Spark In Darkness

There are increasing movements forwards with legislative battles with our rights – a new trans bill in Canada, marriage equality in Britain, France and various parts of the US, municipal anti-discrimination laws in various cities and even a battle in the Ukraine which was rather surprising. Of course, it’s not all going forwards everywhere, far from it, but there’s a lot of excitement.

 There’s also a sense that “zomg we’ve nearly won” primarily from straight allies, coupled with a sense of “the GBLT rights movement has moved so quickly!”

 I have to burst the bubble on both. Starting, perversely with the second one.

 The whole idea of “the GBLT rights movement has moved so quickly” is based on that pervasive myth that we only appeared in 1960 and that the first piece of GBLT activism was Stonewall. Both of which are wrong. GBLT people have existed as long as people have existed – and we have been fighting for centuries. The first attempted same-sex marriage in the UK happened in 1680 and Molly houses were a fixture of the 19^th century. France decriminalised “sodomy” after the revolution, Germany had, in the 1920s had a vast amount of pro-GBLT activism

 And this is from a frankly extremely amateur view of history since I make no claims of being a historian. But even the most cursory search finds not only our existence the earliest times but a centuries old battle against persecution. To call the GBLT rights movement a young or a new movement is to spit in the face of these people who fought – and who died – and who straight history has long forgotten. We have not moved quickly, it has been a long slow fight that has been denied so long that it’s only recent victories for basic LEGAL PROTECTIONS that have finally accelerated.

 Now addressing the first point. Winning these battles means we win the SIMPLE part – and not close to being done. The COMPLICATED is, in many ways, only just beginning.

 Firstly, let’s be clear that SIMPLE doesn’t mean EASY, nor does it mean UNIMPORTANT. It makes we know pretty much exactly what to do and, in many ways, how. I know how to walk to London. One foot in front of the other isn’t complex. Walking that distance in this weather would be arduous, painful and an incredible feat – Simple but difficult.

And achieving equality under law: Hate crimes protection, anti-discrimination protection, marriage equality – are extremely difficult, powerful achievements – and they’re simple. Simple because we know exactly what has to be done – the law has to change and we know how that is done. Difficult to do, but simple in terms of process

And important because these form not only essential tools, but also a foundation. It’s an impossibly powerful message of inequality when the laws treat us as lesser citizens; it’s a loud message. It’s hard to get people to listen to you demanding acceptance, respect and challenging hate when the law of the land is roaring “ACTUALLY! HATE THESE FOLKS! HATRED IS FINE! TOTALLY LESS THAN YOU! LESS CITIZENS! ACCEPTABLE TARGETS, GET THEM HERE!” It’s a foundation and without it, building anything is going to be shaky

But a house isn’t finished when a foundation is built and nor will our battle for equality be finished because we have full equality in law. Law and practice, society and culture are often very separate. If you need any greater proof just consider the fact that these legal rights we’re fighting for? Other marginalised groups already have them – and they’re still marginalised.

 On this foundation we need to fight institutional oppression. We need to change professions that are deemed to homophobic to tolerate us (or more than a few token members). We need to tackle bullying – adult as well as child. We need to tackle family acceptance and positive messages so more kids aren’t raised in self hate and familial rejection. We need to remove every single temptation to be closeted – not the closet, forcing us all to be Out is never right – but remove the motivation to being closeted in the first place. Conversion therapy needs to be banished into the past, the DESIRE to change needs to be seen as alien and weird. We need to remove the negative connotation, we need to banish slurs from the language, we need to have “gay” stop being a synonym for “bad.” We need inclusive portrayals, not be considered an afterthought or obscene, we need healthcare that acknowledges our needs, we need workplaces that have more than just policies, but co-workers and bosses and customers who won’t try to drive us out. Neighbourhoods that don’t blink to see us among them. We need a world were institutional cissexism and heterosexism doesn’t constantly fence us, drive us out or police us. We need religions that won’t preach homophobia and transphobia as morality. We need a world without hate, without contempt, without derision. We need so much more (this list went on so long I’ve had to delete huge chunks to keep it manageable), things we will not achieve by laws, things we cannot achieve by laws (but policies can certainly make a difference) but things that will rest on a foundation of those laws.

 We need a world where we are as loved and respected and accepted and included as straight, cis people. Only then will we have won

 And that? That’s going to take lifetime upon lifetime to build.

 This isn’t really something even the most optimistic of GBLT people need telling – we live our lives, we know what will and will not change, we know how we’re oppressed, we know how we’re attacked (in fact, straight people telling us what we should and should not be focusing on need to shut up, really, they do). But I’m increasingly getting the feeling that many allies are expecting to down tools and say “yay we won!” and then be really really shocked when we don’t stop fighting.

 So let’s celebrate the victories and progress we’ve made and are making – because they’re definitely worth celebrating – and then dive back in the trenches, because we’ve got a long war to right.

Anyone following British politics will see we’ve been having a drama llama about giving the vote to prisoners. Currently, while in prison you have no voting rights. A prisoner took this to the European Court of Human rights that has turned round and said “that’s wrong. Fix it.” Parliament has voted against fixing it – again showing that our system of no judicial overthrow of rights violations is a broken and dangerous one.

I think prisoners should have the vote, for several reasons.

Firstly, democracy is a fragile thing (it’s also not a perfect thing. The will of the people is all well and good, but far too often the people are bigoted, foolish and down right self-destructive). There are many ways you can break it – with fear, with ignorance, with prejudice, with a media that is unfit for purpose and failing in its duty and with ridiculous electoral system that makes “will of the people” an almost comic claim. But one of the prime and classic ways to break a democracy is to disenfranchise people.

If you want the will of the people, then you need to allow the people to vote. All of those capable of doing so need to be able to do so.

Now I know many people are saying “I don’t want people like that deciding who runs the country” and I have to say, firstly, that they could hardly do a worse job than we do. Secondly, that their few and widely spread numbers are hardly a massive demographic. And thirdly – that argument has a very poor precedent.

There are a lot of people I’d rather have no say who runs the country. I don’t want ignorant fools who have done no research voting. I don’t want bigots voting. Heh, I’d be quite content if Tory voters didn’t vote.

Not letting people vote because we don’t like them is… nervous-making. Even if dislike of a group is universal, even if dislike of a group is reasonable – it’s still nervous-making and not exactly ideal for a democracy.

In addition I think we have to consider that prisoners are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It seems odd to claim, but it’s very true. The general populace does not care whether prisoners are abused – in fact, stories of prisoner abuse are regarded with malicious glee far too often. We relish in the suffering of the incarcerated. Every aspect of their lives is subject to the whims of the government authorities in a way that the non-incarcerated cannot even imagine. They are utterly controlled and helpless before it.
This isn’t a campaign against imprisonment – but, like any vulnerable group (I’ve said before that I vote because, as a marginalised person, who controls the government is a serious matter if I want my rights upheld) prisoners have an extreme vested interest in having their views heard and listened to by the powers that be. We cannot successfully have a prison system – let alone a just, ethical and moral prison system – run by people who have no reason to listen to the prisoners themselves – or who are driven to listen to the “make them suffer” right wingers but not those who will live in those conditions.

Some people will argue that losing the vote is part of the punishment of committing a crime. As I have previously said when talking about the death penalty, I do not see the point in punishment for the sake of punishment.

If you are going to deny someone of their rights then I want a reason why. Because they’re RIGHTS and should be treated with respect.

“They deserve it” isn’t a reason. It’s meaningless, a buzz word and part of the desire for revenge

Vengeance isn’t a reason – not an ethical one. “We want them to suffer because we hate them” is not moral position, no matter how justified that hate may be. Nor can hate be a position on which we base our laws or legal system – making people suffer because we want them to hurt cannot be a defensible legal position.

Now, the commonplace reasons for us imprisoning people is to:

1. Deter both the criminal specifically and criminality in general

I think we can all agree that “ooh I lost my vote” isn’t going to stop anyone committing crimes

1. Protect society from dangerous criminals

Hence why we incarcerate people away from the population at large. Again, a vote is not the most lethal weapon ever devised.

1. Rehabilitation

Hah, I don’t know why I include this since it’s usually a gesture at best. But, again, denying someone the vote doesn’t seem to be a good way to get people on the straight and narrow – quite the opposite in fact since it means people likely to vote for various half-way schemes etc, cannot.

1. Ensuring someone doesn’t profit from their crimes/gain advantage through criminality

A somewhat nebulous, philosophical reason. Basically, someone should not have an advantage due to breaking the rules. Punishment exists to ensure they are not advantaged in anyway by their criminal actions. Again, vote? Doesn’t really fit here

I could go on but I think I’ve made a point. The practical reasons for punishments don’t really justify denying the vote as well. I still await a concrete reason why I should be happy about the disenfranchisement of prisoners.

On a practical level we also have to consider the very real fact that the prison and justice system are both very prejudiced. They couldn’t be otherwise since they are products of an already prejudiced society. Marginalised people are far more likely to be convicted of crimes, are far more likely to be targeted by law enforcement and are far more likely to receive longer and more severe sentences. Even crimes themselves, we’re usually far more lenient with regards to traditionally “white collar” crimes than we other crime.

Denying the vote to prisoners inherently helps to disenfranchise the poor, the lower classes, minorities and the marginalised – because the system already disproportionately targets these people for imprisonment.

So, prisoners with the vote? Sparky says yes.

There has recently been a kafuffle in Germany (I think) where a HIV+ woman is facing criminal charges for knowingly sleeping with men without protection.

Now, the reaction has been something along the lines of “ZOMG throw the book at her! No, throw the whole damn library at her!” and I can understand that, I had the same reaction myself

Let us not forget that AIDS is a terminal, chronic disease. Despite the increasing ignorance around the subject, no it cannot be cured. Yes it will be there fore life and yes, it has a significant chance of killing or being a contributing cause to the death of the sufferer. Yes, with modern medication someone with HIV/AIDS can manage it for a considerable length of time and live much longer lives than was previously expected – but it is still not something that can be remotely underestimated or something that can be handled with too much caution.

So, in that light, yes. She (and, indeed, any other HIV+ person who knowingly has sex with someone without protection) has done something reprehensible in the extreme and severely damaged and jeopardised other people’s lives. In these circumstances, she should most certainly have used protection. And, some are arguing, she should have disclosed her HIV+ status.

And now that’s why the merry train of my thoughts hits a great big, thick concrete wall. Because it’s all well and good saying that a HIV+ person should disclose their status, but that’s rather blinkered from the realities of society.

Let’s be frank, despite desperate attempts at education, people with HIV/AIDS are often treated like modern day lepers*. We still have an inordinate amount of people who live in terror of HIV/AIDS and believe silly things like it can be caught off a toilet seat or by sharing cooking utensils etc etc etc. Very few people accept that HIV/AIDS is spread by bodily fluids and that it has a very short lifespan outside the human body.

Someone who publicly admits their HIV/AIDS status is often going to take shit for it. They may be shunned. They may be ostracised. Many friends may drop them. Family may be more hesitant. And sex partners are certainly going to be leery. And I’ll put my hands up on this one, it’s not fair and it’s not right but I know a part of me is going to flinch if I learn a lover is HIV+

Demanding disclosure ignores the shit that HIV+ people take. In our society with the current stigma that exists, I can’t 100% get behind the idea that a HIV+ person has to disclose under any situation, not until that stigma is reduced.

Which brings to the alternative – protection should be used. ye gods it should be used. And a HIV+ person who KNOWS they are HIV+ should most certainly be using protection (and that doesn’t just mean condoms. You can catch HIV+ from oral sex – especially if you swallow). Knowing your status and not using protection? Well, yeah I’m reaching for that library again. I can’t excuse what the original person or any other person in this situation does here. I can make an argument about disclosure, but not using protection is much weaker.

But it brings in a related point. A lot of people, shockingly but unsurprisingly, don’t insist on condoms despite not knowing their partner’s status (and again. their word isn’t enough. And no, that doesn’t make them a liar – a sizeable portion of the people out there living with STDS do not know they have them). This, again, can be awkward for a HIV+ person insisting on protection (though much much less so that disclosure) because it isn’t demanded every time. Worse, some sexual partners pressure, push and bully so they don’t have to use condoms – I know, I’ve been there. I even had one very ex-ex who put a condom on, waited until I wasn’t looking and took the damn thing off. Sometimes someone will, for whatever reasons, comply with what their lover wishes even if it’s against their better instincts (and I‘ve been there as well). It’s not always simple.

I think we need to change our assumptions. We need to approach our sexual partners with the assumption they DO have an STD unless we‘re extremely sure they do not (again, by testing – not because they said so.) If they cannot prove to you they are disease free, then assume they are not. That doesn’t mean run to the hills (nor does it mean run to the hills if you find they AREN’T disease free) it means take precautions. It also means that we should not tolerate those who resist wearing protection

If we’re willing, prepared and just plain SENSIBLE enough to approach our sex lives with this degree of intelligent caution then whether someone is HIV+ or not or whether they have disclosed or not becomes a moot point – and then maybe we can avoid the idea of criminal charges for GBH or manslaughter or murder for HIV+ people who had sex with someone else. But, with all this, I think we also have to see the shades of grey that are all over this, before we reach to our libraries and start throwing those books.

Argentina has signed and enacted their gay marriage law Another step forwards, another victory Nations that don’t recognise our marriages are looking increasingly more pathetic with every victory won. And another reason for me to do my happy dance.

Following up from the disgraceful way that Sonoma County, California, treated Clay Greene, the surviving partner of Harold Schull we finally see some degree of justice. The country will pay $600,000 in compensation, the home $53,000. There is no way that anyone could adequately compensate Clay Greene for what they did to him – but it’s something and some confirmation that what was done to him was wrong. Perhaps best of all, the county is retraining their workers – hopefully they’ll have a clue, an ounce of compassion and some basic human decency next time.

In Maine a gay man has won a discrimination suit against his employer, Express Jet Airlines that passed over him for promotion because he was gay. Congratulations to him, I know from experience these cases are damned hard to prove (at least if your employer tries to be at least a little subtle about it)

Similarly, in New Zealand a school has been forced to pay compensation to a gay sports coach they fired… for being gay. In addition the board members of the school will attend courses that will hopefully give them a clue.

In France, a gay man who was forced to pay inheritance tax on the home he inherited from his deceased partner has been reimbursed. This is the problem with half measures and patchwork laws about marriage – because people are so desperately concerned about us terrible gays sullying their precious precious hetero marriage.

Arizona, as I previously mentioned, decided to revoke the benefits it had given to same-sex partners working for the state – along with the protections and anti-discrimination provisions they had won as well. While it still remains bvery very wrong, a judge has ruled that deciding to address a budget shortfall by specifically targetting partners of gay employees but not straight ones is wrong (who’d have thought)

There’s a lot of bad out there – but there are victories. Victories we need to hold on to and remember – because we will win this, damn it.