Is the stigma of AIDS as devastating, if not more than the disease itself?
Kenneth Cole

I was part of a discussion with a group of youths about getting tested for HIV. One of the guys, let’s call him Fred, wanted to go and get tested, but he was afraid to go it alone. He asked his ‘Boyz’ if they would come and get tested with him, and this is where the drama started! The ‘Boyz’ said things like, “I’ll come with you and even hold your hand, for moral support. But I will NEVER get tested!” I felt sorry for him, because he desperately wanted to know his status, but was too petrified to do it alone. I asked them why getting tested was such a big no-no, and they basically said that they were scared and ashamed of dying of AIDS and would rather go on living in blissful ignorance, and then, die anyway. Sadly, these ‘Boyz’ represent a vast majority of Zimbabwe’s youth.

So, why are so many people scared of AIDS? Looking back early HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention campaigns in Zimbabwe, it is not difficult to see why. AIDS was depicted as this beastly killer that savagely tortured it’s victims until they withered away and eventually died, pitiful shadows of their former selves. I remember the ‘AIDS IS A DEADLY KILLER DISEASE!’ posters that were plastered all around my primary school. There was not so much information about the disease then. All we knew was that people who got it were bad people, who got it doing bad things, and that it kills. That was all we needed to know.

Looking at the history of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe, we see that most people never admitted to having the disease. People came up with all sorts of phrases, (The silent killer; A long illness; Ari muBhazi (Shona)), to avoid having to say AIDS. This culture of shame and secrecy surrounding the disease still has a strong hold on us today. Even now, when we have so much more information on HIV/AIDS that can dispel a lot of the cultivated myths and counteract our earlier mis-education on the disease, people are still ashamed, secretive and scared to talk about it. One can’t talk openly about AIDS without encountering some prejudice and apprehension. This has to change, because the reality is that people are dying needlessly.

What’s most alarming is that we can’t be absolutely sure of the number of people who are infected, (as demonstrated by the ‘Boyz’), since so few people actually get tested for HIV (about 5%), mainly because having a positive HIV status is viewed as iniquitous and disgraceful or as a death sentence. This stigma leads to discrimination of those infected and prevents more people from admitting to their status, getting tested and seeking treatment and psycho-social support. It is important for us to find was to destroy this stigma and render it powerless in Zimbabwe, with the aim to increase awareness and reduced infection in youth, because let’s face it, our youth are having sex earlier and earlier, and condoms are not exactly cool. If they continue to behave like this, they WILL get infected. But, will we never know this for sure, if they are they are so scared and unwilling to get tested?

In fighting the stigma and we can follow the examples of the late Natasha Richardson, (whose father died of the disease), and was involved in countless fund-raising efforts for HIV/AIDS research, and ex-NBA basket-baller, ‘Magic’ Johnson, who in 1992 began a life-long, HIV/AIDS awareness, education, and prevention campaign, when he announced to the world that he was HIV positive.

From a logical point of view, one would want to know their status as soon as possible, in order that they may get on proper medication, and live as long a life as they can. But when faced with the reality of a positive HIV status, all that logic/reason flies out of the window, and ignorance and fear take over. Let’s fight stigma so more can feel encouraged to know their status, stay protected and truly live positively.

Here’s Tapera Kapuya’s latest opinion piece:

Keeping society out of our bedrooms

For a couple of years running, gays, lesbians, prostitutes and other adults indulging in one manner or the other of consented sexual gratification – between adults of consenting age – have been subject of mass bashing. No one can stand on their defence for fear of association. They are a convenient distraction, an appropriable conversation initiated by political leaders when they fail to provide solutions for the country’s problems. Or for religious leaders whose convoluted sermons fail to hide the contradictions of their failure to side with those demanding justice and dignity in this, their Lord’s earth.

I am quite aware of the non-contentiousness of this piece. We are all agreed on every aspect I raise in it. Apart from, perhaps, my openness on the subject. Sex and sexuality. And how this is a very private matter for the citizen. And how social morality should never apply.

There is something very wrong with collectivized morality, especially when it comes to the subject of sex. For starters, it is one such issue that rarely finds comfort in public conversation. Even in private, it sort of has to wait till after a measure of some substance enhancer, insanity or as part of delinquency. Even amongst those who have just had it.

Words referring to sex cannot be uttered without being offensive or socially inappropriate. Even amongst those who do it in the acceptable setup: heterosexual married couples. Unless one borrows the language of external societies for whom sex and sexual expressions are not taboo. So whereas we can say without shame words referring to our sexual organs by name in English, Spanish or French, we couch in shame and contempt when the local vernacular is used. We can freely describe objects or those who look sexually appealing publicly as being ‘sexy‘ – with not consequences but for an envious stare – but the same description or word would get you plucked horns should you give it an approximate translation in our own languages.

It has been argued, probably rightly so, that this moral ‘correctness’ about the subject of sex, including subtracting it from acceptability from general discourse, explains why our people, more than any other race or ethnic group, have suffered the most from diseases that are sexually correlated. Our intervention programs have tended to be too moralized for quite obvious a subject. They are laced with doses of contempt. Never an acceptability that sex is a fundamental necessity for every adult, both for pleasure as for physiological needs.

But even more disturbing and in need for an unambiguous challenge is the whole manner in which society has increasingly poked its head and now finding comfort in the bedrooms of other adult citizens. Consenting adults are deprived the freedom to choose how and with whom they should have sex. There is always a moral police somewhere ready to pounce on those considered sexual deviants. Even worse when these, men and women, perhaps lacking enough gratification in their own lives and therefore quite finding it vexatious that others can enjoy it variedly, find themselves in positions of authority.

There is no suggestion of names here. But if we look closer into the abuse of religion and the State to brutally blackmail and attack those whose sexual conducts they do not agree with. This is irrespective of two fundamental codes: that those whose sexual preferences and acts are consenting adults and, that their acts, privately engaged in, have no physical effect on the persons who find these acts contemptuous.

The arguments raised to criminalize sexual gratification of consenting adults that is not deemed in synch with dominant views are just as ambiguous. Ranging from religious ones concerning how God and nature made things a certain way to an Afro-ethnic uniqueness of particular forms of how to have sex. These arguments are often presented in a hacking manner – where emotional and physical battery follows any attempts to rebut these so dismissible rationalizations. This explains why gays, lesbians, transgender and the women sexuality lobby demands greater support from civil society, and protection by the State.

We might not agree with other people’s sexual preferences. But where these preferences are confined to consenting adults, they really are of no business to any other person. That a woman, or a man for that matter, chooses to charge another to have sex is their own matter. Those who do not agree with paying for sex have a ready recourse: not to seek those who sell it. Same applies with those who do not agree with gays and lesbians: stick to your preferred sex. You should not conflate your subconscious fears or ultra egos and imposing your preferences on other persons.

As the new constitution is being drafted, special thought should be paid to ensure that the State and society do not become peeping Toms. Neither should it allow society into the bedrooms of adult consenting citizens.

Colleagues at OSISA recently  shared this news with us:

Well done sisters in  Mozambique!!

Last week, the advert above (of a local milk stout beer) sparked a furor in Mozambique and managed to galvanize the women’s movement (across the spectrum), to rally together against it.

They claimed successfully that this advert was insulting, discriminatory, sexist and against women’s dignity.

After a press conference where a campaign against the brewer (Cervejas de Mocambique) was launched, the brewer bowed to the pressure and decided to unconditionally withdraw the advert.

Fórum Mulher (Women Forum) and the Mozambican Human Rights League led the protest.

Its not because they cant drive or they don’t have driver’s licenses because some women even possess international drivers licenses acquired internationally when they once lived abroad. Unlike fellow women in most parts of the world who can go behind the wheel at anytime, women in Saudi Arabia still cant enjoy the same rights to drive cars in public after a religious fatwa (an Islamic religious ruling) imposed by conservative Muslim clerics to enforce the motoring ban on women. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that bans women from driving. The ban is one of the restrictions women in Saudi Arabia face each and everyday. One of the strict measures is that women are not allowed to leave home without a male guardian or even practice their right to vote. In June 2011 women in the Saudi kingdom staged a small protest against the ban by getting behind the wheel but most of them got arrested.

One of those who got arrested includes Manal al Sharif, an IT specialist who launched the “Women2Drive” campaign which encourages women to drive. She made a video of herself driving and posted it on Facebook but the page was pulled down and other women who participated in the campaign were threatened.

The concept is, ZANU PF are now the new Rhodesians.

Why do I say this? Let us look at parallels.

In the end (and also not far from the beginning), Rhodesia stood for nothing. They were simply against.

Rhodesia – “Keep out the godless communists!”
Zanu PF (listening to the ZPFer at the MPOI security sector debate) – “Keep out the whites!”

But what exactly they both wanted to implement was a mystery.
And never mind the fact that Rhodesia was one of the most socialist countries the world has ever known (aside from the apartheid regime).
And never mind the fact that Zanu PF just asked me (a white) to be the local area treasurer!

Really, they are/were both against democracy.
They are/were for entrenched power (and privileges).

For Rhodesia, it was race. It was a strongly classed, and stratified, society.
The upper class – paid, moneyed, educated, healthy, infrastructure there for (pools, cars, roads). Socially distinct, by race.
The lower class – there for labour. Some education, some health (had food!), some infrastructure (bicycle tracks).

There was no middle class. Thanks to PK vd Byl, for the most part. While Rhodesia was not racist, but had a qualified voting system (A and B voters rolls, based on property, income or wealth), in the early 70′s the voters rolls were ‘upgraded’. It was made more difficult to get on the voters roll. You had to own more property, make more money, or have a bigger bank balance. And people were taken off the voters roll. Why? Read Hansard. “Too many blacks were getting the right to vote.” said one MP.

So, instead of building a black middle class who might have voted for the RF, and stood with them for property rights, law and order, decency, etc. the Rhodesians decided to make enemies of everyone!

For Zimbabwe. How do they know who is kissing who’s ass? How do they know who is ‘onsides’ and who is a ‘national security threat’?
Upper class – paid, moneyed, educated, healthy, infrastructure falling apart for. They live in the same suburbs. They go to the best schools (not the government ones). They have offshore medical aid schemes, and go ‘away’ (Singapore) for hospitals. They drive nice, fancy cars. (and fast too!)
Lower class – there for labour. Education – there are the government schools to go to, but no one can afford. Health – go to Pariyanetwa, there might be a doctor on duty. Infrastructure – a pothole on every corner. Power lines hanging on from every pole (but only generators provide power). A tap in every garden, but the water is a bit brown, better get a borehole.

There is no middle class. They are in London (Harare North) or South Africa, where people can get jobs. Called the brain drain.

And what are the middle class? They are biggest threat to a radical, extremist regime. They are the ones who want to develop themselves and their community through standard hard work. Simple solid day’s pay for day’s work. Not the briefcase businessman. Not a fast buck specialist. Not the fly by night company. The builders, with companies with reputations, and personal reputations. Children, modest cars, plain holidays. Eyes on the future. They want good schools, good hospitals, roads with no holes in them, street lighting, clean water it the taps, electricity with a switch. They pay their bills, and expect others to do the same.

Similar? Rhodesia and Zanu PF land look the same to me.

Rhodesians never actually did anything. Unable to do labour. Good at getting others to do things, but not themselves. Their hands were not dirty.

For example, I knew an Afrikaner (ex Rhodie) in Pretoria, who never let it be known he was a Rhodesian. He got dumped on for all the Rhodies who came down, got jobs (based on their white skin), but could not put out the work. Another white came back from Australia, where he did not make it in farming. He was so glad to be back. He could come from a day ‘working’ in the fields here, and just throw his boots at the maid, “Clean them”, and they would be cleaned. He could not clean them himself. Zimbabwe was a wonderful place. Numerous stories like that. And of course, many did make it good overseas too! Listening to the Rhodesian farmers now in Nigeria on the BBC. Stunning stuff!

And here in Zimbabwe, why is the infrastructure falling apart? Because no one here can work. The civil service was stacked with Zanu PF loyalists, because they were Zanu PF loyalists and patronage needed to be handed out. Based on Zanu PF loyalty, and not technical merit, or ability. When I was a councilor, the City or Harare was the third biggest employer of people in Zimbabwe. Now, we are trying to paint the MacDonald Park Pool (owned by the City of Harare). And there are 6 painters in the employ of the CoH! Anyone with any skills or ability have moved to London or South Africa for a job. What do the others on the payroll do? The ghost workers (650) have been found and sacked. An independent body says CoH could be/should be run by a staff of 6000. But the patronage has been handed out, (not that it is worth much anymore). And no one wanted a job anyways, they just wanted the pay cheque. (The farms and factories syndrome.)

Similar?

I also noticed that the Rhodesians were HUGELY anti homosexual. Homophobic in fact. Yet, having done a lot of lights at a lot of Reps shows, I KNOW that the acts in any variety shows, that always got the hugest ovations – audience standing in their seats, hollering and clapping in adoration – that act was the cross dress, most faggoty, camp, blatant, men dressed up as women and singing women’s songs in high voices act.

And Zimbabwe? The main man states they are ‘lower than pigs and dogs’, and there are gangs of professionals beating them up and tearing down their stands, etc. However, I KNOW they exist. I have met them. And they did not pick it up overseas, as some have never left this country!

(And for the record, while I know I should not condemn something I have never tried and have no experience of, I am quite sure I am not gay. Don’t hit on me, as I am quite sure I will hit back. I suspect I am homophobic, and a product of my society. So we can keep sexual preference in some back closet.)

Similar? Again, it is to me.

So, the big question then is, if the ZPFers are the new Rhodesians, who are the new kaffirs?

When it was reported that Zimbabwe’s HIV prevalence had dropped, we all breathed a collective sigh of relief. For years our televisions and radios had been blaring HIV awareness messages ad nauseum, and apparently it had worked. The average Zimbabwean seemed very knowledgeable about HIV, how one could and couldn’t contract the virus, what one could do to protect themselves and condoms could be found in even the most remotely located bottle store. Even at Chiadzwa, before the soldiers, the dogs and the guns, I’m told you could be guaranteed to find four things: cheap alcohol, prostitutes, diamonds and condoms.

We’ve spent some time speaking with young people about HIV and sexuality and I’m beginning to think that there’s another reason why the prevalence is so low. I believe the statistics that are available do not truly reflect the Zimbabwean population. Young Zimbabweans, especially those in the highest risk groups are not getting tested and it’s because they are afraid. Attitudes about what it means to have HIV have not changed since the 80s. Back then having HIV meant it was only a matter of time before you succumbed and died horribly of an opportunistic infection. HIV was shrouded in mystery, like some sort of evil spirit, no one wanted to admit that they so much as knew it existed. This attitude has not changed over the last two decades.

Since the advent of treatments that prevent mother-to-child infections in the 90s, there is an entire generation of Zimbabweans, who are now reaching adulthood who are not addressed by HIV awareness campaigns, and there is nothing is the school curriculum that speaks to their particular set of circumstances. Now reaching young adulthood, this generation of young people has many questions about their status; life and their place in societies that have gone unanswered making life almost un-navigable. Our discussions also reveal that even amongst people living with HIV, and the families that support them, there is a general lack of knowledge about the course of the disease in complement to ARV treatments and proper nutrition.  During the discussion we were told a story about a young girl born with HIV whose father refused to let her take her ARVs because she looked healthy. ‘Hasisina chirwere.’ He said. (She’s not sick anymore)

Donor organisations are notorious for being fickle, and for funding programmes and community organisations that meet their agenda at that point in time, which then creates contradictions and gaps in information and in effect reduces the efficacy of the entire communication exercise.  There seems to be copious amounts of donor funding going towards patronising and poorly constructed awareness campaigns. How often do people actually pay attention to these? And are they even likely to create behaviour change? It is frustrating that in comparison, very little funding goes towards addressing the gaps in knowledge that have existed for twenty years, a consequence of this being found in the attitudes of health workers in the HIV field, who reportedly are creating stigma around the patients they are supposed to treat. Moreover, there is little or no funding going towards that generation of young people born with HIV that is coming of age today. The campaigns that are in the public space create the wrong impression in the public mind about HIV, that the only means of transmission is through sex, and more recently sexual networking, therefore a young child with HIV must either have had a sugar daddy or been raped.  There is no room in this for an alternative narrative, and that is victimisation.