Two Words and a Comma

On Monday, July 2nd, the campaign group ‘Two Words & a Comma’ officially launched. Obviously the behind the scenes organising of this group has been going on for some time, I beleive originating in the Lunch for Democracy demo last June that rallied up at the House of Assembly to protest the lack of debate concerning Renee Webbs amendment to the Human Rights Act. As the group states, the amendment of this act to include protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation, requires legally nothing more than (just about) two words and a comma. However, before this amendment can be made to the HRAct I believe it is necessary to increase the awareness of what exactly protection based on sexual orientation really is – the social prejudices must be confronted first before the legal amendment can be done. I believe this is exactly what the group is doing with its rolling series of adverts focusing on sexual orientation and why it is important for everyone to deal with and not avoid or succumb to prevailing prejudices.

Its obvious that discussing the politics of sex is a somewhat controversial topic in Western society as a whole, and this is to a degree compounded in Bermuda with its small size and population, as well as the intersection of sex and gender with the axes of racial and class oppression as well as religious moralism that pervades our society.

In the face of these obstacles, this group deserves to be commended at the very least for daring to begin the conversation as they have (although truthfully it would be more correct to say they have joined or made articulate this conversation).

Frantz Fanon, a great anti-imperialist writer and psychologist of revoltion, once wrote in reference to race that ‘to be racist in a racist society is normal.’ I don’t think it would be mistaken to paraphrase him abstractly and say instead that ‘to be prejudiced in a prejudiced society is normal.’ Insert the appropriate prejudice. Racism. Sexism. Homophobism. Classism. To me homophobia is directly connected to sexism, it is a manifestation or a sub-type of it.

I think all of us have gone through the educational factory of a racist (white dominated), sexist (patriachal and homophobic), religious (Christian primacy) authoritarian class-based society. We all have various levels of development, of prejudices in these areas, to greater or lesser extents, as a result to our individual experiences in the educational factories of the family, the school system, the Church, and general conservative social ideologies with respect to prejudices and respect/submission to authority complete with its pomp and ceromines, its uniforms and its parades. There are those who actively fight to build a non-racist, non-sexist, secular libertarian socialist society (or at least for aspects of this), but these people, myself included, did indeed go through the same aforementioned educational system; we did not form out of a vacumn. While in principle we fight against racism, against sexism, against homophobia, against classism, against authoritianism, each of us must continously do battle with the prejudices within ourselves while at the same time working for social change.

Concerning the amendment to the HRAct, the group ono its website has put forward some refutation of common arguments against protecting sexual orientation. I wanted to add some of my two cents to it as well.

One common position is that it is a lifestyle choice and not a born condition. Thus the HRAct need not protect against discrimination. To me, whether homosexuality is a choice or not is immaterial and has no relevance to the HRAct in that the act protects people on the basis of political, philosophical and religious beliefs, all choices and not born conditions. Alternatively, if homosexuality is a born condition, to discriminate against homosexuals on this basis provides legitimisation for discrimination based on sex (male/female) and race.

It is to be expected that the current campaign will face a backlash in the coming weeks. The ongoing culture wars, namely between those in favour of democracy, or liberty versus those who would uphold reactionariness, conservatism and authoritarianism, although a constant battle, would appear to be moving from a passive ‘war of position’ to an active ‘war of movement.’

While the group itself is clear in its position of reform and focusing solely on the issue of amending the HRAct, this apparently innocent proposal has the potential to ignite a wide ranging cultural war and revolution, with the conservative moralists, the defenders of patrichal authoritarianism correctly seeing in this ‘inch’ a threat to the very foundation of their authoritarian structure. Authoritarianism, and the capitalist form dominant today, however has proven a remarkable ability to recuperate, or adapt to such challenges to its hegemony, as seen with the cooptation of much of the radical challenges to it from the sixties from Black Power to Black Capitalism, to Sexual Liberation to Sexual Consumerism. But the potential is there.

As a qualifier, I guess I should stress that of course the views expressed here are mine, and not that of the campaign group. I only say this as I can see certain reactionaries trying to portray this reform movement as some sort of Marxist conspiracy, which despite the laughter such an accusation might create, the tragedy of such a farce isn’t worth it.



2 thoughts on “Two Words and a Comma

  1. Hi De Onion.

    You are correct that there does exist a growing body of evidence that some, if not the vast majority of sexual orientation does have a biological basis, and I am inclined to accept this as an obvious situation.

    The reason I had not attempted to really focus on the origins of sexual orientation is because I am wary of the motives behind those who seek to discover the origins themselves.

    For example, if there is a proven genetic or other developmental basis for sexual orientation, then this knowledge can then be used to inform a modern revival of eugenics – a ‘cure’ ‘vaccine’ ‘genetic therapy’ or even applied abortions directed to the ideal of eradicating deviations to the sexual norm.

    Similarly, if the idea that ones sexual orientation is a ‘chosen lifestyle’ wins the day then this itself gives license for an all out onslought to ‘convert’ the sexual deviants to the ‘acceptable’ sexual norm. History, especially the last century is full of psychiatric ‘hospitals’ and sanitoriums that sought to correct the deviants be it from Kellogs enemas and hearty cereal designed to promote Victorian sexuality (Post and Grahams crackers incidentally come from the same premise and world-view), psychoanalysis or electro-shock therapy.

    Neither of these two avenues inspire me with any great joy. For one thing I think they miss the question. I don’t care what the origins of sexual orientation. As long as two (or I suppose more) consenting adults engage in wholly consensual acts of a sexual nature, its not my problem, its not my business. Nor should it be anyones business or problem. When such sexual acts involve those who are underage (I have no issue with same age peer groups exploring their sexuality, my point here is concerning older individuals exploiting adolescents and children sexually), or violence, or otherwise non-consensuality (which of course by definition would cover necrophilia and bestiality), then yes, these are anti-social acts that should be guarded against.

    I hope that suitably clarifies my position there. Consensuality between equals fine; exploitation bad. Its a good mantra.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s