Which Way is the Gay Rights Discourse Going in Kenya?

The UK Guardian carries an article arguing that there is a lot of good news for gay people in Africa, that many things are changing for the better. I hope it's true. I hope that, even though several countries are passing legislation that seems to go in the opposite direction, these bills are being rendered obsolete even as they are being discussed.

Of course, what a journalist says one day, despite being repeated my many others the next day, can tend to be rather ephemeral. The very fact that a journalist is discussing something often indicates that it is already old hat. When something as sensitive as gay rights is an issue, some hack with a superficial understanding is the last person you want to be your spokesperson.

I was quite surprised at one of the articles I read about the minister for special programs, Esther Murugi, and her call for greater acceptance of gay people in society. But it was perhaps more surprising that the article was republished by Mars Group Kenya, a human rights organization. The article was so preposterous in its claims and so inept in its arguments that I wondered if Mars Group only posted the article to make the author look like a fool, except that the article was anonymous.

An article in The Standard attempted to use argument rather than bluster. The fact that the argument was patently fallacious means that even people who were convinced by the conclusion, that homosexuality is wrong, may see that the means used to reach the conclusion was highly suspect, at best. I don't believe the author wished to defend homosexuality by raising easily defeated arguments against it; just that those arguments have the load bearing capacity of a wet paper bag.

And a third argument, in The Nation, simply called for a bit of calm and common sense, a bit of compassion, even. Perhaps the author found it difficult to raise arguments against the homophobic outbursts because there was nothing to argue against. I don't have a link to the article but the author, Makau Mutua, makes many interesting points on the subject in another article, including a refutation of the sort of arguments that appear in the Mars Groups article mentioned above.

There's no doubt that Minister Murugi has sparked off a lot of discussion. It's just hard to see where that discussion is going to lead. She hasn't resigned, nor has she been sacked, despite the reactions from some groups, especially religious groups.

On balance, I think good could come from these open discussions, especially where they are genuine exchanges of views rather than the political equivalent of schoolyard rows. But I don't know if it's always safe to discuss sexuality, in particular homosexuality, anywhere and everywhere. I think one still needs to be careful. Ordinary people don't have the levels of protection that politicians and even journalists often enjoy. But I also think arguments can have little impact and I follow Mutua by calling for people to be humane.

Why Do Some Discount Altruism That Isn't 'Pure'?

A journalist writing in the Irish Herald ends an article on 'charity gurus' by saying "charity work is best done when it is done quietly". I assume that charity work that is done quietly is that which doesn't attract the attention of the mainstream media, press, TV, glossy magazines, the works. Because this journalist may be relieved to know that most charity work is done quietly, most people doing volunteer work or any other kind of development work, attract little or no attention. I find that gurus of all kinds are created by the very media that so loves to then condemn them once they are no longer able to control them.

This journalist, apparently, made a film about a woman who started a charity in Asia and 'hands out wads of cash to the poor'. The woman enjoys giving money to the poor and the journalist interprets this as meaning that the woman enjoys their gratitude and adoration.

Again, the journalist need not worry so much. I have never seen or heard of someone working in development who hands out wads of cash. Nor is everyone particularly grateful, nor do most people who do voluntary work expect people to be grateful. At least, that's my experience. People who receive charity may sometimes be grateful, perhaps very grateful, but their reaction may be embarrassment, shyness, contempt or perhaps a combination of things, often contradictory things.

I'm not saying this journalist is wrong or that she is misinterpreting things. I'm just saying that she is perhaps underanalysing what appears to be a rather unusual phenomenon. And I don't think she is cynical in interpreting the charity woman's enjoyment the way she does. I'm sure that among all the emotions and sensations people who work in development feel, it wouldn't be unusual to feel some enjoyment of any gratitude and adoration, if they receive such.

But supposing you were to do a survey of lots of people who worked, in any job, to find out what they enjoy about their work, or even why they work at all. I think you would find that many people work for money. They may or may not enjoy their work but the majority will do the job they do because they have to do something to pay their way. But I don't think your analysis of the survey would be very interesting or insightful if it was your main conclusion that people work for money.

Some people working in development earn money, some earn quite a lot. But most of the people I have known working in the field earn very little. Some volunteers earn a local wage and have all their expenses paid. But again, most of the volunteers I know do not earn regular wages, nor do they receive much in the way of expenses. Most of them volunteer for some of the week and do other things the rest of the time, so that they can feed themselves and perhaps their families.

I haven't surveyed the people I know who give some, often a lot, of their time for free. But one, who works as a volunteer for part of almost ever day has even pointed out to me that often when you do a lot for someone, they don't want to know you once they are better. Those were his words. This man has a sense of public spiritedness that you rarely find even among volunteers. Another volunteer, a woman, has never really discussed the subject. But she gives her time and sympathy and even some of the little money she has. And she also knows that people who receive her care can treat her with scorn later.

In fact, most of the volunteers I know don't even give out money most of the time because they don't have very much. They do work, take time, donate their skills and reach out to people who have no one. I don't know if they go home at night and bask in the glory of doing something that they may never even receive thanks for, let alone money. Nor do I care, I don't believe that altruism needs to be 'pure' in order to be altruism. People's motives for anything can be mixed, contradictory and even hidden to them.

By all means, Ms Journalist, condemn the thieves, the bullies, the smug, the sanctimonious, the extortionists and whoever else you like in the world of development, charity and the voluntary sector. But please recognise that they are probably the ones who were unusual enough to be picked out by you and your rather undiscerning and unanalytical media friends. They were picked out because they were unusual, not because they were the low key, modest people who often do things for other people without first thinking what there might be in it for them.

It's OK, Apparently Journalists Are Supposed to Lie

In an article about the Polish journalist and writer, Ryszard Kapuscinski, Neal Ascherson claims that "there is no floodlit wire frontier between literature and reporting". This is interesting because he feels that being a "great story teller" does not make someone a liar. Which is true, except when they are supposed to be writing an article that people assume is 'reportage'.

I don't know about Kapuscinski but if there is no frontier between literature and reporting then why would anyone bother to read the daily tripe? Journalists churn out a lot of rubbish concerning things they know precious little about, but people read papers and listen to radios and TVs every day to find out what is happening in the world. When they read some jumped up hack going on about how there couldn't be global warming because it's very cold today, they think that the whole issue about climate change has been trumped up.

So when it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMO), consumers of journalistic bullshit (the majority of mainstream reporting) think of Frankenstein foods, or whatever crap the 'profession' has dreamed up to ensure that the last thing people do is think or become informed in any way. Neal Ascherson may write for The Guardian, a 'moderate' paper, but lying and reporting are not the same thing and if a journalist lies, he or she is a liar.

What I'm saying about GMOs will probably be of no interest to journalists because I am not opposed to them just because they may be dangerous to humans, animals, plants, water supplies, in general, the whole global ecosystem. Although, I admit it, the fact that no one knows exactly what effect long term consumption of GMOs has on those who consume them (because no credible research has been done), does seem like a glaring omission. I am opposed to the fact that a few multinationals want to control the whole of humanity's ability to provide enough food for itself. Not only do they want this but they already control a massive proportion of global food production. To cap it all, many of the most powerful idiots in the world are in favour of this, with the support of...big media owners.

Ok, I've skipped past the journalists because they are just doing a job and they are paid for by some revolting Murdoch-like character who is trying to do for global media what Monsanto is trying to do for food production. But Ascherson makes a good point, don't bother reading what journalists have to say, unless you like a good read. As for science reporting in the mainstream media, forget it.

Domination of global food production by a few multinationals should be bad enough but approval of GM potatoes or any other GMO in Europe (or anywhere else) will also be a disaster because such crops will contaminate other crops around them. We know that they will because the evidence is clear from every field trial of GMOs. We know that there are other dangerous drawbacks to GM crops and also that none of the promised advantages of these crops have materialised. So what they hell are we growing them for?

I wouldn't wish to blame lying journalists for doing any more than following orders, or whatever it is they do, but if they want to brown-nose the bosses of companies like Monsanto, the least they could do is declare their interest. Because every time they throw in a straw man argument like 'Frankenstein foods', they are scoring a goal for the GMO industry. Monsanto can just claim to be using the crops for animal feed or biofuels. But then the problem doesn't go away. Once GMOs are used, the damage is done.

There are enough arguments against the use of GMOs, aside from the dangers to human health. But these arguments are much more difficult to answer. So rather than get the biotech industry to answer them, they are presented with arguments that they have a ready prepared response to. A response that has been well sold by journalists. And have you noticed the way articles often point out how widespread GMO contamination already is, as if to say it's only a matter of time before there is no longer any point in protesting? That's how they got GM cotton into India. Thanks journalists.