Proceed at your own risk

LES BELGES

 


 

DOWN UNDER

                 

THE STREETS OF GENEVA

                  

COMMONWEALTH, UNLESS YOU'RE GAY

I hear "genocide" and I hear "crisis" and "crimes against humanity".

But then I'm a whiny freak and will never play with the big boys, like The Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth held its annual meeting last week in the Caribbean with one major goal in mind: To reassert its influence on global politics and international law.  The Commonwealth, composed of nations of Britain's former colonial empire and representing more than a quarter of the world's countries, not only failed to achieve its goal but in fact confirmed its complete and utter irrelevance--at least within the quirky confines of my freaky world.

Having the opportunity to officially censor and even expel Uganda from this family of English-speaking "democracies" on the eve of Ugandan implementation of sexual orientation genocide policies, this once respected union stood silent--and that included the Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada and Britain.  Sure, the Prime Ministers of Britain and Canada did make some noise, but it was just noise and then they went back to "work".

Reminiscent of Holocaust times, the gay friendly nations of the world (a group similar to the Jew-friendly nations of the early 20th Century) felt that a firm response to a nation set on homophobic laws and policies that would warm the cockles of every Nazi black heart was too much of distraction in the face of global warming issues and the economic woes of the day.

I suppose the good news is that tens of thousands of gay Ugandans will not live long enough to experience any of the benefits of Commonwealth influence on climate and economic policies.  Six million plus Jews were also thrown to the wolves because this very same group of nations was then preoccupied with the Great Depression.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Leaders of the 53-nation group, whose profile has waned in recent years, say they now have a chance to influence the global debate. "What we can do is to raise our voices politically," said Prime Minister Patrick Manning of Trinidad and Tobago, who hosted the biennial meeting. "We feel can have some effect in influencing the discussions in Denmark."

Others apparently agreed. This year's meeting is drawing non-English-speaking  leaders from outside the Commonwealth such as Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and, most unusually, French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The Commonwealth, established in 1949 and made up almost entirely of former British colonies, promotes democracy, good government and education. But the mission seems to be fading: A new report by the Royal Commonwealth Society, a non-governmental organization, said its polling found "members of the public are largely unaware of what the Commonwealth is or does" and called for a more aggressive role in international affairs.

But when the group was called upon to address the most pressing human rights issue of the day--a true human rights horror that is sweeping many of the Commonwealth member nations such as Jamaica, Nigeria and, of course, Uganda, a decision was made that gay genocide has nothing to do with the promotion of "democracy, good government and education."

Around 80 countries in the world still outlaw homosexuality, and more than half of those are former British colonies. Most are members of the Commonwealth.

Both Manning and Kamalesh Sharma, the secretary general of the Commonwealth, declined to condemn a proposed law in Uganda that imposes life imprisonment for homosexual acts and the death penalty for having homosexual sex while HIV positive. The law also sets prison terms for people who do not report known acts of homosexuality. Manning declined comment, saying it was an internal matter, while Sharma said he hoped the bill would be changed before the Ugandan parliament takes a final vote on it. "We must show our faith that this is a process which is going to deliver in the end the appropriate result," he said.

Once again, the gay-friendly nations of the world have reaffirmed the view that sexual orientation is not a universal human right.  Gay men and women remain expendable when it comes to things that "really matter".  As a Jew I get this.  As I gay man I wish we had our own nuclear nation so that like Israel we would be in a position to remind the world that we're not going to take this shit anymore.

BEAUTIFUL SWEDEN

Increasingly, a number of EU nations are taking a firm stand on what any thinking man can see is a clear line between religious freedom and bigotry.  Only in fundamentalist nations like our own, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Uganda would anyone consider it legitimate or civilized to curtail human and civil rights in a supposedly free country and tamper with the democratic process based on the views of ancient civilizations that worshiped vengeful and violent gods who demanded animal sacrifice, genocide, slavery and female servitude.

Our own nation's inability to make such a distinction befuddles any hope one might have of ever seeing democracy, universal human rights and equality established in these United States for each and every American.  And that is an appalling crime and betrayal of the Bill of Rights.

Most recently the Church of Sweden (representing about 90 percent of that nation's population) approved a recommendation that the Swedish Lutheran Church should conduct weddings in church for both heterosexual and same-sex couples.  The marriage liturgy will be amended slightly to reflect this.  The changes took effect on November 1.

Church leadership and the Swedish democratic government agreed that no individual cleric will be obliged to perform such a service, but every parish will be required to make provision for the liturgy, and to use visiting priests if necessary.   This strikes as a very fair balance between the principle of individual rights, the universality of human rights and constitutional democratic law.

Nations can be free without the tyranny of religion while still respecting the religious views of individuals, but the religious views of any one individual or even a group of individuals must never be imposed on any other individual or group of individuals.

NEVER.

When that happens as is becoming increasingly the case in these United States, the rights of all individuals stand on very slippery ground.

Many EU nations and Canada clearly understand this.

Sadly, our President seems not to. 

Free nations must challenge and limit any group that questions or challenges the universality of human rights, particularly the right of every person to live with dignity and in safety.

The Church of Latter Days Saints, Islam, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church would do well to learn this and our President would do well to remember it.  If Obama does not stand against theocracy, our first black president may be our last Constitutional president of any color.

VIENNA SAUSAGE

       

DUMB AND DUMBER

When it comes to Christianity, I really do try to moderate my visceral negative reactions to what seems to be relentless hate-mongering and outstanding stupidity.

Christians just can't be as stupid as they often appear to be.

But then I read the news again and my head explodes, again.

A conference of African cardinals who slavishly follow a Western religion imposed on them by cultural imperialism has denounced the "cultural imperialism" of Western nations in their aid, trade and health care policies for Africa, saying  that the West's promotion of abortion rights, condoms, contraception and women's and homosexual rights is destroying the continent's moral fabric--a moral fabric woven by that very same "cultural imperialism".

African prelates attending the three-week meeting on the role of the Catholic Church in Africa said their countries needed economic development partnerships that are based on trust and fairness, not ones that exploit Africa's natural resources and put conditions on aid. "We want to be helped, but helped in the name of truth, with respect of what we are and what we want for ourselves," explained Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal.

So what's wrong with this picture?  Perhaps it is the fact that "what they are" is a bunch of parrots parroting the medieval nonsense of French and Italian Popes--and now a German one; it's a rich African cultural and moral tapestry woven in Paris, London, Lisbon, Rome and Berlin.

How can these educated clerics not see the freakish irony of a black African leader slavishly obedient to an Italian religion run by a former German Nazi denouncing Western colonialism denouncing values imposed on him and his continent by an Italian religion run by a former German Nazi?

Cardinal Wilfred Fox Napier of Durban, South Africa, denounced "hidden" agendas of international aid groups and countries that promote abortion rights and condoms to fight HIV, saying the West was trying to impose its views on Africa.

Napier said this draped voluminously in costumes designed and imposed by that very same horrible "West", spouting "principles" contrary to his ancient African traditions and culture, imposed on his ancestors by the very same countries he is now denouncing.

The arguments of Sarr and Napier were echoed repeatedly during the synod, with repeated criticisms of institutions that promote "reproductive health care" for women.

The Vatican has warned that such programs - often supported by the United Nations - are really just a cover for promoting access to sex education that promotes abortions, birth control and homosexuality.

Slavishly obedient to his Western master, Napier said, "There are certain cultural norms that are inherent in Africa.  One of them is that sexual activity is for bringing babies into the world. It's not so much for enjoyment."

But he said the "cultural imperialism" imported from the West "is saying 'no, it's for enjoyment, and pregnancy is almost a disease.'" Napier also cited the practice by some aid groups of conditioning their aid with terms that are unacceptable to the Catholic Church, such as requiring a part of funding for anti-HIV programs to be set aside for condom purchases. "Western populations think that their life is the model for everybody, but it's not the case," Sarr said. "If they have some ideas, they can put forward these ideas, but these shouldn't be imposed on all the populations in the world."

And then Napier returned to crusading for Medieval  and Victorian Western values imposed on his ancestors by European colonial armies.

Is it something in the communion wafer that makes these people so blind to the reality of their own insanely moronic rants?

KICKED IN THE BALLS

In a move that it surely going to outrage American Christians, the French Amateur Soccer League has permanently banned a predominantly French Muslim team, Creteil Bebel, for refusing to play a predominantly gay soccer team.

Apparently, the French do not exempt "religion" from secular laws against discrimination.  A majority of Americans would criticize the French for attacking religious freedom; the French would respond that discrimination is not a religious entitlement.

"The Creteil Bebel team is excluded from the Leisure Football Commission for refusing a match and (making) discriminatory comments," the commission's website explains.

The predominantly gay soccer team, Paris Foot Gay (PFG) were set to play fellow Creteil Bebel, who are composed of mainly Muslim players, on October 4.

Bebel shot off an email to the queers:  "Sorry, but because of the name of your team and in keeping with the principles of our team, which is a team of practicing Muslims, we cannot play against you," the message said "Our convictions are stronger than a game of football."

The French conviction in opposition to discrimination is stronger than religion-based bigotry.

The French amateur league banned Creteil for "refusing the match on discriminatory grounds." "It's a permanent exclusion, they will never be reinstated," league president Jacques Stouvenel said.

Our President would very much disagree with this French position.

In fact, despite glorious speech making to America's queer elite on his support for equality, Obama continues to pour billions of dollars into government-funded programs that deny employment and services to gay Americans on the basis of religion.

With all eyes focused on gay rights legislation and Obama's smoke screen speeches, the truth is out there.  Still out there.

You may recall that our gay-loving Prez promised in his campaign to preserve President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative aimed at helping social service programs sponsored by religious organizations win federal grants and contracts.

But he also promised a vitally important change: groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to discriminate against gay Americans either in employment or in the provision of charitable and social services.

Obama simply lied and continues to do so.  In fact, his commitment to change and equality never seems to pan out when the proverbial rubber hits the road.

The idea was to prevent discrimination and preserve the boundary between church and state. But Mr. Obama has still not made good on this promise.

It doesn't require Congressional action, it simply requires an Executive Order and enforcement, but Obama has still done nothing.  Nothing.

In fact, Obama's February executive order revamping the White House office for religion-based and neighborhood programs left untouched Bush's 2002 presidential directive authorizing religious-oriented programs that receive federal financing to hire and fire on religious grounds.

Also left untouched was a constitutionally suspect 2007 memo concluding that the government cannot order religious groups not to discriminate as a condition of federal financing — even in programs like Head Start, where religious discrimination is outlawed. The memo, based on a far-fetched interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. That is the same outfit that wrote the memos authorizing torture.

A coalition of 58 religious, educational and civil liberties groups is now seeking to reverse the 2007 memo. A group letter last month to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. asked him to direct the current Office of Legal Counsel to review and withdraw the memo.

Nothing has been done. No action has been taken.  So while our President is dropping his glorious words at gay events, he remains personally and directly responsible for the most far-reaching act of discrimination against gay Americans in history.

Those darned Frenchies!

ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL OR IS THAT JUST ANOTHER MAN ON YOUR DICK?

The good news about Islamic priorities is that they make American Christianity look good.  Southern Baptists should send regular fruit baskets of thanks to Mullahs around the world.

A leading Egyptian newspaper has been shut down by the Cairo government for labeling three prominent Egyption movie stars as homosexuals.

 

Indeed, the three actors, Nour El Sherif, Khaled Abol Naga and Hamdi El Wazir were found to be actively engaged in a gay escort service being run out of the Cairo Intercontinental Hotel.  No arrests were made because the actors were only found to be engaged in prostitution with young boys, a common and acceptable practice throughout most of the Arab world.  But when the daily newspaper Al Balagh Al Gadid referred to the three men as homosexuals, a Muslim line was crossed and the newspaper was shut down.

The newspaper also reported that three actors bribed the police and the hotel managmenet to disregard the whole incident.  No one was actually bothered by that. It was the accusation of homosexuality that put everyone's knickers in a twist.

Sherif, Naga and Wazir filed lawsuits against the publication's chief editor, executive chief editor and one of its reporters. In a statement last week, the Egyptian Higher Council for Journalism said it decided to ban the broadsheet after considering the reports forwarded to the general prosecutor by the actors, who stressed that Al Balagh Al Gadid was aiming to damage their reputations--not as buyers and sellers of young boys, but as homosexuals.

Most public figures in Egypt want to avoid being connected to homosexuality, which could damage their popularity among Muslim fans. El Sherif admitted that he wasn't bothered with the accusations of belonging to a prostitution network, but was frustrated to be described as a homosexual. "Naming me among other homosexuals defamed me and all Egyptian artists. The Journalists' Syndicate has to be firm with anyone trying to insult the dignity of Egyptian artists," he said.

In Egypt, as is not uncommon in most of the Arab world, adding young boys to your Harem is just part of life, but being identified as a  homosexual is grounds for nasty business.

Egyptian courts routinely imprison "homosexuals" in order to prevent the spread of immorality and promiscuity in Egyptian society.  Trading in young boys for sex slavery?  No problem.  Allah be praised.

THE PROP 8'ING OF "UNIVERSAL"

Leading and influential conservative legal scholars have filed papers officially challenging the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) claiming that when then the original treaty was signed in 1948, it was never intended to be "universal" and it was never intended to apply to all "humans."

Really. 

Not kidding. 

With genocide, racism, sexism, religious persecution, child abuse and slavery flourishing around the world, some prominent Americans would go to war with the UDHR.

I suspect that this would come as quite a shock to Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the authors and champions of this document.  I also suspect that if Mrs. Roosevelt were alive today, she would be out and proud and beating down doors in Washington demanding that the United States Constitution apply to all people living in this nation, not just members of an elite club of Christian conservative morons.

Nonetheless, American conservative legal experts have condemned the United Nations (UN) human rights committee's recent inclusion of "sexual orientation and gender identity" as a protected category under the 1948 cornerstone human rights treaty.

Conservatives have condemned what they are calling "A bureaucratic body of mostly left-wing advocates [who] added "gender identity and sexual orientation" as a new category "among the prohibited grounds of discrimination."

Conservative think tanks are taking a "Prop 8" approach, claiming that if a majority of nation's share a common belief that is contrary to the UDHR than that belief takes precendence over any other definition of human rights and "universal".

In fact, 60 nations who are parties to the treaty dispute the inclusion of sexual orientation as a human right claiming that homosexuality is an abomination and an offense to "God". You remember "God", don't you?  That imaginary super hero who watches out for all the little children--except the gay ones?

Steven Groves, a human rights expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington DC-based think tank says:  "Writing a general comment when there is consensus on an issue is one thing. But writing one in the complete absence of consensus is really disturbing."

Other critics see the move as a violation of sovereignty by attempting to impose "transnational" cultural norms upon countries around the world.  They claim that the UDHR contains no reference to "gender identity and sexual orientation," and when nations negotiated the document, it was not intended to cover such "novel" categories.

So American Conservatives would replace the concept of "universal" with "transnational cultural norms."

George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin, who has written extensively on the transnationalist threat to state sovereignty, said that the comment "seems to reflect European fashion rather than any serious consideration of what most countries have actually understood as 'discrimination.'"

Rabkin seems to believe that "universal" means "European".

Rabkin insists that the addition of sexual orientation to the UDHR may actually be "a set back for the effort to build respect for basic human rights in countries with poor records in this area," as it undermines the claim that rights are universal and should be accepted by all.

Rabkin asked, "How compelling can such claims be in countries where traditional religious standards are still respected? What's the likely effect of this sort of ruling on people in Muslim countries, who hear from many that human rights advocacy is simply a seductive program for undermining Islam?"

Another criticism is that the committee, over objections from Member States, is advancing the highly controversial Yogyakarta Principles, an advocacy document prepared in 2007 by "homosexual activists" and some UN personnel but never negotiated by or otherwise agreed to by Member States of the UN.

One European critic of the Yogyakarta Principles, Jakob Cornides, faults the "distorted anthropology" inherent in the general comment. "In this new anthropology," he explained, "nobody is a man or a woman, but everybody arbitrarily defines his own gender identity: male or female, homo- or heterosexual, trans- or bisexual."

"In the normal order of things," he added, "the natural purpose of sexuality is procreation, and 'sexual orientations' that are not oriented towards adult persons of the opposite sex are thus misguided. But if we accept that man is the product of his arbitrary self-definition, it is a logical consequence that everything can be re-defined – including sexuality, which according to the ICESCR bureaucrats does not seem to have anything to do with procreation, its primary purpose."

It is expected that the Committee will now begin telling treaty members that they must change their laws based on the new reinterpretation and that lawsuits will result.

United Nations member in good-standing Jamaica is one of many non-Islamic Christian nations outraged by the new UDHR "sexual orientation" clause, claiming that it ultimately interfere with that nation's cultural and religious norms as well as pose a threat to the billions of dollars of foreign aid that flow into the island nation's treasury from the United States, Canada, Britain and other wealthier nations.

British honorary consul John Terry, a gay man living in Montego Bay, was found strangled to death on September 9 of this year.  A note reading, “This is what will happen to all gays,” was found at the scene.

Brian Williamson, the founder of a Jamaican gay rights organization Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG), was hacked to death with a machete in 2004.  That same year Mark Anthony Myrie, better known by his stage name Buju Banton, was charged after six gay men were taken from their home and severely beaten. The charges against Banton were subsequently dismissed.

In 2005, Steve Harvey, a leading HIV/AIDS worker activist who worked closely with gay Jamaicans, was shot dead on the eve of World AIDS day.

In 2006 Kingston man Nokia Cowan drowned to death after being chased off a pier by a homophobic mob.  It was another homophobic mob that chased Gareth Henry into the clutches of police who beat him severely. Henry lost 13 friends to homophobic violence in Jamaica before fleeing to Toronto last year.

Between 2005 and 2007, a total of 14 gay men were killed in Jamaica. There were also more than 140 attacks on gays and lesbians.

American Conservatives, many of whom likely vacation on sun-drenched Jamaican beaches (along with thousands of American liberals), find it disturbing that the new sexual orientation amendment to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights would interfere with Jamaica's cultural  norm and religious values.