FEEDS |

Is Qwelane good for Uganda?

There must be a better ambassador for SA, write Liesl Gerntholtz and Dipika Nath

Jan 26, 2010 9:52 PM | By Liesl Gerntholtz and Dipika Nath

The Big Read: South Africa is rightfully proud of its Constitution. It is hailed as one of the most rights - respecting in the world. It was also the first in the world, and still one of very few, to explicitly prohibit unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Current Font Size:
Jon Qwelane Pic: Robert Botha. 05/03/2007. © Business Day.
Jon Qwelane Pic: Robert Botha. 05/03/2007. © Business Day.

Related Articles

South Africa is rightfully proud of its Constitution. It is hailed as one of the most rights - respecting in the world. It was also the first in the world, and still one of very few, to explicitly prohibit unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

As the health minister of the time, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, told the UN World Conference on Women in 1995: "After the long history of discrimination in South Africa, we decided that, when we were the government, we would not discriminate against any group of persons, no matter how small their proportion in the population."

South Africa went on to enact laws and policies to promote and protect the rights of lesbians and gay men. In a series of landmark cases, the Constitutional Court struck down colonial-era sodomy laws, affirmed the legal recognition of lesbian and gay partnerships in immigration and in pension laws, and opened the rights and benefits of marriage to couples of the same sex.

South Africa offered hope to a group of people who had been marginalised, murdered, raped and reviled simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. And, for a short while, it seemed that the struggle for equality might be won. The new legislation drew applause from around the world, and gay-rights activists in countries such as India drew on the South African example in their own struggles for greater equality.

But homophobia was never far below the surface in the new South Africa. And it remains rampant in Africa today.

While South Africa was debating its progressive constitution, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe began a decade-long homophobic campaign, calling gays and lesbians "people without rights". Leaders from Nujoma, in Namibia, to Arap Moi, in Kenya, echoed the elderly despot, voicing views that were bigoted and sometimes bordered on incitement to violence.

And even South Africa is now showing worrying signs that the values expressed in its constitution are under threat when it comes to the rights of lesbians and gays.

Before he became president, Jacob Zuma publicly admitted that, as a young man, he had not been averse to slapping around gay men. Though he apologised for that, rather belatedly, he also offered a troubling justification - indicating that, at that time, homosexuality was "just not African".

It seems that many other African leaders share this view.

In April, President Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi signed legislation criminalising consensual homosexual conduct, despite the Burundian senate's overwhelming rejection of the bill.

In August, Senegalese Prime Minister Soulayemane Ndene Ndiaye deplored the "proliferation of homosexuality" in Senegal and invited religious leaders and all believers to fight it.

In May 2008, Gambian President Yahya Jammeh threatened to "cut off the head" of any homosexual in his country.

None of these leaders seems to understand that homosexuality has always been part of African society, as it has everywhere else. It was just less visible and tolerated in Africa.

In Uganda, where homosexual activity was already criminalised, and prejudice is widespread, a ruling party MP, David Bahati, has tabled a new "anti-homosexuality bill" in parliament, which forbids the "promotion of homosexuality" and imposes the death penalty for what it calls "aggravated homosexuality."

At times like these, the reaction of international leaders becomes significant.

Words are important, but actions speak louder. Do you turn a blind eye to this kind of barbaric legislation or do you take a public stand against it? When Zuma was considering who to appoint as our next High Commissioner to Uganda, he would have been aware of Bahati's bill and its proposed assault on a vulnerable minority group.

But his intention to appoint Jon Qwelane to the role must raise alarm among advocates of inclusion and tolerance in South Africa, Uganda and the continent.

Qwelane is well known for his outspoken views. He has taken on many of South Africa's sacred cows, for which he has won both admiration and disapproval.

No doubt Qwelane thought that he was doing the same when he penned a column about his abhorrence of gays and lesbians in August 2008.

The column, published in the Sunday Sun, was titled "Call me names, but gay is NOT okay ." In it, he lauded Mugabe's "unflinching and unapologetic stance over homosexuals," wished aloud for a South African politician with "the balls" to change the South African Constitution's provisions on this issue, and likened homosexuality to bestiality.

Though Qwelane, as a journalist and commentator, has no particular obligation to uphold the values of the Constitution, Zuma has sworn to do so. Qwelane, if he accepts the ambassadorship, will have to make the same promise to protect and defend the rights of all South Africans and the Constitution.

At home, the Constitution is a guide to the values South Africans want to live by. It should also be a guide to the values promoted and protected in South Africa's foreign policy.

Qwelane's comments in 2008 suggest that he is neither up to the job of High Commissioner in Kampala nor right for the job. Surely Zuma can find better flag-bearers?

  • Gerntholtz is the director of the women's rights division, and Nath is a researcher in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender division, of Human Rights Watch

 or  to comment

Comments

Jan 27 2010 01:45:39 AM
Tackler
user name
You can't write ATTITUDES into any constitution. All you can do is to write in LEGAL RIGHTS. You can't, by the mere stroke of a constitutional pen, force people to think what the constitution would like them to think.

But one of those constitutional rights is the legal right to say what you think. It's called freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

So, if Qwelane takes a dim view of homosexuality, he is entitled to say so without having to be punished for it. By the same token, Zackie Achmat and the gay lobby are free to try to persuade society that there's nothing wrong with it.

That model constitution demands that neither side is allowed to shut the other side down as they contest their respective and divergent points of view.
Jan 27 2010 04:41:35 AM
mbobozehluze mngadi
user name
We must come back to the question that is clearly at hand here. Does the constitutional stance on homosexuality represent the view of the majority of all South Africans?
If it does not, then Qwelane will be representing South Africa really well.
Jan 27 2010 05:22:16 AM
sthwimb
user name
Quite correct, attitudes cannot be written into the constitution, but what can be is the protection of rights of groups that are under-represented. We don't want to labour that point, as we all know where the argument would eventually go....

So, to that end, appointing someone (in public office) who has a paticularly strong view on a matter that flies in the face of the constitution is not the smartest move. It basically tells the gay community in SA that we have a constitution, but we only take it seriously sometimes. Doesn't bode well for other minorities....
Jan 27 2010 08:29:18 AM
Lovepant
user name
JQ is right in his views on Gays.
Jan 27 2010 08:31:05 AM
Lovepant
user name
It is no longer compulsary to vote for the anc!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 27 2010 08:54:24 AM
Tackler
user name
The "constitutional view" on homosexuality does not HAVE to represent the views of "the majority" (i.e blacks).

If the majority's opinion were to prevail on all issues, the death penalty for murderers would be back in operation in a flash with the heartfelt approval of both whites and blacks. White people would also be obliged to hand over all their property without compensation (a la Mugabeland) and black schoolkids would all pass Matric by assent of a majority vote.

The constitution is there precisely to put certain rights well out of reach of the whimsy of that majority.

Don't tell me it's taken 16 years and still that penny hasn't dropped?
Jan 27 2010 09:24:36 AM
VinceRSA
user name
The vast majority of African men are and always have been bi-sexual and are intitiated into using sex as a power factor especially over any women that they condone to consort with.

It's what makes the glorious leadership so 'strong and bonded' in all these nations across our continent but only so long as it is kept covert!
Jan 27 2010 11:38:59 AM
Mshibe kaNonopha
user name
What I do not understand abt such as the writer of this piece is, if it is true that 1 has a right to choose, why is it, ppl then have problems when 1 voices his/her opinion abt any matter including issues of homophobia?

We seem to forget that JQ was voicing his personal (personal being the operative word) views on the subject. He was not even advocating the media organisation that he was working for when he made those comments.

Similarly as the ambassador of SA in Uganda, he will be guided by SA's Constitutional prescripts. The Constitution does not say 1 has to like those with different sexual orientation to us. But it does say that they shouldn't be discriminated upon.

Personally I do not like them, but the Constitution expects and employs me to co-exist with them
Jan 27 2010 12:26:19 PM
nomakanjane
user name
Jan 27 2010 01:45:39 AM
Tackler

Sett()ler - you are becoming sober everyday. all praise to the soul that taught you to leave that liquid you were sniffing, and now you blog on normal hours!!!
Jan 27 2010 12:30:42 PM
nomakanjane
user name
Jan 27 2010 08:29:18 AM
Lovepant

in most instances no one likes an ugly person - seeing that jon is pretty ugly that could explain the rebellion against his promotion in life