Fiery Financial Gazette columnist, Mavis Makuni has commented on the recently published document entitled The Zimbabwe We Want: Towards A National Vision for Zimbabwe. In her article Men of the cloth who would rather sup with the devil she says

The church leaders involved in this subterfuge should ask themselves why the government of Zimbabwe is prepared to listen only to them when it has done everything under the sun to close democratic space and crush dissent in all other respects. These clergymen must surely be aware of the heavy-handed manner in which the government has dealt with opposition party and civil rights activists who have tried to promote the ideals the nation is now being urged to focus on in the church-initiated blueprint.

Meanwhile the Editor of the Zimbabwe Independent, Vincent Kahiya discussing the same Church document says in his Editor’s Memo headed Bigoted criticism

I took time this week to read through the National Vision discussion document prepared by three ecumenical groups in Zimbabwe and presented to President Mugabe last Friday.After reading the 50-page document, titled The Zimbabwe We Want, I was left in no doubt that some of the critics of the initiative by the churches, especially those having a go at individual prelates, had not read the whole document. The attacks were bereft of substance largely because the critics have not focused on the contents of the document but have elected to critique the process by which the paper was created.

Kubatana is also receiving response from some of our subscribers. Mike says

The attempts by elements of the church to go it alone, ignoring their erstwhile partners in civil society, to engage with the criminal and illegitimate regime are reactionary, collaborationist and counter-productive. The fawning attitude demonstrated towards mugabe by Trevor Manhanga are an insult to those who are struggling for a new Zimbabwe. The bishop is deluded if he thinks that mugabe is capable of engaging in genuine negotiations; mugabe only uses such initiatives to distract, delay and divide. He has no intention of addressing the crisis in this country since that would require an end to his denialism and an admission of culpability.

Nduramo in his email to us makes reference to a point Mavis also raises, namely that of the lack of “national” consultation in the preparation of a “national” vision document. He says

The “Zimbabwe We Want” vision document re-affirms the Government’s desire to be in control at the pulpits every Sunday. The ‘WE’ in the ‘Zimbabwe we want’ is a fallacy representing ZANU (PF). Who is the ‘WE’ refering to in this case, when millions of Zimbabweans were not consulted?

I noticed a small article entitled Musician to become Zim ambassador tucked away on page 20 of last week’s Mail and Guardian newspaper. It looks like the Zimbabwean government is going to give our musical icon Oliver Mtukudzi ambassadorial status with full diplomatic credentials in a bid to revive our country’s flagging tourism industry.

The mind boggles. About a few things actually. First that there should be any confusion as to why our tourism industry is all but dead. I mean it’s hard enough for Zimbabweans to drive around their own country because of the scarcity if fuel. I can’t really imagine how tourists would cope. They’d probably hire a car and merrily set off only to find that every fuel station they pulled into didn’t have any fuel to sell.

Then of course there’s the rampant gold panning taking place in the beautiful Chimanimani mountains in the Eastern Highlands.

And let’s not forget the poaching of wildlife in Zimbabwe’s national parks.

“On the one hand, Zimbabwe is trying to promote tourism, and on the other it is destroying any chances of reviving it,” said the Zimbabwe Conservation Taskforce in its latest monthly report.

Second, I can’t quite fathom how Oliver Mtukudzi can even consider accepting this dubious “honor”.

Mtukudzi said, “I never thought they would go that far. I have been marketing the country as a tourism ambassador, but if that recognition can go to the extent of getting a diplomatic passport, that will be great,” he said.

I certainly hope that Mtukudzi won’t gleefully grab an ambassadorial passport and continue to “promote” tourism in Zimbabwe while remaining silent about the root causes of the crisis in the tourism sector.

I’m keeping tabs on the anonymous advertisements about the Domestic Violence Bill being placed in the state-controlled press in Zimbabwe by opponents of the Bill. Yesterday, I saw this advert in The Herald

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL “IGUYU”

KUNZE: very nice because it sells itself as fighting against wife battering and child rape.

Mukati masvosve

1. It promotes infidelity by refusing husbands the right to confront nor to reprimand even the most wayward wife.
2. It promotes sex before marriage and AIDS by fighting against virginity testing.
3. It allows for the destruction of clans by opposing appeasements of avenging spirits (Ngozi).
4. It puts rape and the most minor dispute at par and in the hands of police and the courts.
5. It deliberately ignores the cause of domestic violence.
6. It does not condemn n’angas who recommend child rape as “prescription” for AIDS and riches.
7. It introduces NGOs as the new extension of families by appointing them counselors and complainant’s representative replacing relative and elders.
8. It undermines the capacity and dignity of adult women by bringing in complainant’s representative without their consent.
9. It was made in Europe for Africans.
10. Only NGOs were consulted and are familiar with its contents as opposed to ordinary Zimbabweans.
11. It out dates the Bible (1 Timothy 2 vs 11-13 and Mathew 18 vs 15-17)

“Iguyu – refers to something that looks nice on the outside, but inside it’s rotten.

Engage The Editor of The Herald about these advertisements by writing to theherald@zimpapers.co.zw

Something to write home about is a book to buy.

It’s a compilation of reflections and stories from journalists covering Africa published by Jacana in South Africa. Many famous journalists contributed their work free of charge, donating all royalties to two special funds: The Miguel Gil Moreno Foundation and the Kerem Lawton Fund. Contributors include CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Charlayne Hunter-Gault, the BBC’s Fergal Keane and Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Greg Marinovich.

Alexander Joe, a Zimbabwean-born photographer who is now based in South Africa is also a contributor to Something to write home about. Below is an excerpt from Alexander Joe’s story called All black people look alike:

During the Rwandan genocide, the Red Cross invited the media to accompany them in a convoy carrying food into Rwanda from Burundi. Two French women journalists and myself, a black photographer, accepted their offer.

When we got to the Red Cross in Bujumbura they refused me permission to accompany them. I was told by a white Red Cross worker that it was too dangerous for me as a black person to enter Rwanda.

“If the Tutsis don’t kill you, then the Hutus will,” he said. In his eyes all black people look alike, despite the fact that I come from Zimbabwe. A Rwandan or a Burundian black person could see from a mile away that I don’t come from the same region.

So the two women and I decided to go into Rwanda on our own. At the first check point of Hutu militia we came across, they immediately started shouting “Belgium! Belgium!” at my two white colleagues.

It was quite ironic for me that now to black people “all white people looked alike” to the Hutu militia during the genocide all white people were the Belgian enemy, and if it weren’t for me, my white friends would have had a hard time. The Hutus could see I was from a different part of the continent without me even having to say a word.

There’s been another anonymous advertisement placed in the state-controlled Herald newspaper regarding the Domestic Violence Bill. This time it was signed Christ’s advocate and it reads

WATCH OUT!!

Domestic issues cannot be solved by the police and the criminal courts. They can be solved by the father! [1 Timothy 2 verse 11-23 and Colossians 3 vs 8]

If there are differences between husband and wife, solve them through dialogue. If dialogue fails, consult an aunt, an uncle, a friend or involve a pastor, a village head or a chief. [Matthew 18 vs 15-17]

Getting your partner arrested? No! It breaks families.

What about murder and rape of women and children?

Now these are cases for the police.

And what is in it for you women without husbands?

Clearly some Zimbabwean men are running scared, terrified that the violence that they perpetrate with impunity in the home might finally catch up with them.

One of the most articulate contributions to the debate on the Domestic Violence Bill came recently from Amy. Amongst other issues, she comments on a point I raised in my last post – the indivisibility of human rights. Amy says

It is crucial that we keep domestic violence in perspective and resist the temptation of according it secondary importance when compared to state violence. Both are abominable but more significantly we miss the point when we fail to realise that the majority of women experience physical violence NOT at the hands of state actors but at the hands of private actors. Indeed there are parallels between the torture that is meted out by state actors and that which we have allowed men to get away with in the private sphere. It is the beliefs that people hold about violence in the private sphere that lead them to commit violence in the public sphere. Of concern regarding Mubhawu’s statement as an opposition legislator is that he gives a bad name to those who truly stand for alternative justice. If it is indeed the case that those who shout democracy, democracy, human rights, human rights, have a selective view of it, then it is absolutely correct that the electorate should not be fooled into voting for such candidates. Domestic violence has become such a scourge in our society that it is vital that we get people to appreciate that charity does indeed begin at home. We are justified in demanding the highest standards on gender issues from all politicians regardless of their affiliation. Whether Mubhawu’s comments are shared by the majority is not the point. HE has put himself forward as an advocate of people’s rights and we have the right to demand that those who do so are up to the job. The Hansard Reports will be able to give us an accurate account of who harbours misogynistic beliefs on this vital issue of combating domestic violence. Women’s groups will indeed be amiss if they do not ensure that they are not represented by misogynistic cave men. Let us not waiver in being exacting in our standards.

Following the protest by the Women’s Coalition and widespread condemantion in the media, Movement for Democratic Change MP Timothy Mubhawu was recently suspended from the party due to his anti-female comments.

There’s this thing going on in Zimbabwe at the moment where the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been, for reasons best known to itself, brokering meetings between civil society organisations and the Government of Zimbabwe to discuss the establishment of a Zimbabwe National Human Rights Commission.

In response to this initiative, a few civic and human rights organisations have asked, “are you mad?” – you want us to speak with a Government that brutally suppresses freedom of assembly and expression? A Government that displaced 700 000 people during a mass eviction campaign in 2005.

And a Government that, as recently as September 2006, sanctioned the brutal assault of trade union and political activists in Harare. You can watch footage of these assaults here.

And adding insult to already massive injury, the Government of Zimbabwe refused to meet with civil society for these discussions on the establishment of a national human rights commission if the national Gay and Lesbian organisation (GALZ) participated. But instead of civil society taking a united stand and demanding full inclusion, some civil society organisations still believe it reasonable and strategic to meet with the Government of Zimbabwe and the UNDP to discuss “human rights”.

The issue of the establishment of a national human rights commission is being debated on an email discussion list. My fellow civic activists didn’t feel that my last contribution was worthy of response. I said

I agree that not all civil society organisations/NGOs will necessarily sing from the same hymn book. However I do believe that there are some issues which need a very solid and common position. For example, the rejection of GALZ cannot be accepted or condoned. Surely civil society must speak with a single voice, especially on the issue of who gets the “nod” to participate in deliberations on the establishment of a national human rights commission: human rights are indivisible. If the Government doesn’t like GALZ, where does the rot stop? What if they don’t like MMPZ, or a commercial sex worker group or WOZA?

And this reminds me of a passage in the book Fences and Windows by Naomi Klein where Subcomandante Marcos says that a Zapatista is anyone anywhere fighting injustice, that “we are you”. He told a reporter that

Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gyspy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10 p.m., a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains.