A new art purchase this year

In December I got my beautiful wife to agree to take down the terrible painting of the girl who appears to have some kind of impossibly curved spine. This means I get to buy something to put in its place.

I've been researching furiously, setting criteria in place.

What we buy should be either

1. local (Ireland = local for our purposes) or local to where I'm from.
2. by a LGBTQ artist
3. by someone known to us

So I've been surfing all around looking at Irish artists, Maritime Canadian artists and gay artists in general.

We've only purchased one print and that was last year -- by a gay artist, Noah Grey.

Other than that, we have in our home Spintal Curviture Woman and the Painting I Will Never Be Rid Of (because grandfather-in-law gave it to us) titled "Lady in Purple" or as it is known here, Insipid Woman.

It's the beginning of our search. We don't have a lot of money, so it won't be someone well known, but it will be meaningful. So yeah, the search starts now.

Suggestions?

Pastor Ssempa Lies about Uganda's Kill-the-Gays Bill

Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009 has attracted all kinds of unwanted attention from the world.

President Obama briefly spoke out against it at the Family-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast, calling it “odious”.

Ugandan Pastor (and former break dancing champion!), Martin Ssempa, has responded to President Obama’s condemnation of the bill here.

Ssempa, who calls himself, “A passionate voice in the global fight against HIV/AIDS” responded to Obama’s comments in a statement, published by Kampala’s Family Policy and Human Rights Centre, available here.

He starts:

President Barack Obama makes two mistakes; first Ugandaʼs anti-homosexuality law only prescribes the capital punishment in cases where the victims are children or the handicapped.

So he’s saying that the death penalty will only apply for pedophiles, statutory rape, or having sex with a disabled person.

That sounds sensible. But it’s a lie.

The relevant section of the bill: (Anything quoted directly from the Bill will be in italics)

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the
(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;
(b) offender is a person living with HIV;
(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;
(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;
(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;
(f) offender is a serial offender, or
(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or
thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by enable any person to have
unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,
(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction
to suffer death.
(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a
medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

Let’s go through this line by line.

3 (1) a. This appears to apply the death penalty to anyone who has homosexual sex with a person under 18, regardless of consent or the age of the “offender”. Thus the 18 year old lover of a 17 year old could be put to death. However, this does seem to be consistent with Uganda’s heterosexual age of consent law.

b. If the offender is HIV positive. This section puts no requirement on the law to prove that the “offender” had any knowledge of her of his status, and in fact provides in 3 (3) that an HIV test may be performed on anyone caught engaged in a an act of “aggravated homosexuality”. It also fails to specify whether the other partner must be HIV negative in order for a crime to have been commited. Barrier methods appear to be ignored in this case. It appears two HIV positive partners using barrier methods, neither of whom are aware of her or his HIV status could be put to death under this section.

c. and d. refer to having homosexual sex with your own children or people over whom you have authority or responsibility. This should clearly be offenses, regardless of the sexuality of the people involved. Death penalty offense? Debatable.

e. If the victim is a person with a disability. For the purposes of this bill, the word “victim” is defined as an unwilling participant (and therefore thankfully excludes convicting the sighted partner of a consenting blind person). Like c. and d., this exists to protect the vulnerable. Again, whether the death penalty should apply probably depends on your view of the death penalty.

f. This is the one they all wish we’d ignore. In this bill, a “serial offender” is defined as: a person who has previous convictions of the offence of homosexuality or related offences

Homosexuality is defined in the bill as well. “homosexuality” means same gender or same sex sexual acts. A person who is convicted of homosexuality (they use the plural so I’ll assume more than once) and re-offends can also be subject to the death penalty. A person who has had homosexual sex three times in her or his life could be put to death, if she or he were convicted for each instance.

Also — related offenses? What are those?

PART Ill — RELATED OFFENCES AND PENALTIES.
7. Aiding and abating homosexuality.
8. Conspiracy to engage in homosexuality.
9. Procuring homosexuality. by threats, etc.
10. Detention with intent to commit homosexuality.
11. Brothels.
12. Same sex marriage.
13. Promotion of homosexuality.
14. Failure to disclose the offence.

So the death penalty could well be applied to the allies of lesbians and gays, and those who would prefer their friends/family members/colleagues didn’t get put to death and therefore fail to report homosexual activity.

Secondly, homosexuals and lesbians are never targetted for who they are, rather what they do.
(from Martin Ssempa’s statement)

I hate to nitpick (no wait, I love to) but the very definition of “lesbian” in the bill is: a female who engages in sexual intimacy with another female. The very definition of lesbian in the bill is a woman defined by her sexual activity with another woman.

Another problem with this particular offense of Aggravated Homosexuality is that it confuses rape with consensual homosexual activity. Sections c., d. and g. (and to some extent a.) deal with sexual activity with someone who either denies consent, or is not lawfully able to consent, either through malicious intoxication, disability or age.

So, surprise, he’s lying, and it’s obvious from the text of the bill he endorses that the bill has nothing to do with HIV/AIDS prevention as he would have us all believe. One last quote from the bill will speak for itself. Spot the many mentions of HIV/AIDS prevention.

3.0. The objectives of the Bill
The objectives of the Bill are to:
(a) provide for marriage in Uganda as that contracted only between a man and a woman;
(b) prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute
a threat to the traditional family;
(e) prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and
declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act;
(d) prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.

I welcome any and all comments and corrections.

Reblogged from here

Why I'll keep writing about Uganda

(reblogged from Lezgetreal.com)

Recently I've been writing a lot about Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I've been accused of racism, of trying to subvert Uganda's sovereignty, cultural imperialism, and of ignoring the will of the Ugandan people to push a LGBT agenda in a country that is not my own. I've been accused of trying to sink deals that could potentially inject a lot of money into the Ugandan economy. (because I have that kind of power, right? C'mon Tullow Oil, Bank of America, Merryl Lynch, Harold Ford, listen to me!)

I would like to be a bit self indulgent and respond to some of these accusations.

My criticisms of the proposed law have nothing to do with the race of the people pushing the anti-gay agenda, nor of the people who it is intended to harm. If Sweden offered a similar law I would protest as fiercely.

Nor have my criticisms anything to do with some personal suspicion that Ugandans are incapable of governing their own country. The fact is, most Ugandans who present themselves on the internet in these discussions have demonstrated a frightening hostility to homosexuals in their own country, and even those who appear sympathetic often demonstrate an understandable discomfort with the distinction between homosexual, transgendered, bisexual and other sexual and gender identities.
The issue in both those cases is a lack of education about sexual and gender identities. As a Ugandan doctor writes:

In Africa, what most of us know about homosexuality is that it's a political taboo. That had carried over into my medical education. I did all my training in Africa. I was used to wards filled with patients, male and female, dying of AIDS. I knew HIV was spread by sex. To me, it was a heterosexual disease. I'd never been taught or told much about prevention or treatment for men who had sex with men.
from The Huffington Post

In 2004, the Ugandan broadcasting council fined Radio Simba for broadcasting a program that hosted homosexuals who defended their "way of life". Under the proposed legislation, speaking about homosexuality would become a far more serious offence, meaning that doctors will remain ignorant of the needs of their homosexual patients, and the Ugandan people will remain in the dark about their family, friends and fellow countrywomen and men who live in silence and fear for simply being themselves.

“Myself I am at risk,” Onziema [a lesbian Ugandan] told Reuters Africa Journal “I can’t move on the streets as I used to, I can’t go to a shop … I have been picked off the streets, detained for sometime, ridiculed, intimidated, some money taken away from my wallet…”
from Ethiopian Review

I keep saying this, but I feel it keeps being ignored. Far from ignoring the desires of Ugandans, I am doing my level best to voice the needs of the Ugandans who have no voice. The anti-gay agenda in Uganda isn't necessarily culturally pure. As reported extensively on the Rachel Maddow show, on Box Turtle Bulletin and several other news sources, American anti-gay fundamentalist groups and prominent US politicians (and some crazies like ex-gay Richard Cohen) pumped money and, most importantly, misinformation into Uganda in the run up to the introduction of this bill.

Even from a homophobic perspective, this bill is hardly necessary as homosexuality is already a criminal offence under existing law. The new proposed bill introduces the death sentence for homosexuals, and custodial sentences for those advocating for homosexuals and those who fail to report suspected homosexual behaviour. It simply ensures to a greater degree that LGBTQ Ugandans will continue to have no voice.

And when I say no voice, I am a little wrong and perhaps a lot rhetorical. I do not want or mean to belittle the incredibly brave work of gay Ugandans and their Ugandan advocates. There are gay Ugandans fighting for their rights, and straight Ugandans who fight for the rights of their gay sisters and brothers. People risk their freedom to fight for the right to live an honest life, and if this bill passes, even the act of speaking out could lead to incarceration. If the arrest lead to the discovery of actual homosexual activity, it could lead to death.

So to close, I will continue to blog about the Ugandan Anti-homosexuality Bill because I have a voice that costs me nothing. I will name those who support it, either intentionally, by proxy or by turning a blind eye. I will keep asking those in positions of international and corporate power to voice their support for freedom to those who have the power to make a difference. I will lend my support those in Uganda who have the incredible courage to speak up for themselves and others, because every person deserves to live a true and honest life without loss of freedom or indeed her or his life.

If you have a problem with that, you have every right to say it, but I have every right to press on.
And I will.
(In case you only read me here, some of this happened over at Irish lesbian website Gaelick.com, where I blog regularly as well.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Harold Ford Mum On Uganda's Kill The Gays Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• Homosexuals Can Forget About Human Rights (themoderatevoice.com)
• Irish Oil, Bill Gates and Coca Cola spend spend spend in Anti-Gay Uganda (lezgetreal.com)
• Can the Irish connection change Ugandaa s plans to execute gays? | gaelick (topix.net)

Tullow Oil and Uganda's Kill the Gays Bill

You've hopefully all seen Rachel Maddow's coverage of Uganda's Kill the Gays bill.

Well yesterday, it came out that an Irish company (reg'd in the UK) is about to invest 1.35 billion dollars in Ugandan Oil interests.

We're going to hammer this. They can't ignore the statement their investment makes. They can't ignore the issues this proposed legislation will create in employment and in using their own employees from Europe/North America,etc in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

I really can't write another post on it right now, but you can find what I've already written:

On Gaelick

On LezGetReal

Where have I been?

I realise it's been almost a month since my last post. Probably predictable enough given that it was over Xmas and how my Xmas went (see earlier post!).

However, it's because I've been writing elsewhere. I feel like I'm cheating.

So if anyone out there is wondering what I've been thinking, you can find me at:

Gaelick

and

LezGetReal

And I'll be around :) there's some stuff those guys don't want me to publish on their sites.

Frozen pipes, water shortages and bullshit all around

On Christmas morning, I woke to find my house very cold. When I checked the heating, which runs on pressure from our mains water supply, I found our water was off. While our plan had been to spend Christmas day in Kildare, with family, we spent the vast majority of the day trying to locate the frozen pipes and aiming hairdriers at the most likely pipes.

It had only been -6c the night before.

We ultimately gave up, and went away, hoping that when we arrived back it would be flowing freely again. Sadly, it would be three of the coldest weeks in a generation before we had running water or central heating in our home.

Houseplants died, our cats & I caught colds and we spent three weeks in thermal underwear (not the cats), hats and coats in our own home. We showered with various neighbours, all of whom lost their water ultimately as well. We only flushed the toilets when we had adequate supplies of water to do so. We consumed about 25l of water a day during this time, compared to the Irish daily average of 150l.

What happened? Why did our pipes freeze at a frankly mild -6c? Why did they remain largely frozen for three weeks? Who is at fault?

The first council failure was their emergency number, which rang out for a full four days following Christmas. The council had no way of knowing so many of its residents were without water (and central heating as many of the houses have heating systems that require mains pressure).

It turns out our pipes lay only 14 inches in the ground, where building regulations state they should be 750mm or approximately 29 inches, minimum. This is obviously the fault of the developer. However, there is also supposed to be council oversight in this, and they should not have connected incorrectly laid pipes to the mains. Not only for the householders who would purchase and live in the houses, but because inadequately buried pipes will freeze early, and increase the chance of freezing in the water mains, which can cause breakages and leaks to occur. And Irish pipes are leaking a lot already.

An informal survey of our neighbours and locals from other new-ish estates confirms that everyone who lost water had pipes laid at the wrong depth. The most shallow-laid pipes I found were a mere foot in the ground. Most seem to be fourteen to eighteen inches, still a good 10 inches too shallow.

There were other problems. When the freezing temperatures hit, homeowners who didn't have already frozen pipes, started leaving a tap dripping to avoid losing water. The council then panicked and switched off the water at night, precisely the wrong time to switch it off. Not only was it switched off when people were home from work (yes, people do work during Christmas week) but it was also sitting still in the pipes during the coldest hours of the night. They couldn't have created better conditions for freezing.

So when on December 30th, we got a trickle of water through our taps, the water was switched off that night and it all froze again, and would stay frozen for another two weeks.

Nobody would have to leave their taps dripping if the pipes had been laid correctly in the first place. And while the council denies responsibility, they had to connect those pipes to the water mains. They knew, and their responsibility began with that knowledge.

Now the council have sought to blame the public in press releases and in conversations with the press. They have said that leaving the water dripping is the source of the water shortage.

We learn now that our pipes are old and leaking anything up to about 60% of the treated water that runs through them. In what way is that the fault of the general public? Are we not paying enough in taxes? Have we not made basic infrastructure a political issue in a while?

I'll take the blame for not asking my politicians about our water supplies in a while. And I will start fixing that right now.

I encourage you all to ask your politicians when exactly the developers will be made fix the pipes that they laid too shallow. Ask what the government is doing about aging water infrastructure, rather than spending millions on water metres (in order to charge us for a service that fell at the first hurdle), could they not simply repair the pipes, saving us half the water consumption with simply maintaining our basic and vital infrastructure.

Notes: 

1. Turning the water off at "night" has also forced people to use electrical appliances that require water (washing machine, dishwasher, electric shower) during peak hours, which puts strain on the electric grid and costs the homeowner a lot more. Residents were also forced to use electric heaters to keep their homes livable. We will be seeing some record ESB bills shortly.
2. For those of you saying, "Stop complaining, think about Haiti". Haitians have been living in squalor for hundreds of years. I understand because of the earthquake and horrific mortality predictions it's suddenly in vogue to tell people off for complaining about anything other than being dead. Listen, I gave. I care. I'm not going to give up fighting crappy standards at home just because suddenly everyone cares about Haiti. If you're still freaking out about Haiti next month, I'll be impressed.
3. I am not going to stop annoying the hell out of any official I can get my hands on until I have a concrete committment to fix my pipes so this does not happen if the temperatures happen to drop below 0c again next year. If you want to help, let me know.

Why the BBC shouldn't have apologised

And why we need to get over ourselves for our own good.

Yesterday, the BBC asked (on their Africa Have Your Say page) "Should homosexuals face execution?".

This question was relevant to the discussion of a new proposed (and likely to be passed) law in Uganda. This is a pretty big deal. The proposed legislation not only makes being gay punishable by jail or execution, but it makes knowledge of a homosexual person punishable as well, if you fail to report them.

And the outcry against the BBC began. I was puzzled by it, frankly. I still am. But I often am puzzled, and work was busy yesterday, so it all slipped past me.

Then this morning, I perused my usual blogs. I saw that Joe.My.God (one of my favourite bloggers) was blogging about it and I read his posts. I still failed to understand what the problem was. I did steal his screencap for this post.

The BBC did not say they thought that homosexuals should face execution. They simply asked others did they think so.

I can understand being afraid of the answer. I'm gay. I live in a country where homosexuality, while tolerated, is hardly embraced.

However silencing the debate is not the answer. Why do we want to hide the bigots? Without getting into freedom of the press, etc, I think this should only be curtailed in very extreme situations. This wasn't one of those.

The majority of the answers are "No! Of course not!" and I would have expected that. Even those who don't think homosexuality is a great thing, generally don't believe in killing gay people.

However, there are reasonable people in our societies who are unaware of the bigotry and hate that still exists. They have largely gotten over their general problems with homosexuality (so they believe everyone has). Their friends and colleagues rarely say anything objectionable about gay people, and if they do, it's all in fun, and not meant "that way" (so they assume).  They have gay friends, family and they treat them like they do everyone else (so they think everyone else does).

What they don't know, and gay people cannot forget, is that there is still bigotry and hate even in our white-washed, supposedly PC-gone-mad society.

Why is it the end of the world if people see the nutcases, haters and homophobes for what they really are? Are we worried their ideas will catch on? I'm more worried that we're forgetting they are there.

A follow-up

Ok. I wrote before about how we, as queers, don't need to pretend to be like the straights to succeed.

This is just one HUGE exhibit A about why we often shouldn't.

Brenda Power Claims Gays set back the rights of straight couples.

Brenda Power: Two women can never become a child’s parents - Times Online: "Presumably it follows that unmarried heterosexual couples are not “de facto” families either, and if a marriage has been dissolved by divorce then single parents living with biological children do not, arguably, constitute families either. Thanks for that, folks, a big step forward."

With all due respect, Ms Power, Fuck you.

(oh yeah, I went there)

We gays are not in the business of fighting for the rights of straight people who blatantly choose not to avail of all their rights and freedoms. If a straight person chooses not to be married (or to end their very sacred marriage), that is their choice. I'll leave fighting for the rights of already privileged people to you and John Waters.

We're fighting to simply have a choice. Gotit? No? Didn't think so.

In other news, did someone really burn her in effigy? REALLY? Pics or it didn't happen.