“I’ve never come out of the closet because I’ve never been in it,” says Dirk Slater of his openness as a homosexual man. Growing up in California, in the United States of America, Slater says that he was always comfortable and conscious of his gayness and was never pressured to make an effort to conceal it. He was in his teens when the first cases of Karposi’s sarcoma – the first known symptom of what was later to be termed AIDS – were observed among American homosexual men in, 1981. At this time, homosexuality was heavily stigmatised and seen as the cause of this outbreak. “It was a scary time,” confesses Slater, now 44. “There was this gay cancer going around and a lot of people died from it, including my own friends.” Yet even through all that fear and lack of understanding, Slater was able to live openly as a gay man. “If you are in a big city (like California), it’s usually okay,” he says of the prevailingly tolerant environment that large cities offer to people with alternative sexual preferences in the US. “A gay couple can often show public affection and not get into trouble for this, but this is not the same in smaller towns.”

And it is usually not the same in other countries where homosexuality is openly condemned and criminalised. In some parts of the world, penalties against homosexual practice are as extreme as the death penalty. And while efforts have been made to decriminalise homosexuality, globally, same-sex couples do not often enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. In many countries, gay partners can neither marry legally nor adopt children.

South Africa, however, shows signs of change and optimism for the homosexual community. In 2006, South Africa became the first African country to give same-sex couples the right to marry. The Civil Union Act – the piece of legislation passed to endorse this – offers gay couples the same rights and recognition as heterosexuals.

But, as Sally-Jean Shackleton, Executive Director of Women’s Net, a South African gender NGO, points out, “There is positive legislation but the negative side of this is that in practice, the lives of those who challenge the binary construct of gender are still very much in danger.”

Along with facing acts of violence, Shackleton feels that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and intersexual people (or LGBTI) are often marginalised in HIV programming. “Only LGBTI groups are driving the process,” she states, citing examples of the unavailability of dental dams – for protection during oral sex between women – as a way that the HIV protection needs of lesbians were not being met.  Dental dams are thin, square pieces of latex that are used for oral-vaginal or oral-anal sex and are also usually used in dental procedures, hence their name. “Men can protect themselves with condoms but the same is not true for women.”

Shackleton also states the fact that mainstream healthcare providers are often not places where LGBTI can get information on HIV prevention tools that suit their needs. Also, the double stigma of being termed sexually non-conformist, as well as HIV positive, is noted as a deterrent for many in seeking HIV prevention, treatment, care and support options. “People are afraid to be visible,” adds Slater. “It’s ten times harder to come forward if you are HIV positive and homosexual, at the same time.”

Amy, not her real name, is a 24-year old Lebanese woman who echoes Shackleton’s sentiments. “Society tends to classify LGBTI all the same,” she says. This, she feels generalises the different issues they face individually, and does not adequately address the specific needs and services that they require.

Amy classifies herself as ‘queer’ and says that for herself, there is no such concept as being a man or a woman. As such, she does classify herself, or her sexual preferences, by this dual system.

“People see us as perverts and think that they need to ‘heal’ people like me and others, by correcting us through hormone injections or a sex change,” adds Amy.

Slater mentions that homosexuals also tend to be commodified as ‘wedges’ used in electoral campaigns to either win or lose votes. “(George) Bush used the fact that candidates like (Al)Gore and (John) Kerry were tolerant of homosexual issues as a way to scare away conservatives from voting for them,” he states of the previous US president’s election campaigns.

It is thus respect for different beliefs, as well as enactment and implementation of enabling legislation that Slater, Shackleton and Amy all wish for. “We need to support alternative ideas around masculinity and promote alternative role models as a means of creating an enabling environment for all to freely express themselves,” says Shackleton.

“Governments need to stop being stupid!” states Slater. “And cultures need to stop ostracising people who are different. “

First it was the Pope peddling misinformation about condoms. And now, recently, it was the turn of a Swazi Member of Parliament to fuel stigma around HIV and AIDS.

As a measure to avoid the onward transmission of the virus, the MP, Timothy Myeni, suggested that those who have tested positive for HIV be marked on their buttocks with a special insignia to warn possible lovers of their status. This, he was quoted as saying, would assist possible sexual partners in verifying the status of the other person prior to engaging in intercourse.

After much backlash, Myeni later retracted the suggestion claiming that it had been a trap set by the devil to destroy his name.

If anything, it seems to me to me that this was a trap set by Myeni to destroy the name of people living with HIV.

A person’s HIV status is a confidential issue, to be disclosed as and when an individual feels ready to do so. Branding people only helps to peddle the stigma and discrimination that people with HIV already experience. In other words, labelling people living with HIV would only serve to make them feel more ostracised and unwelcomed – as though they were an untouchable and unlovable caste.

And before his utterances, Myeni really should have thought through the process of how this whole operation would be carried out. Would such branding take place soon after an HIV test? And how?

Imagine the scenario of visiting an HIV testing centre, testing positive for HIV and then being told to proceed to another area to have your buttocks stamped with a sign that states your positive status. Would this really encourage more people to get tested? Very unlikely.

Besides, as was noted by an Oxfam representative, Jacob Nanjakululu, at the recent Global Citizens Summit in Nairobi, Kenya, 90% of people living with AIDS do not know their status. Therefore, such practices as branding those who dare to find out their status would only lead to an increase in the number of people who do not know their status.

The consequences of such lack of knowledge could be dire, as more people could potentially, and unknowingly, transmit the virus on to their sexual partners, thereby creating a web of new infections, and a greater burden of need for treatment, care and support services.

Is that we really want or need in a world that should be becoming more tolerant towards people living with HIV? And are we saying that people with HIV cannot and will not disclose their status to their sexual partners, otherwise? Surely, such thinking makes people living with HIV out to be little children who cannot think or act on their own.

While discussing this issue with a colleague, he told me that in Malawi, a certain chief had suggested that people found to be HIV positive should have a permanent scar etched onto their foreheads so as to warn all other villagers of the potential danger these people posed to their health. This is not much different to what Myeni had proposed, and equally hard to understand.

How sad it is that people try to fight stigma with yet even more stigma.

Rather than focusing on branding people, I say it’s time to focus on providing them with treatment and other requisite services. But even more importantly, it’s time to start loving them and respecting them as human beings.

Who said this when asked about farm invasions and violence on farms?

There are incidents in which it is reported that there are invasions on one or two farms but it’s all blown out of proportion. We have investigated examples of those so-called farm invasions. We have asked the Minister of Lands to give us a detailed report of what has been happening over all these so-called farm invasions and the outcry over that.

That’s Morgan Tsvangirai, although you could easily have thought it was a Zanu PF stalwart.

Meanwhile, here’s a report by Jan Raath writing for the Mail & Guardian (SA), 28 May

President Robert Mugabe’s controversial “land reform programme” took a new twist on Wednesday when a court ordered the eviction of a man who is not a farmer. Ian Campbell-Morrison (46) lives in the Vumba Mountains in eastern Zimbabwe, next to a hotel where he is the green keeper. He and his wife live in a cottage on a plot not much bigger than a suburban garden, where she tends flowers. The Campbell-Morrisons used to farm tobacco and coffee, but the government seized their land and the farmhouse and gave it to a government official, leaving the couple their cottage and the garden around it, said Hendrik Olivier, director of the Commercial Farmers’ Union, made up mostly of Zimbabwe’s remaining 350 white farmers. A magistrate in the nearby city of Mutare nevertheless sentenced Campbell-Morrison to a fine of $800 for “illegally occupying state land” and ordered the couple to be off the property by Saturday. The Campbell-Morrisons are one of 140 white farming families facing eviction from their land in the latest tactic in Mugabe’s violent, lawless campaign to force white landowners – numbering about 5 000 when it started in 2000 – off their farms. The action is in the name of a redistribution of land to black Zimbabweans, but which has instead made a million former farm workers homeless and set off the collapse the once-prosperous country’s economy. Mugabe has declared all white-owned land to be state property and banned farmers from taking the government to court.

The evictions and violence have continued despite the establishment in February of a power-sharing government between Mugabe and former opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, with an agreement to restore the rule of law and to “ensure security of tenure to all land holders”. Tsvangirai, now prime minister, began by promising to end the lawlessness, promising that “no crime [by invaders] will go unpunished,” but the police – under the control of staunchly pro-Mugabe security chiefs – continued to refuse to act against the mostly well-heeled Mugabe loyalists grabbing productive farms and selling their crops. Western governments have refused to provide finance for the recovery of the country’s economy from world-record inflation and decimation of production under Mugabe, until there are “clear signs of reform” in the re-establishment of the rule of law. The restoration of peace and security on the farms is cited as a key condition. But there was shock this week when Tsvangirai, referred in an interview to “isolated incidents of so-called farm invasions” that had “been blown out of proportion”. Said a Western diplomat: “He’s talking like Mugabe now.”

Throughout Tuesday night on Mount Carmel farm in the Chegutu district, farmer Ben Freeth and his family were terrorised by a mob of invaders who rolled blazing tyres at their thatch-roofed homestead. At the weekend, an 80-year-old woman was assaulted by police, who were removing her son from his farm. On Friday, another farmer was beaten by a Mugabe supporter. “There has been absolutely no resolution or even recognition that there is even a problem,” said CFU president Trevor Gifford, who is trying to stop a government official cutting down what is left of his timber plantation, and is selling it to the government of neighbouring Zambia for telephone poles. Gifford is due to appear in court on Friday for “illegally occupying state land”. “This is happening in a country that has become the world’s most dependent on donors for food,” he said. “Until this government respects the rights of its own citizens and investment agreements, no one will look at this country.”

This week started out with a few small signs of hope. Two public demonstrations were staged, with no arrests. According to a WOZA statement, on  Monday, “over 1,000 members of Women of Zimbabwe Arise marched through the streets of Bulawayo, to articulate their demands to the power sharing government.” And according to SW Radio Africa, on Tuesday, “Law Society of Zimbabwe held a peaceful demonstration in the streets of Harare to protest continuing harassment of members of the legal fraternity.” – This despite the fact that the police had previously banned the march. In both cases, the police watched the demonstrations, but no arrests were made.

Surprised by this, we sent out the following text message on Wednesday:

Kubatana! Inclusive govt may be opening up democratic space. 2 successful demonstrations this week with no arrests. WOZA in BYO Monday and lawyers in HRE Tues.

One enthusiastic subscriber replied: “Ah, ko lets march to state house w a petition 4 bob 2 step down muone mashura mtHarare! kana kuenda kuRBZ 4 gono 2 go! Tinofa (or go to the Reserve Bank and tell Gono to go. We’re dying.)”

But Fambai was less convinced: “Kubatana puhleeze, what democratic space? Honestly we cant b celebrating the false benevolence of bloodthirsty riot police not using their baton sticks!”

Good point Fambai! Clearly two zero-arrest-demonstrations do not a happy democracy make. So. Is there any genuine change in the works, or is this all the same crocodile, just conveniently disguising itself for a bit?

Tendai Dumbutshena recently wrote an impassioned article for The Financial Gazette in which he suggests that “Tsvangirai, excited beyond measure by his status as Prime Minister, has exceeded his brief by sanitising the person of President Mugabe.”

Tendai also believes that “there is no point trying to make out a case for the MDC-T to pull out. It will simply not happen. The comforts and status of office are too attractive to resist. No price is too high to keep them.”

The article ends pessismitically with these words . . .

While MDC-T leaders are flying all over the place begging for money and lobbying for the removal of sanctions, President Mugabe is planning for the day the country goes to the polls. When that day comes the MDC-T will find that nothing has changed. The militia will still be in place. The police CIO and defence forces will still be wings of ZANU-PF. The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission or whatever body replaces it will be under ZANU-PF’s commissariat. The ZBC will still enjoy a monopoly and be staffed by ZANU-PF apparatchiks. Certain magistrates and judges will be on standby to deal with cases assigned to them by the Minister of Justice. Filthy prisons and CIO jails will still be there to welcome opponents of ZANU-PF deemed dangerous. If all this fails ZANU-PF will not accept the results and the MDC-T will go crying to SADC for intervention. Enter another inclusive government under President Mugabe as head.

As Tendai points out it is all very predictable and depressing, but what are the other options?

On Monday lunchtime I landed at Harare Airport and the South African Airways pilot made an announcement saying that passengers should remain in their seats so that the Korean (North) delegation could leave the plane first. There was a whole lot of rumbling in response to this from passengers up and down the aircraft. Then the pilot spoke again and asked passengers to exit out the back door so that the Korean delegation could skip out the front and along the red carpet all on their own. The rumbling grew louder. Another announcement and we were told that stairs for the back door couldn’t be found so we’d get our turn on the red carpet after all. The pilot apologised, and so he should have. What sort of crap is this? Why should the Korean delegation get any special treatment? Come to think of it they hadn’t even bought business class tickets, so sitting cattle class like me they should have waited their turn like everyone else.

Bollocks I say.

Even bigger bollocks was the fan fare put on by the Government of National Unity . . . they rolled out Everything, not just the red carpet. And I believe that Morgan Tsvangirai and Thoko Kupe were part of the welcome party.

A text message I received on that day read

I would not like to think any member of the MDC whatever group would attend the state banquet tonight for organisers of the fifth brigade.

So who were the fifth brigade and what did they do? Here is an excerpt from a report called Breaking the Silence published by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace. The report discusses the atrocities in Matabeleland in the early 1980s.

In October 1980, Prime Minister Mugabe signed an agreement with the North Korean President, Kim Il Sung that they would train a brigade for the Zimbabwean army. This was soon after Mugabe had announced the need for a militia to “combat malcontents”. However, there was very little civil unrest in Zimbabwe at this time.

In August 1981, 106 Koreans arrived to train the new brigade, which Mugabe said was to be used to “deal with dissidents and any other trouble in the country”. Even by August 1981, there had been very little internal unrest. Joshua Nkomo, leader of ZAPU, asked why this brigade was necessary, when the country already had a police force to handle internal problems. He suggested Mugabe would use it to build a one party state.

Mugabe replied by saying dissidents should “watch out”, and further announced the brigade would be called “Gukurahundi”, which means the rain which washes away the chaff before the spring rains.

5 Brigade was drawn from 3500 ex-ZANLA troops at Tongogara Assembly Point. There were a few ZIPRA troops in the unit for a start, but they were withdrawn before the end of the training. It seems there were also some foreigners in the unit, possibly Tanzanians. The training of 5 Brigade lasted until September 1982, when Minister Sekeramayi announced training was complete.

The first Commander of 5 Brigade was Colonel Perence Shiri. 5 Brigade was different to all other army units, in that it was not integrated into the army. It was answerable only to the Prime Minister, and not to the normal army command structures. Their codes, uniforms, radios and equipment were not compatible with other army units. Their most distinguishing feature in the field was their red berets. 5 Brigade seemed to be a law unto themselves once in the field.

Deployment of 5 Brigade – Matabeleland North, 1983

In late January 1983, 5 Brigade was deployed in Matabeleland North. Within weeks, they had murdered more than two thousand civilians, beaten thousands more, and destroyed hundreds of homesteads. Their impact on the communities they passed through was shocking.

Most of the dead were shot in public executions, often after being forced to dig their own graves in front of family and fellow villagers. The largest number of dead in a single killing involved the deliberate shooting of 62 young men and women on the banks of the Cewale River, Lupane, on 5 March 1983. Seven survived with gunshot wounds, the other 55 died. Another way 5 Brigade killed large groups of people was to burn them alive in huts. They did this in Tsholotsho and also in Lupane.

At the same time as 5 Brigade was sent into the area, the Government had introduced a strict curfew on the region. This prevented anybody from entering or leaving the area, banned all forms of transport and prevented movement in the region from dusk to dawn. A food curfew was also in force, with stores being closed. People caught using bicycles or donkey carts were shot. No journalists were allowed near the region. This situation meant that it was very hard to get news of events out of the region, and hard to judge the truth of the early accounts. However, as some people managed to flee the area, stories of the atrocities began to spread.

Targeting civilians: during these early weeks, 5 Brigade behaved in a way that shows they had clearly been trained to target civilians. Wherever they went, they would routinely round up dozens, or even hundreds, of civilians and march them at gun point to a central place, like a school or bore-hole. There they would be forced to sing Shona songs praising ZANU-PF, at the same time being beaten with sticks. These gatherings usually ended with public executions. Those killed could be ex-ZIPRAs, ZAPU officials, or anybody chosen at random, including women. Large numbers of soldiers were involved in these events, sometimes as many as two hundred, and often forty or more.

If Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Thoko Kupe were part of the welcome party at Harare Airport then I’m pretty sure that they attended the state banquet as well. The thought of this made me choke – what about you? A question to ask ourselves is when do we move on and put these national injustices behind us?

After a national inquiry perhaps?