Jedward, democracy and all that good stuff

Too much direct democracy is not a good thing. My Brit peeps who watched the X Factor over the weekend will agree. Judge Simon Cowell, also of American Idol, opted not to save a talented singer and deferred to the public vote. As a result, the tone deaf twin of John and Edward (“Jedward”) from Dublin marched into the next round. Anger against Cowell has pushed the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall out of the headlines. If only PM Gordon Brown could get behind popular feelings on this issue...

Whatever Simon’s motivation, it can certainly be said that there is a manic reliance on polls nowadays. The rash of gay marriage referenda all over the US are a classic example of democracy on steroids. These exercises outsource critical political decision making to crude, public opinion. Should matters of fundamental rights ever be left to a majority vote? In hindsight, not many of us would say that desegregation in the US, for example, ought to have been put to a ballot.

Freedom of the press is my other bug bear today. All accept that it is a sacred pillar in every democracy. Its importance however, has created hideous monsters. Who dares to criticise the press? Owners of media are the new “Dons.” Political lore has it that both Tony Blair and Bill Clinton had to negotiate a detente with conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch, in order to prevail as centre-left candidates. Obama is trying unsuccessfully to freeze out rabid, Birther-loving Fox News, owned by Murdoch. London is completely Murdoch-ized, from Sky News to the London Lite. Gordon Brown’s Labour party does not stand a fighting chance, as far as one can imagine.

I believe that it is possible to slip from hyper-democracy into sheer lunacy (Enter Jedward, the aforementioned talent-free twin). What a travesty it would be if those two end up winning the X Factor!

In the name of free speech, I declare that I am suspicious of the state of the so-called free press. There is agenda setting, based on who owns what, that is making democracy feel like oligarchy. Perchance, does Rupert Murdoch have anything to do with the X Factor?

Agassi's admission

In his recently released autobiography, eight time grand slam winner Andre Agassi has written about taking crystal meth while still a player on the tennis circuit in 1997. What's more, he spoke of how he lied to officials after the drug was discovered in a dope test, by claiming that he had unwittingly consumed a spiked drink from one of his associates. Agassi says that he asked for leniency from the ATP (Association of Tennis), who clearly obliged by never making the incident public. http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=4600027

Now Agassi has spilled his guts. It is not clear whether his doing so is just Oprah-styled TMI (too-much-information) or genuine public catharsis. One has to wonder if the beloved tennis star set about to fuel book sales with this particular controversial tidbit. Could the risk of permanently tarnishing his legacy be recouped from making a few extra millions dollars - money that he perhaps doesn’t even need? Who knows!

To be optimistic, one could view this out-of-left-field drama as a teachable moment. Sports stars are not perfect and recreational drug use is popular, if not common-place. Olympic swim champ Michael Phelps was caught bonging weed a few months ago and former tennis number one Martina Hingis retired in cocaine disgrace. In the absence of any anti-social or performance enhancing effect, should we really care that much about the drug habits of athletes (or anyone else, for that matter)? Is social drug use a legitimate “character” issue for assessing sporting greats?

The ATP’s cover-up, however, is a troubling matter. How do anti-doping officials decide who gets the stick and who doesnt? Pity the athlete who does not find favour in their eyes. On this point, I think that a book by track and field motor- mouth Carl Lewis would provide helpful insights, if he made detailed personal revelations. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

Open letter to Buju Banton

Dear Buju,

You claim to be a target of gay rights activists
around the world. Your management now considers that your ability to perform outside of Jamaica and earn a living is under serious threat. Things must be pretty bad, since you recently posed for pictures in San Francisco with some of your biggest gay detractors. I noted however, that you still refuse to apologise for penning "Boom Bye Bye" and promoting homophobia in your music.

Cobbling together your responses over the years, your argument seems to be that you are expressing a unique [cultural] attitude. From the torturous publicity picture of your San Francisco meeting, your continued defiance is clear. In your head, you are a victim of a campaign by reprobates who wish to emasculate you and your culture. The Jamaican PM, Leader of the Opposition and prominent churchmen agree with you. You covet your premier role as an emblem of Jamaican character - up there with Bob Marley for reggae music and Usain Bolt for track and field. The onslaught on your earnings through concert cancellations after gay protests, affirms your sense of righteousness in the face of evil and wickedness.

For my part, I am committed to your never earning another penny through music again. If I had the chance, I would force you to shave your locks in front of a live TV audience.

I do not credit you with inventing homophobia, because you didnt. But with "Boom Bye Bye", you styled and sexed up the rallying cry for gay murder. Your original intention - that all battyman fi dead [all gay men must die] - is reaffirmed everytime you and your many imitators are given airplay. You have chilled the spine of gay people inside and outside Jamaica. No one can begin to measure the psychic toll of your hate anthem. Above all - and far from being metaphorical - your call to arms has literally been answered time and again. There is a trail of blood that leads to your pen and pipes. For all these sins, you have not begun to pay. You should never be allowed to sing again.

Sincerely,

Bun fi Bun

Lead us Diane !

I have never liked Diane Abbot more. The ubiquitous black woman MP from Hackney, can get on my nerves most of the time. But she was brilliant last Thursday, in the midst of the furore over the BBC hosting Nick Griffin, the leader of the racist BNP party.

Diane’s argument was sharp and incisive. Putting a holocaust- denying, black-hating, promoter of repatriation for coloured people on the BBC’s Question Time, was simply bad judgment. No, no rules were broken. Indeed, free speech entitles everyone – even the bigots among us. Abbot’s position was that giving Nick Griffin prime time on a politico-entertainment show would only serve to sanitise the bastard. His repugnant views would never truly stand any chance of being tested.

As it turned out, Diane Abbot was spot on. There was great outpouring of disapproval for Griffin on the show. Everyone affirmed their disgust in the name of British multiculturalism. Jack Straw – the Labour Justice Secretary who disapproved of women attending his constituency clinics in burkhas – led the expressions of antipathy towards Griffin. Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, conservative Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion opined that the BNP won seats in the European parliament because of fears about immigration.

Nick Griffin sat there, buffeted by the questions, but appearing a little smug too. His triumph was that he had burned his way into the mainstream of British political discourse. And for this, we have the BBC to thank, partly.

EU aid to change Jamaican homophobia ?

This week, one of Acre Lane's loyal readers asked to comment on my post of September 12th concerning John Terry's murder in Jamaica. Here's what CB has to say.

In a recent newspaper article reacting to the murder of John Terry (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/peter-tatchellpoliticians-and-pop-stars-are-to-blame-1786275.html), gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell depicts Jamaica as a place of blood thirsty homophobia. The island’s surveillance and control of sexuality is likened to living under the Taliban. ‘The homophobic lynch mob mentality is worse in Jamaica than in Saudi Arabia or Iran,’ he says. The controversial British activist argues that the church, politicians and dancehall artistes are the root causes of Jamaica’s anti-gay sentiments. His recommendation? The EU must make development aid conditional on Jamaica repealing its buggery laws and extending human rights protection to sexual minorities.

I am not so much concerned with Peter Tatchell, who is known for his exaggerated views and actions. As a Jamaican, my response to the issues is marked by anxieties about nationality, identity, politics, intellectual integrity and the threat of imperialism. My views often vacillate between an apologist stance (arguing that it’s not that bad for gays in Jamaica), and a utopian one (where I argue that things are unacceptable and Jamaica must come to fully respect and protect the rights of gays and lesbians). But I am sure of the following things:

1) Making aid conditional on the repealing of buggery laws will not change things. In fact, it will make things worse. Such a move would no doubt galvanise the virulent nationalistic homophobia that is at the root of Jamaica's present gay rights problem. What we do not need is self-righteous grandstanding from the ‘West’ which eviscerates rather than supports Jamaican-based efforts and strategies for gay emancipation.

2) Law and human rights are not enough. Activists would have us believe that de-criminalising gay sex is the route to redemption and inclusion. Yet in South Africa, progressive rulings from the Supreme Court on sodomy and on same-sex marriage - even enshrining gay rights in the South African constitution - have not been enough to halt the ‘therapeutic’ raping of lesbians by men hell-bent on turning them straight. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudysimelane-corrective-rape-south-africa ).

3) Gay Jamaicans can experience Jamaica in vastly different ways. The island’s Head of Serious and Organised Crime, Assistant Commissioner Les Green, flippantly pointed out in a recent newspaper article ‘there are openly gay people in Jamaica and they live quite openly and mingle freely.’ (http://w w w . j a m a i c a o b s e r v e r . c o m / n e w s / h t m l /20090912T230000-0500_159548_OBS_TERRY_S_MURDER_NO_HATE_CRIM
E__SAY_POLICE.asp ). He might have been blithely unaware of many others whose
experience is very much like ‘living under the Taliban.’ I am here reminded of a story of a young man who lived in a garrison community in Jamaica, who was beaten up daily (and at times raped) when passing other houses to get to his own.

4) There are ways in which privileged Jamaican gay men eroticise, play and get caught in a complex social, economic and sexual game with self-loathing, homophobic, gay-vague, opportunistic thugs. Some of this speaks to lack of personal responsibility on the part of those gay men. But in recognising this, we must also be alert to E. Akintola Hubbard’s comment on the previous blog post. He warns that the subtext in police reports of ‘no forced entry’ at the victim's home, is that homophobia is removed as a viable motive, the murder is dismissed as ‘gay on gay violence' and the entire spectacle is deemed not worthy of police investigation time.

5) Finally, as human beings - gays, straights, sons, daughters and friends of Jamaica - we are all affected by this incident. Not only are we affected by it, but we all have some agency (no matter how small) to begin to change it.


CB

What John Terry's killer knows

British honorary consul John Terry was found beaten and strangled in the bedroom of his home near Montego Bay in Jamaica this week. Police reports say there was no sign of “forced entry” to suggest a breaking and entering. A handwritten note found on 65 year old Terry’s body, referred to him as a “batty man” and warned that “This is what will happen to ALL gays.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/consul-jamaica-gay-hate-terry

From a country with an exceptionally high murder rate, the assailant’s note addresses what is political about this killing in Jamaica. Rather than just a grouse between murderer and victim, the animus here is directed against an entire class of persons, namely “gays.” In a literal sense, the words translate what many Jamaican dancehall deejays and others have said before – that all batty man fi dead.

The author of this tragedy signed his note “Gay-Man.” This should not be the least bit confounding for anyone. The gay ascription could be a fiendish joke, the seal of a self-hating homo or some other reason.

Far more intriguing, is what killers - gay or straight- know about Jamaica. They know that all gay men are vulnerable people, condemned by law and subject to ready hostility. Preachers call down fire and brimstone on gays; mobs will assemble in a quick minute to beat a suspected batty man; the Prime Minister embraces anti-gay sentiments as part of national cultural values. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeVy5Sp6xyw. If homophobia is cancerous in Jamaica, no one is capable of administering political chemotherapy. It is always possible to get away with murder.

I'm every woman: the Semenya story II

If South African 800m gold medal winner Caster Semenya had turned up at the World Athletics Championship in Berlin looking like she did after her girly make-over, there would have been no furor. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/09/2009-09-09_athlete_caster_semenya_forced_to_take_gender_test_to_determine_sex__appears_as_g.html. She might have passed as female, even with internal testes and 3 times more testosterone than the average woman. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/10/2009-09-10_caster_semenya_.html. By the time she won her gold medal, poor Semenya was the picture of radical gender ambiguity. This, it is now clear, was her grave public relations failing. (The Ibster has a very funny prescription of how to “pass” as a female runner: http://ibsters.blogspot.com/ ).

One could have predicted how radioactive the issue of the South African runner’s gender presentation has become. Now considered a freak (“hermaphrodite”), the next step will be that Semenya loses control of her own body. Between the IAAF, media and various medical experts, consensus will build around the athlete’s need to perform alteration surgeries, in order to better align her within the gender category that is deemed suitable.

All those wacky feminist folk were right: ideas of gender and sexuality, are indeed policed and regulated. This is the reality TV styled proof that certain bodies – those of women, gays and freaks - are a militarized zone. In his poem entitled Heavy Breathing, black gay poet Essex Hemphill captured his angst with this state of affairs, when he wrote:

Science continues
Dismantling chromosomes.
Tampering with genetic codes.
I am sure of this
As I witness Washington
Change its eye color
From brown to blue;
What kind of mutants are we now?
Why is some destruction so beautiful?

Do you think I could walk pleasantly

and well-suited toward annihilation?
With a scrotal sack full of primordial loneliness
Swinging between my legs
Like solid bells?

I am eager to burn
This threadbare masculinity
This perpetual black suit
I have outgrown