The Football Association has cancelled this week’s launch of its long awaited anti-homophobia video, pleading that it needs to review its strategy on tackling anti-gay prejudice and how the video fits into its overall campaign.
The cancellation coincides with criticism and unease over the video’s use of stridently homophobic language in a bid to expose and shame bigots.
Produced by top award-winning advertising agency, Ogilvy, the video was due to have been launched by the FA at Wembley Stadium this Thursday, 11 February.
The last minute “postponement” has caused consternation among football and gay groups who were backing the project, including the football diversity and equality campaign, Kick It Out, and gay rights group OutRage!.
The FA’s anti-homophobia video project was proposed by Peter Tatchell of OutRage! over two years ago, as a way of challenging prejudice on the pitch and on the terraces. The Football Association agreed the proposal and Kick It Out was delegated to produce it.
“This last minute cancellation is a big disappointment. It has thrown the Football Association’s commitment to tackling homophobia into disarray,” said Peter Tatchell of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights group, OutRage!
“Contrary to what the FA is now saying, the video and strategy was agreed nearly two years ago. This postponement comes on top of the FA’s dissolution of the broad-based Tackling Homophobia Working Group. Set up several years ago, the group had helped push forward many of the FA’s constructive initiatives to rid football of homophobia.
“The FA has now reconstituted the Working Group with a hand-picked, much smaller and less representative number of members. It no longer includes all interested stakeholders. Many relevant LGBT groups are not included.
“I always wanted an MTV-style video, with an appealing, uplifting, positive message, featuring top players and a good music track. Sadly, the FA never seriously attempted to get top players to participate.
“The video agreed by the Football Association and Kick It Out features strong homophobic language. The main character, a youngish man, abuses a newspaper seller, tube train passenger and an office worker with anti-gay taunts. The video finishes with him shouting homophobic abuse at a football match. The captions make the point that since homophobia is not acceptable at work, it should not be be acceptable on the terraces either.
“I don’t object to the use of anti-gay abuse to make a point. The shock value is likely to give the video the impact and controversy necessary to generate publicity and debate. It will get people talking, which is a good thing. But it was a mistake to not involve LGBT organisations in planning the video script.
“The ad agency’s advice was that shock tactics were the most effective psychological device to expose and shame bigoted fans into stopping their homophobia. They are professionals and experts in these matters,” said Mr Tatchell.
“Quentin Crisp was a contradictory, infuriating figure. Although astonishingly brave and defiant as an out gay man in the 1930s and 40s, he was later defiantly self-obsessed, homophobic and reactionary. Quentin denounced the gay rights movement and slammed homosexuality as ‘a terrible disease’; adding that ‘the world would be better without homosexuals”, said gay human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell of OutRage!.
Mr Tatchell was commenting about Monday night’s British television drama, “An Englishmen in New York,” which is about Quentin Crisp’s life in the period after he moved to the United States. It was broadcast on the UK’s ITV channel.
“This is a good film, with another stunning performance by John Hurt, but it sanitises Crisp’s ignorant, pompous homophobia. Quentin disparaged homosexuality as an illness, affliction, burden, curse and abnormality. He regarded himself as ‘disfigured’ by his gayness. He never spoke out for gay rights or supported any gay equality cause,” added Mr Tatchell.
“An Englishman in New York invites us to admire Crisp as a hero and pioneer. By the time he moved to the United States he had ceased to be either heroic or pioneering. He turned into an ever-more bitter, self-obsessed person who resented that they way millions of gay people had come out and stolen his limelight.
“Quentin hated the fact that he was no longer unique – no longer the only visible queer on the block. For this reason, he loathed the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s. It had encouraged and empowered the mass coming out of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. He disliked being over-taken and over-shadowed by others; dismissing the new generations of out and proud gay people as johnny-come-latelys.
“He never backed any campaign against homophobic discrimination or violence, and he declined to condemn anti-gay politicians and preachers.
“Quentin Crisp is no gay icon. The true icons and pioneers of the modern British gay community are heroes like Allan Horsfall and Antony Grey. They were the driving forces of the first gay rights organisations in Britain – the North West Homosexual Law Reform Committee set up in 1964 and the Homosexual Law Reform Society, established earlier in 1958. These two men, who are still alive and have never received the public recognition they deserve, have done far more for gay dignity and advancement than Quentin Crisp.
“Crisp is a pale shadow of US gay rights trailblazers like Harry Hay, Frank Kameny, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.
“The film acknowledges that Crisp disgracefully dismissed Aids as a ‘fad’, at a time when thousands of gay men were dying and the US government was largely ignoring the epidemic. Sadly, it ignores his ridiculing of the gay liberation movement and his dismissal of the struggle for lesbian and gay equal rights.
“Echoing the worst homophobes, Crisp said that gay men were incapable of love and incapable of caring about other people. The supposed lack of altruism among gay men was, according to Quentin, because they had ‘feminine minds.’ He was a misogynist, as well as a homophobe.
“In 1997, he told The Times that he would advise parents to abort a foetus if could be shown to be genetically predetermined to be gay: ‘If it (homosexuality) can be avoided, I think it should be”.
“Compared to The Naked Civil Servant, this is a much less satisfying film, partly because it portrays Quentin true to life, as a much less sympathetic warts-and-all character, which is what he became in the latter part of his life”.
Peter Tatchell’s commentary occasionally appears here on Focus On The Rainbow.
A storm of controversy has erupted after the BBC News Channel hosted an online debate – “Should homosexuals face execution?” – on its website on Wednesday 16 December 2009.
Following protests, the title of the debate “Should homosexuals face execution?” was changed to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?” But opening sentence of the text below still read: “Should homosexuals face execution?”
The debate was about legislation before the Ugandan parliament that would introduce the death penalty for people who commit repeated homosexual acts.
I think it perfectly reasonable for the BBC to host a debate about the current Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but not in the terms that it was framed. The BBC would not hold online debates such as: Should Jews be exterminated? Was the Rwandan genocide justified? Should the people of Darfur be massacred? Is it right to stone women to death in Somalia
Moreover, the BBC’s commentary announcing the debate put a very weak case against the execution of lesbian and gay Ugandans. It read like an open invitation for homophobic endorsements of the state-sponsored killing of gay people.
It is a good thing to promote awareness and debate about this vile legislation, even if it means giving homophobes an opportunity to air their prejudice and hatred.
We have to acknowledge that violently homophobic views still exist in many parts of the world, even in Britain. Bringing this homophobia into the open is a wake up call. It usefully jolts liberal-minded people out of their complacency. Engaging bigoted views in debate is the best way to change them, or at least to change some of them. Challenging and refuting homophobic ignorance is the key to overcoming it.
Closing down debates and censoring people is dangerous. It threatens free speech and drives hatred underground, where it cannot be countered.
[This posting has been UPDATED to include reaction from the BBC regarding the much debated piece]
Wednesday evening (UK) from Liliane Landor, (acting) head of Africa/Middle East,World Service
The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.
We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.
If Uganda’s democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.
We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.
This issue has already sparked much debate around the world and understandably led to us receiving many e-mails and texts. We have sought to moderate these rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa.”
Thursday afternoon (UK) from Peter Horrocks, Director BBC World Service
The original headline on our website was, in hindsight, too stark. We apologise for any offence it caused. But it’s important that this does not detract from what is a crucial debate for Africans and the international community.
The programme was a legitimate and responsible attempt to support a challenging discussion about proposed legislation that advocates the death penalty for those who undertake certain homosexual activities in Uganda – an important issue where the BBC can provide a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond.
[THIS POSTING HAS BEEN MOVED UP FROM 12/17/09 BECAUSE OF THE BBC REACTION AND AS A COMPANION POSTING TO "Africa Still A Dark Continent For Many In The LGBT Community"]
Peter Tatchell, longtime advocate for Human and LGBT Rights around the world has released this statement today regarding his stepping down and pulling his candidacy in an upcoming election.
“It is with great regret and reluctance that I am standing down as the Green Party parliamentary candidate for Oxford East. My brain injuries from the Mugabe and Moscow bashings mean that I would not be able to campaign effectively in the general election or do the duties required of an MP, if I was elected,” human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell announced today.
“It would not be right for me to seek election if I could not do the job of an MP to the high standards that I want and that Oxford East voters have a right to expect.
“If I was elected, I could manage the parliamentary duties or the constituency work. But my health is not strong enough for me to do both.
”This is huge disappointment and frustration. Oxford East is a target Green seat. In the county elections in June, the Greens were neck-and-neck with the Liberal Democrats as the main challenger to Labour. The European elections saw the Greens win in Oxford East, well ahead of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories.
“The brain damage caused by Mugabe’s thugs in Brussels in 2001 and by neo-Nazis in Moscow in 2007 has been compounded by head injuries in an accident while I was campaigning in Devon in July. A bus on which I was travelling swerved and braked sharply. I was thrown forward, hitting my head on a metal handrail.
“This exacerbated the brain damage caused when I was bashed unconscious by President Mugabe’s bodyguards in Brussels in 2001, after attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of the Zimbabwean leader on charges of torture.
“Following the Moscow assault, I never rested and recuperated. I carried on campaigning, with a very heavy schedule of commitments in Oxford East. After several months, I was severely exhausted. This stress and exhaustion probably intensified the damage and thwarted my recovery.
“I have postponed making this announcement for several months, in the hope that I might get better and be able to carry on as the Green candidate. Unfortunately, my condition has not improved. If anything, it is worse.
“There is, however, a glimmer of hope for the future. The medical advice is that if I slow down and reduce my workload my condition may improve in a year or so. On the downside, I am unlikely to ever recover fully. Some of the damage is probably permanent.
“I don’t regret a thing. Getting a thrashing and brain injuries was not what I had expected or wanted. But I was aware of the risks. Taking risks is sometimes necessary, in order to challenge injustice. My beatings had the positive effect of helping draw international attention to the violent, repressive nature of the Russian and Zimbabwean regimes. I’m glad of that.
“My physical inconveniences are nothing by comparison to the far worse beatings inflicted on human rights defenders in countries like Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Sudan and Burma. These heroic activists often end up jailed or dead. I count myself lucky.
“The Oxford Green Party expects to select a new parliamentary candidate in January. That person will have my wholehearted support. I intend to campaign with them during the general election.
“I would like to thank members of Oxford Green Party for their immense kindness, support, and generosity during my two and a half years as their candidate. It has been a pleasure working with the Oxford Greens and I wish them future success,” said Mr Tatchell.
Photo by Brett Lock of the Human Rights Group Outrage
Nearly 100 protesters rallied outside the Ugandan Embassy in London on Thursday, Human Rights Day, to support the Ugandan LBGTI community. They called on the Ugandan government to drop its draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which is currently being debated by the Ugandan parliament.
Under this proposed law, LGBTI Ugandans will face execution for certain homosexual acts and life imprisonment for all other same-sex acts – even mere caressing and kissing.
The London protesters included LGBTI activists from the UK and of Jamican descent, plus LGBTI campaigners from Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Cameroon, Nigeria, the Congo and Kenya.
The keynote speakers were gay Ugandan John Bosco and straight Ugandan human rights activist, Michael Senyonjo.
John Bosco was recently jailed in Uganda, after he was illegally and forcibly returned to Uganda by the British Home office while seeking asylum in the UK.
He condemned the Anti-Homosexuality Bill as “an attack on the civil liberties of all Ugandans,” denouncing it as “dividing Ugandans against each other and requiring people to report on their own family members who are gay.”
Michael Senyonjo told the crowd:
“In the last five years we have seen Idi Amin return to Uganda and his name is (President) Yoweri Museveni. We cannot allow fascism to return to Uganda. He should leave power and go because he is not taking the country anywhere but to disaster,” he said.
Peter Tatchell of the London LGBTI rights group OutRage! echoed this view:
“President Museveni is fast becoming the Robert Mugabe of Uganda and that’s a threat to the civil rights of every Ugandan person – gay or straight….There’s a huge ground swell of public opinion that this bill goes way too far. Even people who say they’re against homosexuality say this bill is excessive and a threat to the human rights of all Ugandans.
The Ugandan government should drop this law and abide by international human rights legislation.
“The Anti-Homosexuality Bill violates the equality and non-discrimination clauses of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We are merely asking Uganda to uphold international human rights law.
“This homophobic legislation undermines the right to privacy and individual liberty and thereby sets a dangerous legal precedent which threatens the human rights of all Ugandans. It is part of a wider drift towards an authoritarian state,” Mr Tatchell said.
The protest MC was Dennis Hambridge, global coordinator of the Gay Activists Alliance International (GAAI). He said the protest was about sending a message to the Uganda government – that the world is watching and that human rights supporters deplore this repressive bill.
Nigerian gay activists Godwyns Onwuchekwa, Rev Rowland Jide Macaulay and Bisi Alimi declared that gay rights are human rights and expressed pan-African solidarity with Ugandan LGBTI people.
Other speakers condemned the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, including Skye Chirape (a Zimbabwean lesbian activist), Topher Campbell (a Black British gay man of Jamaican descent, who is a lead member of the black arts collective, the Rukus Foundation) and Josh Kutchinsky (a spokesperson for the British Humanist Association).
The London protest was coordinated by the Gay Activists Alliance International, with the support of OutRage! and Ugandan LGBTI exiles (most of whom were too afraid to be photographed or identified in case there are reprisals against their families in Uganda).
Other supporting organisations included Changing Attitudes, Rainbow Church, Queer Youth North, British Humanist Association, Rukus Foundation and the National Union of Students LGBT section.
On Monday, editor-in-chief Jennifer Vanasco of 365Gay, wrote an article about the corporate sponsorship of a concert in Uganda in which Jamaican artist Beenie Man, known for his vicious, homophobic songs, said from the stage, “In my family, we don’t have any gay person but if you’re gay, my brother that’s not my fault,” before launching into a song about slitting the throats of gay men. Beenie Man thanked Pepsi for sponsoring the concert on his Facebook page.
Tuesday Vanasco received an email response to her inquiry from PepsiCo about it’s sponsorship.
Dear Jennifer,
In response to your article, Did Pepsi sponsor an anti-gay concert in Uganda?
I wanted to provide you with this official statement on behalf of PepsiCo:
“We are appalled by the performer’s lyrics and find them repugnant. Our bottling partner in Uganda was not aware of the performer’s views and never would have sponsored the concert with this knowledge. Moving forward, we will work closely with our bottling partners to be more vigilant about the events associated with our brands.”
Please let me know if you need anything further.
Sincerely,
Michelle Naughton
Beenie Man was univited to the Auckland Big Day Out event which was held last month as reported by GayNZ.com, The producers of Auckland’s Big Day Out decided Beenie Man would be uninvited from the popular music festival last month following a storm of protest against the singer and his violently homophobic lyrics.
“Although aware of the controversial nature of Beenie Man and his previous lyrics that have caused offence with the Gay and Lesbian and wider community, the producers understood that the artist had renounced these sentiments and no longer expresses those views,” said the Big Day Out’s management last month.
Emails received by GayNZ.com following the decision, and a statement signed by Beenie Man’s record company, quoted the singer as “heartbroken” about “misunderstandings” over his lyrics. Responding to specific questions from GayNZ.com, Beenie Man was then quoted as saying: “I am not a supporter of hatred and never was… I do not sing or perform any of those songs nor promote any violence on stage. I have been performing all over the world and there hasn’t been any issues of recent.”
At PepsiCo’s website in the Values & Philosophy section it reads, We embrace people with diverse backgrounds, traits and ways of thinking. Our diversity brings new perspectives into the workplace and encourages innovation, as well as the ability to identify new market opportunities.
PepsiCo is based in nearby Purchase, NY.
- Update - 1:00 PM (ET) Peter Tatchell, International Human and LGBT Rights activist just sent this statement regarding PepsiCo and the Beenie Man concert:
Protests by Change.org, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), OutRage! and others have persuaded PepsiCo to climb down and apologise, after it sponsored a concert in Uganda by “murder music” singer Beenie Man who encourages the killing of lesbians and gay men.
At his Ugandan concert on Saturday 5 December, Beenie Man sang the song, Mi Nah Wallah, which includes a call to cut the throats of gay people.
Uganda is notorious for homophobic violence and is currently considering introducing the death penalty for “aggravated” homosexuality and for “serial (gay) offenders.”
Following protests, Pepsi expressed regret over their sponsorship of Beenie Man. In a statement to Change.org PepsiCo said:
“We are appalled by the performer’s lyrics and find them repugnant. Our bottling partner in Uganda was not aware of the performer’s views and never would have sponsored the concert with this knowledge…Moving forward, we will work closely with our bottling partners to be more vigilant about the events associated with our brands.”
Peter Tatchell of London LGBT rights group OutRage! said: “We want to thank GLAAD and Change.org for their swift and effective lobbying of PepsiCo. Their efforts got a positive result. PepisiCo will be more careful in future.”
Earlier, David Allison of OutRage! wrote to PepsiCo:
“We are shocked to learn that not only are you sponsoring the appearance of Beenie Man, the Jamaican dancehall music performer, but compounding the offence by sponsoring him in Uganda…Uganda’s government is currently proposing legislation calling for the imprisonment and execution of gay people.
“Backing a concert that includes a notorious homophobe in a country launching draconian legislation against people simply because of their sexual orientation is a singularly inept, not to say immoral….We ask that you withdraw your sponsorship and re-affirm your support for human rights,” wrote Mr Allison.
Beenie Man has a long history of inciting the murder of LGBT people.
His hit tune, Bad Man Chi Chi Man (Bad Man, Queer Man), instructs listeners to kill gay DJs and boasts that people would gladly go to jail for killing a queer:
In another song, Damn, he sings: “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the queers”.
Han Up Deh includes the lyrics: “Hang lesbians with a long piece of rope.”
Beenie Man is also notorious for the track, Batty Man Fi Dead (Queers Must Be killed):
“All faggots must be killed! If you f*ck ass, then you get copper and lead [bullets].”
Writer’s note on what you will read and see in this posting.
The first portion of this posting is a press release from the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center expressing it’s outrage over the Grammy nomination of Buju Banton who is a self-professed hater of LGBTs and whose music advocates violence against and the killing of LGBTs.
The second portion of the posting is an article from internationally known Human and LGBT Rights Activist, Peter Tatchell. Yesterday (Friday December 4) in an email conversation, Peter gave me carte blanche permission to use any of his writings which appear either on his website or for other publications for use here at Focus On The Rainbow. As Peter has written about Buju Banton, I thought it an important addition for this posting.
Peter’s writing as it appears here is unedited (except for putting links which he used into the content body of his article). Some language used in the article may not be appropriate for some readers.
At the end of the posting is a video of the much discussed recording Banton has made, “Boom, Bye Bye” which advocates the killing of gays and lesbians. The video has the written lyrics of the song on screen which shows clearly and without any doubt, Banton’s advocacy for killing gays and lesbians.
While many mainstream media outlets would censor the words which gays and lesbians find offensive in this posting, this writer feels it is not only justified, but required to include the words.
To “water down” the langauge as mainstream media would do, is a disservice to the LGBT community and its seeking to wipe out hate toward the community.
Press Release – December 4, 2009
In response to the appalling Grammy nomination for Buju Banton, a performer whose music promotes the violent murder of LGBT people, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center Chief Public Affairs Officer Jim Key issued the following statement:
“We’re shocked that Buju Banton, a singer with a long record of performing a song that glorifies the murder of gay people, would be honored with a Grammy nomination, regardless of the artistic merit of any of his work.
Throughout his career, Banton has performed music that promotes a culture of violence against lesbian and gay people; he sings in “Boom, Bye Bye” that “faggots get up and run” when he comes, that “they have to die,” and that he will shoot them in the head or “burn them up bad.” He is completely unrepentant, refuses to stop performing the song, and recently said, “There is no end to the war between me and faggots.”
Banton’s music has helped foster such an anti-gay culture in his home country of Jamaica — where several prominent gay activists and many other LGBT people have been murdered — that Time magazine recently asked, ‘Is Jamaica the most homophobic place on Earth?’ Banton himself was charged with a violent anti-gay hate crime.
It’s an affront to LGBT people, and to all fair-minded people around the world, that Buju Banton was even nominated. We certainly hope the members of the Recording Academy will not bestow the prestigious honor of a Grammy on someone whose music promotes murder.”
On October 9th of this year, Peter Tatchell wrote the following about Banton on his website.
Jamaican reggae and dancehall singer Buju Banton is currently on a major US concert tour. Already, many of his concerts have been halted as a result of LGBT protests. Our congratulations and thanks to US activists.
This briefing sets out the case against Banton and why his concert tour should be stopped.
Jamaican LGBT group (J-Flag) want a global boycott of Buju Banton over his repeated violations of the RCA. They want his US concerts cancelled. So do black LGBT groups in the UK.
Banton has not truly changed. He was offered a truce many times since 2004 and he rejected or reneged every time. He broke his promises.
For many years and on many occassions, the Stop Murder Music (SMM) campaign offered to call off the campaign against Banton if he ceased encouraging, glorifying and promoting the murder the LGBT people and promised to not do so in the future. Banton refused.
Buju signed the Reggae Compassionate Act (RCA) in early June 2007. It is signed under his real name, Mark Myrie.
His signing was brokered and organised by UK and European reggae agents and promoters, who delivered to us his signature on the RCA. They now feel that Buju has betrayed them by reneging on it.
Just weeks after Banton signed the RCA, through his spokespeople, he denied signing it and denounced the RCA in the Jamaican media, including Radio Jamaica, The Gleaner and the Jamaica Star. He has repeatedly violated the RCA by performing Boom Bye Bye since he signed it.
From the early 1990s, when he first released the song, he has sold and profited from Boom Bye Bye (mostly on compilation albums). Contrary to claims by his representatives, I have been told that he still holds the copyright on the song.
His signing of the RCA is worthless. What Banton says cannot be relied upon.
First evidence
In August 2007, Buju Banton told the London police and the management of the Brixton Academy (a major London music venue, where he was scheduled to perform) that he has not and will not sign the RCA (despite having done so).
At a meeting at Brixton Police Station in London in early August 2007, I witnessed his spokespeople deny that he had ever signed the RCA. The police and venue management insisted that must sign the RCA as a condition for his concert to go ahead. They resisted but reluctantly agreed.
It was arranged for Buju to sign the RCA on Sunday 12 August 2007, just before his London concert. When he arrived, he refused to do. As a result of his failure to honour his pledge, the venue management told me and the police that they would never allow Banton to perform at the Brixton Academy again.
Second evidence
Buju has performed Boom Bye Bye, in whole or part, after signing the RCA and has abused gay rights groups with the epithet “Fuck them”:
In 2004 and 2005, Banton was claiming that he no longer performs Boom Bye Bye. This is not true.
Here is video proof that Buju Banton was still performing part of Boom Bye Bye after he claimed that he was not performing it – Miami concert, 29 May 2006 .
US concert organisers switched off Banton’s mike after they deemed he had attempted to sing Boom Bye Bye at New York’s Reggae CariFest on Randall’s Island, New York, on 25 August 2007 – after he signed the RCA.
On 27 October 2007, Buju Banton sang part of ‘Boom Bye Bye’ at the Guyana Music Festival – after he signed the RCA.
So much for his management and PR company claims that the song was 17 years ago and that he has since “moved on” and put the song behind him.
Third evidence
Although he was not convicted of involvement in a gay-bash attack in that took place in Jamaica in 2004, many people believe he may not have been innocent. Some of his gay victims were too afraid to testify against him. They feared being killed. The Jamaican police seemed to collude to protect Banton from arrest and charges – taking one year to execute a warrant for his arrest and then only after international pressure. They did little to gather the necessary evidence. The poor quality of the police investigation and prosecution contributed to Banton not being convicted.
Banton has been given so many chances to drop his incitements to kill LGBT people. He has refused, or agreed and then gone back on his word.
The social context and background ethical issues to consider:
Would a venue host a white racist singer who had encouraged and glorified the murder of African American people? No, they would not.
The criterion for opposing incitements to homophobic murder should, in my opinion, be the same as for incitements to racist murder. Zero tolerance for both.
This is not a free speech issue. Incitement to murder is a criminal offence in Jamaica and the US. Free speech does not include the right to incite the killing of other human beings.
Everyone has a right to be spared threats to kill them. Homophobic songs that contain threats to kill “batty men” (faggots) diminish freedom of speech because they cow LGBT people into silence and invisibility. They are not able to speak freely. Not a single LGBT Jamaican is able to go public and be interviewed on TV about their sexuality, because they would identified and be at risk of being killed. Where is their freedom of speech?
In Jamaica, Boom Bye Bye is still hailed as an anti-gay anthem, and is sometimes sung by mobs when they bash LGBT people. The leader of the Jamaican gay rights movement, Brian Williamson, was brutally murdered in a homophobic attack in 2004. Crowds gathered outside his house, where they rejoiced and sang Boom Bye Bye.
We are asking venues to show compassion for the LGBT people of Jamaica by refusing to host a singer who has contributed to their pain, suffering and death.
People like Buju Banton, who sing about killing LGBTs, should not be rewarded with concerts and blood money.
By guest writer, Peter Tatchell, Human Rights Activist
Way back in 1983, when I stood as the Labour candidate in the Bermondsey by-election, I proposed the idea of a single, comprehensive anti-discrimination law, to guarantee equal treatment and protection for everyone. At the time, this proposal was dismissed as “ultra Left,” as too radical and daring. Three decades later, however, it is close to reality.
The Equality Bill is continuing its passage this week through parliament and, baring sabotage in the House of Lords, will become law in 2010. One of its key aims is to remedy the uneven, variable patchwork of equality legislation. The separate laws on gender, race, disabilty, age, sexual orientation, gender identity and religion or belief, will be replaced by an all-inclusive legal framework. This will harmonise and standardise equality law, so that everyone has the same rights and protection.
Sadly, the legislation does not quite live up to this laudable aim. Despite its name, the Equality Bill is less than equal. While guaranteeing full and direct protection against harassment to other vulnerable social groups, it denies this protection to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. This is not an omission or oversight. We are explicitly excluded from the anti-harassment clauses of the bill.
Also exempted is harassment on the grounds of religion or belief, in an apparent bid to appease religious bodies who want the freedom to victimise people of rival faiths or no faith. But that’s another story.
The Equality Bill denies LGBT people protection in cases of homophobic harassment by school authorities, by the owners and managers of properties and by the providers of services. Similar harassment is specifically outlawed on the grounds of age, disability, race and sex. This omission gives a green light to homophobes. Under this section of law, they won’t face sanctions for anti-gay victimisation.
LGBT organisations like School’s Out are campaigning against homophobic and transphobic bullying and harassment in schools, some of which is perpetrated or tolerated by school staff, according to a Stonewall survey of LGBT pupils, The School Report (2007).
By excluding protection against harassment in schools on the grounds of gender reassignment and sexual orientation, this legislation is sending a signal to schools that the harassment of LGBT pupils need not be taken seriously.
Since the Equality Bill was intended to ensure comprehensive legal equality, all forms of harassment should be covered by its clauses. There should be no exemptions.
In its defence, the government claims that it consulted widely and that no one offered any evidence that harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation was a serious problem that needed to be included in the bill. This is not true. The government initially consulted only the gay lobby group Stonewall. This is one LGBT group among many and it does not deal with individuals suffering homophobic harassment. Until recently, government ministers failed to consult the two LGBT organisations that assist most victims of harassment: the homophobic hate crime group, GALOP, and OutRage! We have plenty of casework evidence to show that anti-gay harassment is a significant problem and that it should be specifically outlawed by the Equality Bill.
The Deputy Minister for Women and Equalities, Maria Eagle MP, has also justified the exclusion of LGBT people from the anti-harassment clauses with the argument that we are protected under the Equality Bill’s “discrimination provisions.” She wrote to me: “If a teacher ignores the bullying of a LGBT child despite tackling other bullying, this would be unlawful discrimination.” In fact, this is only indirect protection against homophobic harassment. Moreover, it is dependent on the LGBT child not only being able to prove that he or she was bullied and that no action was taken, but also that others were bullied for other reasons and that remedial action was pursued by the school authorities. In other words, under the Equality Bill, LGBT victims of homophobic harassment are to required to prove two things to get justice. In contrast, victims of racial or gender harassment have to prove only that the harassment took place. They get direct protection.
The government also claims that we are making a fuss over nothing because LGBT people are already protected under general anti-harassment legislation. We don’t need additional protection in the Equality Bill, according to ministers. However, women, black, elderly and disabled people are also protected under general anti-harassment laws, yet they are included in the bill, while LGBTs are not.
Why the double standards? What happened to the level playing field and equal treatment that was promised when this bill was first tabled?
The government seems to be saying that a gay person who is homophobically harassed can secure protection under general anti-harassment law, but if an ethnic minority person is racially harassed they should be protected under both the general laws against harassment and, in addition, under the Equality Bill.
To put it bluntly: Labour is creating a two tier legal system and denying equal protection to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Members of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, such as Evan Harris MP, have similar criticisms. They support extending the anti-harassment protection of the Equality Bill to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.
Unfortunately, the government has thwarted attempts to amend the legislation by allowing very little parliamentary time for debate; thereby ensuring that the concerns of the LGBT community are not remedied.
Other legitimate concerns have also been given short-shrift. These include doubts expressed by the British Humanist Association and the Accord Coalition about the wisdom and morality of, in certain circumstances, exempting religious bodies from the requirement to not discriminate. There should have been parliamentary time made available to discuss all these issues.
The way the government has handled the Equality Bill is typical of its frequent arrogance and high-handedness. A commendable piece of legislation has been besmirched by the failure to fully protect against homophobic harassment. Moreover, the truncation of parliamentary scrutiny and debate has not only been bad for the LGBT community; it is bad for democracy itself.
Peter’s article first appeared December 2 at the GuardianUK and is reprinted here with permission.
