Some of you weren't pleased that we went to gay pride.We don't listen to homophobes. Therefore,we'll continue to support the LBGTI community— AgangSA (@AgangSA) October 28, 2013
On Saturday, I raised some concerns I happen to have about legal inaccuracies that AgangSA were portraying on their twitter and in public.
A question of legal accuracy.
AgangSA claimed that ‘gay rights are human rights’.
As I pointed out to the organisation, human rights apply to all human beings whether they are straight or gay.
These are a specific set of legal rights which are universally accepted as existing. Those with an interest in the field, understand these rights to be centred on the right to religion, the oldest human right, as well as on life, liberty, dignity and so forth. In the international law field, it has consistently been rejected, that so-called gay rights are part of human rights. Civil rights certainly are not human rights, nor are many other rights which people accrue via the political system.
A somewhat left-wing constitutional court system in South Africa, with judges appointed because the Supreme Court of Appeal was seen as too Conservative, certainly has allowed the left-wing of the African National Congress to push homosexual civil unions through, just as they pushed the unpopular abortion on demand model, amongst other unpopular and controversial Western-based ideas, which some of late: allege are imperialism. The reason institutes such as the South African Constitutional Court appear to play such a vital role in this scheme for the westernisation of South African morality, is because the populous by in large agree with our neighbours Up North.
This conservative African way of thought: is especially the case among the black poor and middle-class, the people that many opposition parties claim to be going after. Oddly, much campaigning seems to focus on interests exactly mirroring Today's American foreign policy, rather than the mores of the voters which parties claim to be attempting to woo.
Agang, a political party operating in South Africa, was misunderstanding the point our editor was making: In fact attacks violating human rights, are just that, attacks violating human rights: gay rights are a separate concept altogether:
@SACNSNew well with the rate of homophobic attacks, their rights are not respected— AgangSA (@AgangSA) October 26, 2013
AgangSA has decided to alienate the South African electorate.
Most other African nations do not endorse the Western idea of ‘gay rights’, or gay pride. Most of our neighbours in fact outlaw such practices, or deeply frown upon them. South Africa is no exception, so far as the population is concerned. The most recent survey on the matter by the government found that about 80% of South Africans consider homosexual acts to always be wrong. A more recent questionnaire into the matter, asking the separate question of whether homosexuals should be accepted by society, still found massive opposition.
A better way forward?
It would seem that a Western obsession with homosexuality among other controversial activities, has if anything increased violence against homosexuals and encouraged legislatures to further outlaw such activities.
AgangSA, responded to my concern about their claiming that gay rights were human rights , by pointing to the rate of anti-homosexual assaults and murders. I spoke some time ago about the concept of hate crime, in relation to the white population of South Africa. It is where crimes cannot be explained by crimes of convenience, and by interpersonal crimes, or crimes committed by the mentally unstable. By this definition there are certainly many hate crimes committed against homosexuals that are also residents or South Africans. Such a crime is a deplorable act of vigilantes' intentional injustice, and cannot be condoned.
.@AgangSA I unequivocally condemn attacks on people due to sexual preferences, BUT 'gay rights' aren't human rights. Gays have human rights.— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 26, 2013
I do not approve of homosexual sex acts, and I do consider the much, much media promoted homosexual lifestyle to be both dangerous and profligate given the high coincidence of disease, utilisation of narcotics, high suicide rate even in accepting cultures, and so forth. I do not believe in typing a person by their sexual preferences. I might disapprove of behaviour, but I’m very unlikely to type a person solely based on their sexual preferences.
Where I do have homosexual friends, I tend to trait them, that is to type them: by their loyalty, disloyalty, likes, dislikes: the normal things by which people type their friends. Gay pride however tend to have the effect of typing homosexuals simply by their sexual lifestyle. As a Roman Catholic I do not approve of condoms, I do not approve of extramarital sex whatsoever. I don’t approve of it when a friend engages in such activities, but that tends not to be the ultimate type I assign such a friend. Likewise, with my homosexual friends: I do not approve of their sexual preferences, or of extramarital sex that they might engage in: but I do not type them by these activities of theirs.
If such political parties were to focus not so much upon typing a person by their sexual preferences, and instead upon reducing hate crimes against all categories of persons: that might in fact reduce hate crimes against the homosexual population of South Africa. I think this would be a much better use of the time of such political parties, if indeed they were aiming at the best interests of homosexuals and South Africa. It seems odd that instead of going with the demographic polls related to South African voters: such political parties are aiming at a nonexistence demographic. Such much deferred to, powerful vacuum of a nonexistence demographic: perfectly correlates with American foreign policy at the moment.
Especially concerning, statements by both the Democratic Alliance of Helen Zille, and of AgangSA which is founded by Mamphela Ramphele: that any people who might be homophobic, do not deserve to be listened to whatsoever. Again, this is an attempt to type people based on one or other aspect of that person: it is a sort of activity which I think breeds intolerance rather than tolerance against the people AgangSA so publicly claim they support. Encouraging the typing of people based on one or other aspect of that person, encourages division, polarisation, hate crimes, and gives the majority of South Africa something massive to lose, if they determine that they will tolerate a different type of culture and lifestyle. If anything such activities by AgangSA and the Democratic Alliance, are counter-productive if the aim is to truly protect the human rights of the homosexuals in South Africa.
'Some of you weren't pleased that we went to gay pride. We don't listen to homophobes.' / @AgangSA Name calling against the electorate?— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) October 28, 2013
AgangSA continues to Subscribe to our editor, Marc Evan Aupiais on the social networking site Twitter, where our objections relating to legal accuracy were raised. It is uncertain what other responses to their gay pride tweets were received by the organisation. It would nonetheless be preferable if politicians such as Mamphela Ramphele, were to listen to the electorate of the country, and address their concerns, perhaps through debate: rather then refuse to speak at all with those who disagree with their viewpoint. Especially in a country, where the views of Mamphela Ramphele are not those of the majority of the population.