordinary people? Religious leaders are apart from ordinary people, they are often rich, pampered, treated with deference and hold themselves aloof from everyone else. Ordinary people need to get by on their own resources, or what's left after the religious leaders have got their share.
Kenyans pay dearly with their hard earned cash, and in countless other ways, to keep religious leaders comfortable. But these religious leaders are not in those comfortable positions so that they can tell people how to live their lives. They are, from an ethical point of view, on a level with other people. Some may fall far below, some may live admirable lives. But it is not their place to judge, nor to command, only to advise, support and nurture.
This may even be a good time to renegotiate, or at least reconsider, the role that religious leaders play in people's lives and in the running of their country.
Minister Murugi has done what she was elected to do. What would people prefer? That they sack her and replace her with someone else, who will usurp a role of arbiter of good behavior and executioner of punishments for those who fall out of line? It's almost as if Kenyans want leaders who behave as they wish to but expect their electorate always to fall in line and never, never criticize what their leaders may get up to.
The current situation leads to a lot of fear, violence and discrimination. Is that what Kenyans want? There are few leaders in this country who have made any change for the better and, I agree, change for the better is difficult. But Minister Murungi has tried to make a change that might, eventually, make things better for a very significant minority. And in standing up for one minority, a precedent will have been set for other minorities. Causes that once seemed lost may be won, in time.
Every Kenyan should be calling for Minister Murugi to hold firm in her advocacy of greater acceptance of gays in society. People should be telling their religious leaders that they are overstepping their authority. Indeed, they are perverting their authority by failing to uphold tolerance and instead, spreading intolerance and possibly fanning violence and crime. Every Kenyan stands to gain from greater tolerance. Nor need one be gay to benefit from recognition of the legitimacy of difference, whether that difference be sexual, racial, political or anything else.
But one minister calls for greater acceptance of gays by society and religious leaders want her to resign. The part that religious leaders have played in various scandals in Kenya is often quite unclear and it is alarming to hear that when someone in authority advocates greater tolerance, it is religious leaders who protest the loudest. Condemnation precludes the tolerance that they only seem to preach when it suits them.
The word 'promote' is often used in these contexts. In this instance, Minister Murugi is said to be promoting 'un-African' acts. Do people think the minister is recommending that everyone should try having sex with someone of the same gender? If the minister is promoting anything, it is that people accept that there are others who are different from them. And you don't have to be gay to be different. Difference can refer to gender, tribe, religion, politics, wealth and much else.
And there is another message I am hoping Ms Murugi would like to spread and that is the message of thinking independently. Since when have churches and religious leaders adequately represented the interests of ordinary people? Religious leaders are apart from ordinary people, they are often rich, pampered, treated with deference and hold themselves aloof from everyone else. Ordinary people need to get by on their own resources, or what's left after the religious leaders have got their share.
Kenyans pay dearly with their hard earned cash, and in countless other ways, to keep religious leaders comfortable. But these religious leaders are not in those comfortable positions so that they can tell people how to live their lives. They are, from an ethical point of view, on a level with other people. Some may fall far below, some may live admirable lives. But it is not their place to judge, nor to command, only to advise, support and nurture.
This may even be a good time to renegotiate, or at least reconsider, the role that religious leaders play in people's lives and in the running of their country.
Minister Murugi has done what she was elected to do. What would people prefer? That they sack her and replace her with someone else, who will usurp a role of arbiter of good behavior and executioner of punishments for those who fall out of line? It's almost as if Kenyans want leaders who behave as they wish to but expect their electorate always to fall in line and never, never criticize what their leaders may get up to.
The current situation leads to a lot of fear, violence and discrimination. Is that what Kenyans want? There are few leaders in this country who have made any change for the better and, I agree, change for the better is difficult. But Minister Murungi has tried to make a change that might, eventually, make things better for a very significant minority. And in standing up for one minority, a precedent will have been set for other minorities. Causes that once seemed lost may be won, in time.
Every Kenyan should be calling for Minister Murugi to hold firm in her advocacy of greater acceptance of gays in society. People should be telling their religious leaders that they are overstepping their authority. Indeed, they are perverting their authority by failing to uphold tolerance and instead, spreading intolerance and possibly fanning violence and crime. Every Kenyan stands to gain from greater tolerance. Nor need one be gay to benefit from recognition of the legitimacy of difference, whether that difference be sexual, racial, political or anything else.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Health Minister Takes Aim at Own Foot
In addition to proposing a draconian law to make certain sex related crimes capital offences, the Ugandan government is also considering a law to criminalize ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV. The ‘State Minister for Health in charge of General Duties’ (is that the same as ‘Minister of Health’?), Richard Nduhura says he is now behind the law, having previously had some reservations. President Museveni also supports the law, which never bodes well.
Naturally, human rights activists and people who have some feelings of humanity are opposed to these laws. Some of them have spent three decades trying to reduce stigma against HIV positive people, whereas laws like these will increase it. People will think twice before having a HIV test, or even going to hospital, if they think they may be HIV positive. Uganda needs more people to test for HIV, not fewer. With these laws, anyone who is at risk of being HIV positive, or even anyone who may be suspected of being at risk, also risks discrimination by neighbours, police and other professionals.
This is particularly serious in a country like Uganda because UNAIDS maintains the contested claim that most HIV is transmitted by heterosexual sex. That means that all pregnant women, their partners and those suspected of having had sex in the past could be HIV positive. After all, the majority of new infections are occurring inside marriages and steady relationships. Therefore, these are the people, along with men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users and commercial sex workers (or anyone believed to belong to these groups) who are most likely to become infected and to be spreading HIV.
But there is a rather more troubling aspect to making ‘deliberate’ transmission an offence. The law is clearly aimed at people who are already discriminated against, along with a lot of other people who will soon be discriminated against. But will it also apply to providers working in medical facilities and those working places where people receive cosmetic treatment? It has long been established that medical and cosmetic transmission of HIV is far more common than the mainstream HIV industry people will admit. But if it ever gets out that people working in these sectors are ‘deliberately’ transmitting HIV, they too will become victims of the law.
What about the esteemed State Minister for Health in charge of General Duties, himself? Healthcare personnel, I am sure, are not ‘deliberately’ infecting people. But what about the ones who reuse a needle or a syringe or fail to sterilize equipment properly? They would be well aware that this carries a big risk of transmitting HIV and other diseases. Perhaps there is a shortage of equipment, perhaps people haven’t received adequate training or perhaps someone is making money on the side by selling reused medical equipment or stealing it and selling it on the black market (I’m not necessarily talking about frontline healthcare personnel, by the way). Isn’t the State Minister for Health in charge of General Duties responsible for the conditions of medical facilities currently extant in Uganda?
Ok, the word ‘deliberately’ is in inverted commas for a reason. How can you tell that transmission is deliberate? I think the answer is simple enough: in many cases, you can’t. Some people may transmit HIV because they didn’t take adequate precautions, others may just be unlucky. Others still may not know they are HIV positive. But this applies to non-sexual transmission as much as it applies to sexual transmission. Healthcare personnel and people providing cosmetic services may not know that the last person on which a piece of equipment was used was HIV positive, before going on to use it on someone else without ensuring that it is properly sterilized.
Will people who use razors and other sharp instruments for hairdressing or other cosmetic treatments be liable for ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV, if they and their clients happen to be so unlucky? Right now, the word on the street about HIV is that medical transmission is so low as to be almost irrelevant and cosmetic transmission is pretty much irrelevant. But once the hunt is on for people to blame, there will surely be questions about the most efficient means of transmitting HIV, that is, through blood contact.
The aim of HIV prevention policies should be to identify the people who are at risk and to deal with the sources of risk. The aim should not be to group people according to how likely they are to transmit HIV or to be infected with HIV and then to create a law which will end up discriminating against them. But by threatening to punish all ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV, this law could also punish those who are not currently thought of as transmitting the disease at all, health professionals and those in other service sectors where blood transmission may occur.
In a country where most health spending comes out of the pockets of poor Ugandans and from donors, and very little comes from the government, things are not as neat and tidy as this proposed law may assume. If the aim is to identify all the ways in which people are becoming infected and prevent further infections and also to treat those who are already infected, the health minister and his colleagues are going the wrong way about it. They have, rather predictably, failed to control people’s behaviour as a means of reducing transmission of HIV. They will also fail to reduce transmission by threatening people in ways that result in them being very unlikely to get tested or to declare their status if they are HIV positive. The last thing Uganda needs now is more failure.
Naturally, human rights activists and people who have some feelings of humanity are opposed to these laws. Some of them have spent three decades trying to reduce stigma against HIV positive people, whereas laws like these will increase it. People will think twice before having a HIV test, or even going to hospital, if they think they may be HIV positive. Uganda needs more people to test for HIV, not fewer. With these laws, anyone who is at risk of being HIV positive, or even anyone who may be suspected of being at risk, also risks discrimination by neighbours, police and other professionals.
This is particularly serious in a country like Uganda because UNAIDS maintains the contested claim that most HIV is transmitted by heterosexual sex. That means that all pregnant women, their partners and those suspected of having had sex in the past could be HIV positive. After all, the majority of new infections are occurring inside marriages and steady relationships. Therefore, these are the people, along with men who have sex with men, intravenous drug users and commercial sex workers (or anyone believed to belong to these groups) who are most likely to become infected and to be spreading HIV.
But there is a rather more troubling aspect to making ‘deliberate’ transmission an offence. The law is clearly aimed at people who are already discriminated against, along with a lot of other people who will soon be discriminated against. But will it also apply to providers working in medical facilities and those working places where people receive cosmetic treatment? It has long been established that medical and cosmetic transmission of HIV is far more common than the mainstream HIV industry people will admit. But if it ever gets out that people working in these sectors are ‘deliberately’ transmitting HIV, they too will become victims of the law.
What about the esteemed State Minister for Health in charge of General Duties, himself? Healthcare personnel, I am sure, are not ‘deliberately’ infecting people. But what about the ones who reuse a needle or a syringe or fail to sterilize equipment properly? They would be well aware that this carries a big risk of transmitting HIV and other diseases. Perhaps there is a shortage of equipment, perhaps people haven’t received adequate training or perhaps someone is making money on the side by selling reused medical equipment or stealing it and selling it on the black market (I’m not necessarily talking about frontline healthcare personnel, by the way). Isn’t the State Minister for Health in charge of General Duties responsible for the conditions of medical facilities currently extant in Uganda?
Ok, the word ‘deliberately’ is in inverted commas for a reason. How can you tell that transmission is deliberate? I think the answer is simple enough: in many cases, you can’t. Some people may transmit HIV because they didn’t take adequate precautions, others may just be unlucky. Others still may not know they are HIV positive. But this applies to non-sexual transmission as much as it applies to sexual transmission. Healthcare personnel and people providing cosmetic services may not know that the last person on which a piece of equipment was used was HIV positive, before going on to use it on someone else without ensuring that it is properly sterilized.
Will people who use razors and other sharp instruments for hairdressing or other cosmetic treatments be liable for ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV, if they and their clients happen to be so unlucky? Right now, the word on the street about HIV is that medical transmission is so low as to be almost irrelevant and cosmetic transmission is pretty much irrelevant. But once the hunt is on for people to blame, there will surely be questions about the most efficient means of transmitting HIV, that is, through blood contact.
The aim of HIV prevention policies should be to identify the people who are at risk and to deal with the sources of risk. The aim should not be to group people according to how likely they are to transmit HIV or to be infected with HIV and then to create a law which will end up discriminating against them. But by threatening to punish all ‘deliberate’ transmission of HIV, this law could also punish those who are not currently thought of as transmitting the disease at all, health professionals and those in other service sectors where blood transmission may occur.
In a country where most health spending comes out of the pockets of poor Ugandans and from donors, and very little comes from the government, things are not as neat and tidy as this proposed law may assume. If the aim is to identify all the ways in which people are becoming infected and prevent further infections and also to treat those who are already infected, the health minister and his colleagues are going the wrong way about it. They have, rather predictably, failed to control people’s behaviour as a means of reducing transmission of HIV. They will also fail to reduce transmission by threatening people in ways that result in them being very unlikely to get tested or to declare their status if they are HIV positive. The last thing Uganda needs now is more failure.
Monday, November 30, 2009
'Religiosity' and Levels of Social Capital
The work continues with Ribbon of Hope Self Help Group, Nakuru, in Kenya's Rift Valley. We have ongoing projects producing basic foods such as vegetables and staples, dairy cattle and hens, etc. And we are still hoping to spread the word about ways of saving money by using solar cookers and home made fuel briquettes for cooking and various other techniques. Any project that costs very little or nothing will be considered as long as it is appropriate for people in this area and as long as it is sustainable and not destructive or damaging in any way.
As usual, some people are cooperative and hard working, otherwise, there would be no point in an organisation such as Ribbon of Hope. But sometimes it seems as if there are as many obstructive people as there are constructive people and it can be hard not to dwell on them. Especially when they so often win out and destroy projects that would have worked well without their interference. Today, we had the experience of trying to find out why some people abandoned their basic accounting and record keeping several months ago and now seem both unable and unwilling to say how they have been running their organisation.
It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to be equally successful in their endeavours and it is natural for some people to get involved initially, only to step back later and contribute less than before. But, much though I'd like to think that there are more cooperative than destructive people here, the evidence suggests that this is not true. I'm sure there are all sorts of possible explanations and I would be the first to admit that the people we work with live under all sorts of stresses and pressures that can make them a bit desperate. But I'm not going to make excuses for some of the things I've seen and heard about. I'll just hope that in the long run there are more positives than negatives and that Ribbon of Hope manages to attract serious contributors rather than time and resource wasting people.
There is a very interesting 'index' called The Legatum Prosperity Index, which aims to look at prosperity beyond the one dimensional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) favoured by so many economic analyses. The index looks at various economic figures, politics and governance, education, health, security, personal freedom and social capital. The whole index seems skewed by what are almost exclusively Western values but it's still an interesting exercise and their report is well worth the read.
Kenya doesn't come out very well, scoring 95 overall out of 104 countries for which there was adequate data available. This is not to say that Kenya's data is particularly reliable but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. The country receives a pretty low score for almost all the various indexes and rankings available. Economically, the country is weak in many ways and is particularly dependent on raw materials. Education, health, governance, personal freedom and security rankings are very poor. Surprisingly, the country is said to have well developed democratic institutions.
But the real shocker for me is that the country is ranked 25th for its level of social capital; 'most Kenyans find others to be reliable and some actively volunteer or help strangers'. Sadly, some people who 'volunteer' only do so for what they can get out of it. Apparently Kenya's social capital score is 'boosted by exceptionally high levels of religiosity'. Well, that's certainly no surprise. But many of the people who profess the loudest to be Christian, Saved, Born Again or whatever else are the ones who never miss an opportunity to get something by deceit.
I think this element of the Prosperity Index begs the question about whether high levels of religiosity is an indication that Kenya is strong on social capital. The police and other officials who require a standard bribe in order to do what is just their job are often as ostentatiously religious as anyone else. An official who tried to get a 50 dollar bribe out of me asked me to pray for him when he found I wasn't going to pay. The people who dress up for church on Sundays overlap with the mob that crowded around a young homeless boy to beat him for some offence, real or imagined. This sort of mob rule, usually aimed at very vulnerable people, such as elderly people branded as 'witches' or homeless people branded as thieves, is very common. Some of the 'volunteers' I have met never miss an opportunity to mention their love for Jesus but nor do they miss an opportunity to get something that is intended for sick and dying people.
This is not an attempt to bash the 'religious' people of Kenya or of any other country, just a question about what kind of connection there is between 'high levels of religiosity' and high levels of social capital. Reluctant as I am to come to this conclusion, I would say that social capital is one of the things that Kenya is most sorely lacking in. And this lack of social capital has had, and continues to have, a profound influence on high levels of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STI), unplanned pregnancies, stigma, discrimination and probably many other problems.
As usual, some people are cooperative and hard working, otherwise, there would be no point in an organisation such as Ribbon of Hope. But sometimes it seems as if there are as many obstructive people as there are constructive people and it can be hard not to dwell on them. Especially when they so often win out and destroy projects that would have worked well without their interference. Today, we had the experience of trying to find out why some people abandoned their basic accounting and record keeping several months ago and now seem both unable and unwilling to say how they have been running their organisation.
It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to be equally successful in their endeavours and it is natural for some people to get involved initially, only to step back later and contribute less than before. But, much though I'd like to think that there are more cooperative than destructive people here, the evidence suggests that this is not true. I'm sure there are all sorts of possible explanations and I would be the first to admit that the people we work with live under all sorts of stresses and pressures that can make them a bit desperate. But I'm not going to make excuses for some of the things I've seen and heard about. I'll just hope that in the long run there are more positives than negatives and that Ribbon of Hope manages to attract serious contributors rather than time and resource wasting people.
There is a very interesting 'index' called The Legatum Prosperity Index, which aims to look at prosperity beyond the one dimensional Gross Domestic Product (GDP) favoured by so many economic analyses. The index looks at various economic figures, politics and governance, education, health, security, personal freedom and social capital. The whole index seems skewed by what are almost exclusively Western values but it's still an interesting exercise and their report is well worth the read.
Kenya doesn't come out very well, scoring 95 overall out of 104 countries for which there was adequate data available. This is not to say that Kenya's data is particularly reliable but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. The country receives a pretty low score for almost all the various indexes and rankings available. Economically, the country is weak in many ways and is particularly dependent on raw materials. Education, health, governance, personal freedom and security rankings are very poor. Surprisingly, the country is said to have well developed democratic institutions.
But the real shocker for me is that the country is ranked 25th for its level of social capital; 'most Kenyans find others to be reliable and some actively volunteer or help strangers'. Sadly, some people who 'volunteer' only do so for what they can get out of it. Apparently Kenya's social capital score is 'boosted by exceptionally high levels of religiosity'. Well, that's certainly no surprise. But many of the people who profess the loudest to be Christian, Saved, Born Again or whatever else are the ones who never miss an opportunity to get something by deceit.
I think this element of the Prosperity Index begs the question about whether high levels of religiosity is an indication that Kenya is strong on social capital. The police and other officials who require a standard bribe in order to do what is just their job are often as ostentatiously religious as anyone else. An official who tried to get a 50 dollar bribe out of me asked me to pray for him when he found I wasn't going to pay. The people who dress up for church on Sundays overlap with the mob that crowded around a young homeless boy to beat him for some offence, real or imagined. This sort of mob rule, usually aimed at very vulnerable people, such as elderly people branded as 'witches' or homeless people branded as thieves, is very common. Some of the 'volunteers' I have met never miss an opportunity to mention their love for Jesus but nor do they miss an opportunity to get something that is intended for sick and dying people.
This is not an attempt to bash the 'religious' people of Kenya or of any other country, just a question about what kind of connection there is between 'high levels of religiosity' and high levels of social capital. Reluctant as I am to come to this conclusion, I would say that social capital is one of the things that Kenya is most sorely lacking in. And this lack of social capital has had, and continues to have, a profound influence on high levels of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STI), unplanned pregnancies, stigma, discrimination and probably many other problems.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Did Someone Say 'Final Solution'?
I have read various articles about the proposal to carry out a 'gay census' in Kenya. But none of them shed any light on why the Kenyan government should suddenly be interested in identifying some of those most at risk of being infected with and of transmitting HIV. The best way to make gay people feel they are not being singled out is to make HIV and sexual health services available to all, without prejudice.
In fact, the proposal is not just to single out men who have sex with men (MSM). The proposal also aims to identify commercial sex workers (CSW) and intravenous drug users (IDU). That's hardly going to make members of these groups feel any better. They all have several things in common: they are all doing something considered to be illegal. They are also the subject of prejudice, discrimination and condemnation by political and religious leaders.
Men who have sex with men, commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users need access to sexual health services. They also need access to more general health services, the protection of the law from persecution by members of the public and by the police. But programmes involving what is often referred to as 'harm reduction' are not popular in Kenya. The possibility of decriminalising sex between people of the same gender, commercial sex work or even intravenous drug use is not even being discussed right now.
So what strikes me as most suspicious about the call to carry out this gay census, or census of people who are most at risk from HIV, is that it is being funded by the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has always been vehemently opposed to harm reduction measures, such as the use of condoms, needle exchange programmes and other activities that are known to help reduce the spread of HIV and other diseases.
Why would PEPFAR now be interested in funding this particular approach? Are we supposed to believe that the initiative has changed to such an extent that harm reduction is no longer refused funding? And are we also supposed to believe that the Kenyan government has completely reconsidered its earlier views on gay sex, commercial sex work and intravenous drug use?
I suspect the motives behind PEPFAR's decision to fund any kind of 'survey' of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. I suspect the Kenyan government's motives, too. I have heard rumours that a number of powerful people in the US are not completely unrelated to Uganda's current discussions of an effective pogrom against gay people. This is not the way to reduce HIV transmission and it will have numerous other human rights consequences.
Unless many other things are in place that guarantee the safety of people affected by this proposed 'survey', and that will include people who don't actually fall into any of the targeted groups, the whole thing should be abandoned immediately.
In fact, the proposal is not just to single out men who have sex with men (MSM). The proposal also aims to identify commercial sex workers (CSW) and intravenous drug users (IDU). That's hardly going to make members of these groups feel any better. They all have several things in common: they are all doing something considered to be illegal. They are also the subject of prejudice, discrimination and condemnation by political and religious leaders.
Men who have sex with men, commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users need access to sexual health services. They also need access to more general health services, the protection of the law from persecution by members of the public and by the police. But programmes involving what is often referred to as 'harm reduction' are not popular in Kenya. The possibility of decriminalising sex between people of the same gender, commercial sex work or even intravenous drug use is not even being discussed right now.
So what strikes me as most suspicious about the call to carry out this gay census, or census of people who are most at risk from HIV, is that it is being funded by the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has always been vehemently opposed to harm reduction measures, such as the use of condoms, needle exchange programmes and other activities that are known to help reduce the spread of HIV and other diseases.
Why would PEPFAR now be interested in funding this particular approach? Are we supposed to believe that the initiative has changed to such an extent that harm reduction is no longer refused funding? And are we also supposed to believe that the Kenyan government has completely reconsidered its earlier views on gay sex, commercial sex work and intravenous drug use?
I suspect the motives behind PEPFAR's decision to fund any kind of 'survey' of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. I suspect the Kenyan government's motives, too. I have heard rumours that a number of powerful people in the US are not completely unrelated to Uganda's current discussions of an effective pogrom against gay people. This is not the way to reduce HIV transmission and it will have numerous other human rights consequences.
Unless many other things are in place that guarantee the safety of people affected by this proposed 'survey', and that will include people who don't actually fall into any of the targeted groups, the whole thing should be abandoned immediately.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Homosexuality: Uganda Scores Another Own Goal
Uganda is busy going the wrong way again in their 'fight' against Aids. Parliament will discuss a bill to create even more offences that gay people can commit. It's already an offence to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same gender. The 'offence' will carry a seven year sentence, as will aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring another to engage in acts of homosexuality.
HIV/Aids and sexual rights activists feel this sort of law will make HIV prevention, treatment and care services even less accessible that they currently are. No one is going to admit to being gay or to risk being exposed as being gay even under current circumstances. No one wants to be stigmatized or discriminated against, however unfairly.
There is even a proposed death penalty for sexual assault against someone of the same gender who is under 18 or disabled. But sexual assault against anyone should always be against the law, as should sexual assault against someone who is below the age of consent, male or female, same sex or otherwise. Ugandan law considers sex between people of the same gender to be against the laws of nature. If anything is against the laws of nature, it is for a homosexual to have heterosexual sex. But what law is homosexual sex supposed to be breaking? Are these laws written down? I don't think so.
Ugandan laws would be better off protecting vulnerable people, especially children, improving the status of women, targeting those who are most at risk and removing barriers to prevention, treatment and care services instead of creating new laws that make those services less accessible. The law could also give a bit of attention to reining in the power of leaders who appear to have gone crazy. And reducing the number of people who live in extreme poverty would also be a good thing.
Sex itself is neither moral nor immoral. There is no moral argument that shows that homosexual sex is immoral, only an arbitrary judgment. Punishing people for behaviour that is not immoral and creating laws to legitimise this punishment, that is immoral. The law in Uganda is being misused to serve the interests of those who make arbitrary judgments about morality. Stigmatizing and discriminating against people, which supporters of this bill are doing, is immoral and should also be punishable by law.
HIV/Aids and sexual rights activists feel this sort of law will make HIV prevention, treatment and care services even less accessible that they currently are. No one is going to admit to being gay or to risk being exposed as being gay even under current circumstances. No one wants to be stigmatized or discriminated against, however unfairly.
There is even a proposed death penalty for sexual assault against someone of the same gender who is under 18 or disabled. But sexual assault against anyone should always be against the law, as should sexual assault against someone who is below the age of consent, male or female, same sex or otherwise. Ugandan law considers sex between people of the same gender to be against the laws of nature. If anything is against the laws of nature, it is for a homosexual to have heterosexual sex. But what law is homosexual sex supposed to be breaking? Are these laws written down? I don't think so.
Ugandan laws would be better off protecting vulnerable people, especially children, improving the status of women, targeting those who are most at risk and removing barriers to prevention, treatment and care services instead of creating new laws that make those services less accessible. The law could also give a bit of attention to reining in the power of leaders who appear to have gone crazy. And reducing the number of people who live in extreme poverty would also be a good thing.
Sex itself is neither moral nor immoral. There is no moral argument that shows that homosexual sex is immoral, only an arbitrary judgment. Punishing people for behaviour that is not immoral and creating laws to legitimise this punishment, that is immoral. The law in Uganda is being misused to serve the interests of those who make arbitrary judgments about morality. Stigmatizing and discriminating against people, which supporters of this bill are doing, is immoral and should also be punishable by law.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Use Condoms and Get Tested, Regularly
Uganda has launched a new HIV/Aids campaign, ‘Stay Negative and Love Condoms’. That’s good to hear because condoms are vital for preventing HIV. There are lots of other things that can be done but a campaign that highlights the use of condoms is certainly preferable to ones where abstinence and faithfulness are stressed and condoms hardly mentioned. It’s also good to hear that some effort is being put into preventing transmission of HIV, rather than concentrating mainly on people who are already infected. The Aids Healthcare Foundation is running the programme so I’ll be watching out for further information on it.
In addition to emphasizing abstinence and faithfulness at the expense of prevention strategies that have any chance of working, the Ugandan government hasn’t been pulling its weight in its HIV prevention efforts. Research shows that people’s sexual behaviour is not very heavily influenced by recent campaigns for safer sex. Perhaps now they will look beyond sex, at people’s livelihoods and circumstances, which determine when, where, how often and with whom people have sex. While they are at it, they could work on their attitude towards men who have sex with men (MSM).
Currently MSMs are pretty much ignored by HIV prevention campaigns and they continue to be the victims of persecution and abuse. They are a very high risk group and this abuse only makes matters worse. They need the protection of the law and access to health services. As do commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users. Criminalization and the continued refusal to engage in meaningful harm-reduction efforts for these groups are senseless and appears to be motivated by political or religious interests (if these are in any way different).
Indeed, many countries are considering some kind of law making it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV. People who are infected with HIV need to be identified by voluntary testing, not hounded and criminalized. In addition to the use of condoms, testing is a vital and effective tool in HIV prevention and care. People need to be encouraged to test, not threatened with a prison sentence if they turn out to be HIV positive. This sort of law is particularly hard on women, who are more likely to test at an earlier stage in the disease. The more people who test early and regularly, the better.
It is things like stigma, persecution, gender and economic inequalities, poor legislation and enforcement, corruption and political and religious interference that have allowed HIV to spread rapidly in many countries. These problems are, in most countries, getting worse. This is not the time to pass laws that make HIV eradication even less likely than it is at present.
Use Condoms, get tested, regularly, be careful and advocate against discriminatory and harmful laws.
In addition to emphasizing abstinence and faithfulness at the expense of prevention strategies that have any chance of working, the Ugandan government hasn’t been pulling its weight in its HIV prevention efforts. Research shows that people’s sexual behaviour is not very heavily influenced by recent campaigns for safer sex. Perhaps now they will look beyond sex, at people’s livelihoods and circumstances, which determine when, where, how often and with whom people have sex. While they are at it, they could work on their attitude towards men who have sex with men (MSM).
Currently MSMs are pretty much ignored by HIV prevention campaigns and they continue to be the victims of persecution and abuse. They are a very high risk group and this abuse only makes matters worse. They need the protection of the law and access to health services. As do commercial sex workers and intravenous drug users. Criminalization and the continued refusal to engage in meaningful harm-reduction efforts for these groups are senseless and appears to be motivated by political or religious interests (if these are in any way different).
Indeed, many countries are considering some kind of law making it a crime to knowingly transmit HIV. People who are infected with HIV need to be identified by voluntary testing, not hounded and criminalized. In addition to the use of condoms, testing is a vital and effective tool in HIV prevention and care. People need to be encouraged to test, not threatened with a prison sentence if they turn out to be HIV positive. This sort of law is particularly hard on women, who are more likely to test at an earlier stage in the disease. The more people who test early and regularly, the better.
It is things like stigma, persecution, gender and economic inequalities, poor legislation and enforcement, corruption and political and religious interference that have allowed HIV to spread rapidly in many countries. These problems are, in most countries, getting worse. This is not the time to pass laws that make HIV eradication even less likely than it is at present.
Use Condoms, get tested, regularly, be careful and advocate against discriminatory and harmful laws.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
It’s Homophobia that is the Problem, Not Homosexuality
The main ‘problem’ with homosexuality or same gender sex, is homophobia. People who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or intersex (LGBTI) do not thereby have a problem. Their problems arise because of the attitudes of people who consider themselves to be ‘normal’. These ‘normal’ people also consider themselves to be Christian, Muslim, law abiding, God fearing, righteous and many other things.
In reality they are at best prejudiced, judgemental and guilty of discriminatory practices, at worst, they can be criminally violent, even murderers. At the hands of these self-appointed arbiters of moral and immoral behaviour, LGBTI are subjected to horrific persecution, they are ostracized from communities, they are considered to be and treated like second class citizens.
Everyone has some kind of sexuality and most people express their sexuality in some way. Most sexual behaviour involves other people and much of it is consensual. Of course, forced or coerced sex is a terrible crime. But anyone can force or coerce someone to engage in some kind of sexual behaviour. That means, whatever someone’s sexuality, they can choose to have sex only with those who consent and only engage in types of sexual behaviour to which their partner consents; or they can engage in behaviour that is, hopefully, criminal.
If the self-appointed upholders of ‘virtue’ object to the way that some people express their sexuality, they could object to fact that tens of thousands of people are forced to have sex every year. Thousands of these victims are children, sometimes infants. Many are particularly vulnerable, for example, orphans, young girls who have been married off by their poverty stricken parents or women who have been widowed or abandoned. But others are just ordinary people, neighbours, friends and relatives.
These ‘virtuous people’ could also object to the incalculable number of women and girls (mainly females, anyhow), who are left with no other option than to provide men with sex in return for money, food, security, accommodation, school fees or some other transaction. For every female, there is at least one man involved in these transactions. In reality, for commercial sex work to be viable, there must be a lot more males than females involved. It seems hard to believe that none of these ‘virtuous people’ overlap with the many men who engage in transactional sex.
Amnesty International (AI) have highlighted the plight of human rights abuses against LGBTI in a number of African countries, such as Nigeria, Uganda, Senegal and Rwanda. Kenya may not be the worst offender but I don’t believe their record with regard to LGBTI is particularly good.
It’s particularly galling to hear this about Uganda and Senegal when you compare it to the badly researched journalistic rubbish you also hear about how successful these two countries have been in fighting their respective HIV epidemics. Senegal has one of the lowest prevalence figures in the whole of Africa and Uganda now has far lower prevalence than it once had.
Firstly, I would question their ‘success’ and suggest that there were important factors governing HIV transmission in both countries and these factors were far more significant in determining fluctuations in prevalence than anything the Ugandan or Senegalese governments ever did. But that’s another story.
Secondly, both these countries need to watch out. Discriminating against certain groups of people who are thought to be at highest risk of transmitting HIV is not going to help reduce transmission. People who are at risk need to be targeted with education, testing, health services, support and the protection of the law. Criminalise what they do, be it homosexuality, commercial sex or anything else, and you will have little success in targeting them.
At present, both Uganda and Senegal have pretty poor records when it comes to protecting some of their most vulnerable people. Low prevalence now does not mean low prevalence in the future. Both countries are creating and maintaining conditions where HIV will spread rapidly. There will be little their HIV prevention programmes can achieve if their laws compel or allow homophobia and other discriminatory forms of behaviour to persist.
Apparently, Kenya is considering discussing LGBTI in schools. I’ll believe it when I see it. However, everyone has a sexuality. There is no point in discussing a handful of sexualities without also discussing the whole issue of sexuality with everyone. Tomorrow’s homophobes need to be targeted, future persecution needs to be prevented and that won’t happen by exceptionalising LGBTI. The biggest problems faced by LGBTI stem from the behaviour of people who are not LGBTI.
The best thing Kenya could do to reduce HIV transmission and to help those who are most at risk of being infected is to criminalise discrimination and persecution, to criminalise gender based violence, forced and coerced sex and gender based corruption. They also need to decriminalise non-heterosexual sex and commercial sex work in order to prevent and/or identify and punish criminal behaviour and, at the same time, protect the victims. They need to get away from the current situation where they are just meting out punishment to those who are thereby victimised twice over.
In reality they are at best prejudiced, judgemental and guilty of discriminatory practices, at worst, they can be criminally violent, even murderers. At the hands of these self-appointed arbiters of moral and immoral behaviour, LGBTI are subjected to horrific persecution, they are ostracized from communities, they are considered to be and treated like second class citizens.
Everyone has some kind of sexuality and most people express their sexuality in some way. Most sexual behaviour involves other people and much of it is consensual. Of course, forced or coerced sex is a terrible crime. But anyone can force or coerce someone to engage in some kind of sexual behaviour. That means, whatever someone’s sexuality, they can choose to have sex only with those who consent and only engage in types of sexual behaviour to which their partner consents; or they can engage in behaviour that is, hopefully, criminal.
If the self-appointed upholders of ‘virtue’ object to the way that some people express their sexuality, they could object to fact that tens of thousands of people are forced to have sex every year. Thousands of these victims are children, sometimes infants. Many are particularly vulnerable, for example, orphans, young girls who have been married off by their poverty stricken parents or women who have been widowed or abandoned. But others are just ordinary people, neighbours, friends and relatives.
These ‘virtuous people’ could also object to the incalculable number of women and girls (mainly females, anyhow), who are left with no other option than to provide men with sex in return for money, food, security, accommodation, school fees or some other transaction. For every female, there is at least one man involved in these transactions. In reality, for commercial sex work to be viable, there must be a lot more males than females involved. It seems hard to believe that none of these ‘virtuous people’ overlap with the many men who engage in transactional sex.
Amnesty International (AI) have highlighted the plight of human rights abuses against LGBTI in a number of African countries, such as Nigeria, Uganda, Senegal and Rwanda. Kenya may not be the worst offender but I don’t believe their record with regard to LGBTI is particularly good.
It’s particularly galling to hear this about Uganda and Senegal when you compare it to the badly researched journalistic rubbish you also hear about how successful these two countries have been in fighting their respective HIV epidemics. Senegal has one of the lowest prevalence figures in the whole of Africa and Uganda now has far lower prevalence than it once had.
Firstly, I would question their ‘success’ and suggest that there were important factors governing HIV transmission in both countries and these factors were far more significant in determining fluctuations in prevalence than anything the Ugandan or Senegalese governments ever did. But that’s another story.
Secondly, both these countries need to watch out. Discriminating against certain groups of people who are thought to be at highest risk of transmitting HIV is not going to help reduce transmission. People who are at risk need to be targeted with education, testing, health services, support and the protection of the law. Criminalise what they do, be it homosexuality, commercial sex or anything else, and you will have little success in targeting them.
At present, both Uganda and Senegal have pretty poor records when it comes to protecting some of their most vulnerable people. Low prevalence now does not mean low prevalence in the future. Both countries are creating and maintaining conditions where HIV will spread rapidly. There will be little their HIV prevention programmes can achieve if their laws compel or allow homophobia and other discriminatory forms of behaviour to persist.
Apparently, Kenya is considering discussing LGBTI in schools. I’ll believe it when I see it. However, everyone has a sexuality. There is no point in discussing a handful of sexualities without also discussing the whole issue of sexuality with everyone. Tomorrow’s homophobes need to be targeted, future persecution needs to be prevented and that won’t happen by exceptionalising LGBTI. The biggest problems faced by LGBTI stem from the behaviour of people who are not LGBTI.
The best thing Kenya could do to reduce HIV transmission and to help those who are most at risk of being infected is to criminalise discrimination and persecution, to criminalise gender based violence, forced and coerced sex and gender based corruption. They also need to decriminalise non-heterosexual sex and commercial sex work in order to prevent and/or identify and punish criminal behaviour and, at the same time, protect the victims. They need to get away from the current situation where they are just meting out punishment to those who are thereby victimised twice over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
