Gays and Globalism: Homosexuality and Progress

Jeremy Seabrook
 

In 2005 the Delhi High Court upheld article 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which outlaws homosexuality and any acts ‘against the order of nature’. The court stated: ‘Indian society is intolerant to the practice of homosexuality.’ There is, of course, a great difference between ‘homosexuality’ (a word coined only in 1869 by a Hungarian doctor) and same-sex relationships, which are universal and rooted in all cultures. This legacy of the Raj – rarely invoked – nevertheless remains; a signal that homosexuality is an alien concept contrary to Indian tradition, even though the practice is of great antiquity.

One of the most sensitive and tangible monitors of the direction of human societies – whether they are becoming more progressive or more conservative – is their response to same-sex relationships between men. In many countries – not all of them Western – there is a broad tendency to extend legal recognition to such relationships. Denmark was the first country to do so in 1989, followed by Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland. Britain followed suit at the end of 2005. Much of Africa, and the Islamic world, are moving in the opposite direction.

The West makes much of its enlightenment in these matters. This is a relatively recent development. If it is widely cited as evidence of the advance of social justice in the West, it also defines us against cultures which regard homosexuality as a sin, punishable in certain states by death.

The last execution for sodomy in Britain took place in 1836. It remained a capital offence until 1861. Just over a century later same-sex relationships between men over 21 were decriminalized. Until the 1950s homosexuality was branded as a ‘sexual deviation’ by mental health professionals. In the United States the last lobotomy designed to ‘cure’ homosexuality was carried out in 1951, although aversion therapy continued into the 1960s and beyond. The American Psychiatric Association declared homosexuality no longer a medical disorder in 1973. The World Health Organization removed it from its list of mental illnesses only 15 years ago.

China persecuted gays under ‘hooliganism’ laws, which were scrapped in 1997 and in 2001 removed from its list of mental illnesses. Japan had done so in 1995, but Thailand, perhaps surprisingly, waited until 2002. While South Africa was the first country to enshrine equal rights for same-sex and heterosexual couples in its 1996 Constitution, other African states have fiercely resisted social – as against economic – liberalization. It seems that a reaffirmation of ‘traditional’ values is a symbolic gesture against globalization and the powerlessness of many African countries to withstand it.

There is a supreme irony here. While repudiating the onslaught of the second wave of globalism, the rulers of Africa use the unreformed legislation of the first wave – laws introduced by former imperial masters. Thus Zimbabwe, struggling with hunger, corruption and misgovernment, makes a stand against what Mugabe describes as ‘a Western cultural practice’. He has said: ‘I find it extremely outrageous and repugnant to my human conscience that such immoral and repulsive organizations, like those of homosexuals who offend both against the law of nature and the morals of religious beliefs espoused by our society, should have any advocates in our midst or even elsewhere in the world.’

In Zambia, Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria illiberal laws are also invoked as a defence against what some see as forces of disintegration, even though common sense suggests same-sex relationships are scarcely the source of breakdown of traditional societies, which have been through the tempests of imperialism and globalization. The former President of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi, said homosexuality is ‘a scourge which runs counter to Christian teachings and African tradition’. Nigeria is one of the most sensitive sites of conflict, since Sharia law exists in its northern Muslim states. In July 2005 a man was sentenced to death by stoning for a same-sex relationship. The sentence was suspended. In August 2005 two gay men who were facing the death penalty were bailed in the northern town of Katsina.

In Russia same-sex relationships were decriminalized in 1993. During the Soviet era these were outlawed and penalties were severe: the temptation to ‘blame’ homosexuality on a decadent capitalism proved too strong for the puritanical zealots of the Soviet state. Brazil, too, has given de facto recognition to same-sex relationships by granting such couples the right to inherit each other’s pension and social security rights. A broader measure, tabled by Workers’ Party representative Marta Suplicy 10 years ago, remains stalled.

In the context of increasing polarization, should we regard the Indian decision as a re-assertion of a backward-looking social morality, out of keeping with the progressive temper of the age? Or is it a precursor of a new Puritanism, a re-assertion of tradition, under attack by the alien, invasive values of globalization?

The idea that ‘progressive’ views have prevailed is too optimistic. The death penalty for homosexuality or for acts ‘against the order of nature’ is still in force in Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Life imprisonment remains a possibility in Bangladesh, Uganda, Bhutan, India, Guyana, Nepal, Singapore and the Maldives.

In the West, too, liberal views have not gone uncontested. In 1992 the Vatican called homosexuality ‘an objective disorder’. In the United States about 70 million conservative Christians believe homosexuality and bisexuality are chosen preferences, that the former is unnatural and can be altered by means of prayer and ‘reparative counseling’.

In Sâo Paulo some three quarters of a million people joined the Gay Pride march in 2001, but scores of gay men are murdered every year in Brazil. An Orthodox priest who married two men in Russia in 2002 was defrocked, and in April 2004 the MP Gennady Raskov tried to recriminalize homosexuality. The Russian People’s Party blames gay men for HIV/AIDS and ‘the disintegration of the traditional family’. In Britain the homophobic murders in 2005 of David Morley and Jody Dobrowski received wide publicity, as did the murder of the 85-year-old great-grandson of the poet Tennyson.

It is generally assumed that the Islamic world has the greatest detestation of homosexuality. This is not the whole truth. Indonesia has no legislation against same-sex relationships, which have always been tolerated. In Bangladesh Article 377 remains but is almost never used.

However, in Saudi Arabia executions for homosexuality are frequent, while in Moshhad, north-east Iran, at the end of July 2005 two teenagers were hanged for the ‘crime’ of homosexuality. One was 18, the other a minor. They had been held for 14 months in jail and were given 228 lashes before being executed. This suggests that the younger one had probably been under 16 at the time of the ‘offence’. MPs from this very conservative part of Iran directed their anger at the domestic and foreign media for reporting the ages of the ‘criminals’. ‘The individuals were corrupt. Their sentence was carried out with the approval of the judiciary, and it served them right.’ Article 152 of the Penal Code states that if two men not related by blood are discovered naked under one cover without good reason, both will be punished at a judge’s discretion. Human rights organizations estimate that as many as 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed in Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Gains are fragile and impermanent, and maintaining them requires vigilance. The global response to homosexuality, far from showing signs of convergence, demonstrates clear divisions, ranging from the very liberal to the violently intolerant. As greater economic integration is accepted as inevitable, it seems social and cultural differences come to bear all the more weight in defining the social values and independence of countries.

On this issue, as on almost every other, a deeply divided world is further polarizing; a process in which the most impoverished are also the most prejudiced. This is, perhaps, difficult to acknowledge, since many prefer to see poor people as victims of prejudice rather than as perpetrators of it – yet another contradiction in the awkward complexity of globalism.

Source http://www.newint.org/second-thoughts/22-12-05.htm
 

 

 

Copyright     I     Contact us     I     Top     I     Next