An Intolerant view of intolerance indeed

An Intolerant view of intolerance indeed

After reviewing an old discussion from the BBC on “Is Homosexuality Un-African” and it dawned on me that sometimes the gay lobby does not listen carefully before an onslaught or randomly grouping any remote opposition to aspects of male homosexuality perceived or real as phobic or intolerant, for example a woman in the audience at first suggested her unease with public displays of affection between members of the same sex though she took a while to find the words to express same however by the time she could get through making her point an avalanche of shouts and interruptions came forth from the activists in the audience and in turn the anti gay audience members responded ending in a shouting match and drowning out the points. Similarly we have seen such emotional responses devoid of critical thinking and proper planning with principle centered leadership and proper communication channels for reaching a mass audience.

Someone’s unease with PDA, public displays of affection is to me not necessarily an opposition to innate homosexuality altogether and maybe the driving factor locally as to perceived effeminacy as a marker for homosexuality in men in particular. Exploring someone’s expression of such is critical to me as to determine the genesis as to why they arrived at that consensus, who knows if not through reasoning they can become an ally after extended discourse. This intolerant view by us in the gay lobby has been a major obstacle in reaching certain objectives I fear over the years, the religious intolerance we see now from the sections of the Christian and other communities was well stoked and in some instances given the ammunition by us that they know use against us. We have not responded to many allegations over the years and when a leading anti gay activist such as Betty Ann Blaine could have penned a damaging article accusing the gay lobby as liars on the homophobic violence front how are the lobby’s representatives going to convince her and her exuberant supporters from that hardened position?

Take into account some of the following:

A flawed and sometimes half truthed crisis communications on homophobic versus non homophobic incidents

Poor responses for example to reparative therapy in the LGBT affirmative public relations strategy

Visionless leadership and a poor ethical base on LGBT advocacy

Poor leadership plays a key role in allowing this intolerant view of LGBT specific intolerance to grow and mature and left unchecked has become an obstacle instead of a benefit

What seems a deliberate omission from public discourse by some advocates for solutions or a conclusion to the long standing homosexual debate, just recheck the letters to the editors on the subject matters and see the trend yet they are the same ones who complain even after years of on the ground work that solutions are not coming from critics, yet such notes, proposals and suggestion sit in filing cabinets under lock and key and not used.

Lack of continuity of several fronts on strategies and conversations for e.g. interfaith discourse to engage faith based communities and anti gay religious forces

Refusal to listen carefully what is being said in the opposing views segments

Over intellectualizing of issues with a flawed agenda to label all opposition as homophobes

Relying on an old castigation of Jamaica as the most homophobic place on earth hence setting the false ideological pretext where our narratives have been based and toying with international support which is ready to help but are way behind our reality

Resorting to secularism and humanist ideologies to supposedly belittle the religious right when our arguments are really or should be about BUGGERY not whether or not God exists or belief systems in the context of our right to privacy and consent.

Not that intolerance devoid of ill intent does not have its place especially when such opposition to homosexuality is baseless on a sometimes non-sequitur reasoning, imported bigoted ideologies, acceptance of difference within the LGBT community and supposed moral nihilism linked to the aforementioned secularist agenda now added to the agitation for LGBT rights and recognition there is going to come a time when all parties are going to have to sit at a table as this game of you are this and you are that or hardened positions cannot continue. The arguments about decriminalizing buggery as well has been frothed with legalese rhetoric on both fronts but when you hear suggestion by representatives groups such as the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship who for years have been at the forefront of blocking any such moves refer to homosexuality as a lifestyle though we know it makes no sense can be a basic lack of understanding on their part but do the strategists in the gay lobby tailor the narratives to educate not only the LCF but their following? NO! Instead they are shown up for the ignorance and left at that without the follow up required for the most part publicly.

Private emails alone are not enough. When sections of the gay lobby ask or make demands for tolerance without espousing the very same virtue at all levels including the very agency’s programs for the least amongst us how do we expect to make any strides when truth and a strong ethical base are key requirements to counteract the religious right’s rebuttals? even if they also use disingenuous or intellectual dishonesty to push their agenda. When on the face of it what seems to be institutional bigotry on the face of it on the part of JFLAG when publicly it is viewed by abandoning the least amongst a main part of its representative via populations newspaper editorials how can the lobby dare ask for tolerance when there is no credibility to do so?

For any strategy to work as we well know there MUST be credibility not an artificial or farcical public relations stunts over the years to seem inclusive but the evidence on the ground suggests otherwise strongly. In planning whatever narratives that go out supposedly on our behalf we have to consider several things:

Agencies need to look at their image, perception and the community’s input as well, it cannot be done by a few who decide in a room supposedly on behalf on the rest of us devoid of views

Tightening of the crisis communication strategy with TRUTH as its base and build credibility on same

A paradigm shift at all levels we simply cannot continue with this growing untenable situation where agencies now find themselves evicted from their offices due to very poor oversight, a lack of fiduciary responsibility and poor programmatic roll outs to meet both the needs of the community whilst strengthening the message nationally on true tolerance, forumatic activity and operationalizing ideas from the community within a proper framework. The main response to religious intolerance cannot be personal attacks on pastors via newspaper articles, inappropriately lambasting theological personalities and dismissing Biblical teachings, the general view I am now seeing is the gay lobby is now being seen as devoid of any Christian values and the thought of gay and lesbian Christians now is an anathema of sorts and the atheistic voices use their privilege afforded them by local media in recent times. Hence another layer that needn’t been there has been added thus sides taking far more hardened positions.

Dr. Wayne West of the Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, JCHS for example now has moved from just basic opposition to homosexuality and HIV linkages as a gay disease to now the international gay lobby’s imperative in a moral nihilistic strategy he lumps extreme same sex practices in Europe and other first world countries as part and parcel of the agitation for homosexual rights. He conjoins fisting (anal penetration via ones fist) felching (faecal matter play), chariot racing (a form of group sex) and scat as buggery in the Jamaican context though a dishonest position but how did he arrive here? When the discourse about buggery has been all over the place, we do not bring the real issue front and centre and maintain or be consistent. He posts overseas studies for example on HIV AIDS rates in MSM populations to try to justify his arguments. Credibility is the main weapon for any advocacy be it LGBT or not getting lawmakers to capitulate to a needed change that most of them I am sure know is required is one but the cultural uphill battle is where the real deal is for me, laws can be changes yes but how will society “catch up” or respond is a totally separate but important issue.

It is a about buggery and my choice via consent with another adult that is the crooks of the matter here in my eyes where are the other pieces to the public relations to do with the pseudo scientific aspects of proving buggery for example where in a doctor’s report calls for certain physiological pointers as checked items to be present on both the receptive and dominant participants. The clouding of the issues has to me eroded some of the light gains over the years with a far more confident religious right so robustly funded at that that full paged ads can be taken out in print media.

Give the opposers their right to out dated ideas and so on it will show them up eventually but for each rebuttal they come with it does not need a certain particular type of discourse. Doing so does not mean that they are right either in fact I dare say they know better but just refuse to move on the issue as a fear of giving in to the perceived powerful gay lobby. Tolerance does not mean our views converge but one’s right to express same is sacrosanct and we must listen carefully at the messages coming through.

Think on these things

Peace and tolerance

H

Additional archived related audio posts and podcasts