The ironies, glass closets and the Aids in our blood

It is through attending the 2012 International Aids conference that I learnt that America, a country that boasts about being a mature democracy, has had a travel ban against people infected with HIV. I soon learnt that many other progressive countries like Russia, Singapore and others also impose this ban.

There's more, governments out there criminalise gay men infected with HIV. I am quite certain this is one of the reasons HIV prevalence will remain high among Men who have sex with men and the entire gay community. This for me is like an attempt to wipe out a whole generation of gay men. I will go as far to say it is genocide. Indirectly so.

Another interesting note I have made in this conference is how so many gay men from other countries meet on the sidelines of the plenary sessions and plan for their underground LGBT advocacy. Some have been living as gay men for as long 40 years, but they are not yet out to their families or communities. And I am talking about highly educated individuals, some very prominent figures in their countries. Religion, tradition and expectation from society keep these men locked in closets. This a big assault on the advocacy for human rights of gay men in their countries, men who have no voice, HIV positive and access to medication. These are people from economies that can afford ARVs to give to 5 African countries if they chose to. They have small populations and the fastest growing GDPs in the world.

It is very ironic that when world leaders like Hillary Clinton start talking of an Aids-free generation, the struggle to curb Aids among gay men intensifies. The very same people that were associated with Aids when it was discovered are still being battered to death by the epidemic. And it is not because we do not have medication because we all know there is treatment. It is because of the stigma, the criminalisation and fear. As Hillary Clinton put it, gay men infected with HIV are pushed into the shadows where Aids preys on them. Gay men remain to be family secrets, they are a sad reality to governments and burdened with HIV and Aids.

The 2012 Aids conference was an eye-opener to a lot of ironies. It made me appreciate the small victories that my country has achieved on gay rights, but warned me not to accept mediocrity.

My battle with Aids

I feel like journalism is like a jealous lover. It just won't let me be an activist. It wags its finger at me and reminds me of the commitment I made to be objective. Sitting in the Washington Convention Center, at the International Aids Conference opening ceremony - I battled to get the story. It is difficult to be a journalist when you are the story at times. I bear the bruises of HIV and Aids just like many delegates here at the conference. We all have something in common - we are either affected or infected. Sometimes both.

As I attempt to write an objective story - I drown in thoughts and reflections of where I come from. I think to myself, "If I erect a wall and write names of people who lost their lives to Aids, it would look like a monument for fallen heroes in a war as big as the Vietnam War."

But it is a war. The war that people at this conference are optimistic that it will be won. I jump up with joy and clap with other delegates when I hear stories of people who have not let HIV be in the driver's seat of their lives.

I am however pained that most men that I have come across in my life as an African Traditional Healer, as a friend -  refuse to go and test for HIV. Some of them use their pregnant girlfriends to gauge if they are infected with the virus. While there is scientific victory in the fight against HIV and Aids, we in South Africa still struggle to get people to test for HIV. People find out too late when they are infected. Mostly in their death beds.

So for me, I have a dilemma of choosing to write a story about those people who refuse to test for HIV and being an activist that will motivate those around me to test. I believe that would be a life-saving measure. Instead of recording deaths and getting new story angles on such a tragedy. Anybody who finds out that their  loved ones are in danger, is inclined to do something to preserve those lives.

There are still governments that are reluctant to give people the life-saving drugs. Should I get on the phone and interview them and ask why or should I just mobilise people to pressure them into giving citizens accessible health care? I am really caught in between.

If I remain a journalist, I will be an embedded journalist. The one embedded in the war against Aids.

Not in Nelson Mandela's name

You cannot claim to deliver a speech to honour Nelson Mandela, when you have have African National Congress member literally at each other's throats at the venue you are delivering this "honourary" speech. It cannot be in Mandela's name, the man who always told South Africa's youth to take advantage of education, that you gave a speech and not mention the rot in the education department. You could have not been honouring a man who spoke out against a divided country and inequality.  

It is blasphemous for anyone who claims to be walking in the footsteps of Rolihlahla Mandela to be ignorant to the education crisis in South Africa. The education department is breeding a new generation of rapists, bad mothers and criminals. It is exactly what you get if you do not educate a nation. We will have more and more people dependent on social grants. That is not the kind of legacy Mandela left. We have greedy politicians. The fish really rots from the head down. 

We cannot have responsible young people if we do not have older and matured people to look up to. We lack role models. The people who are really trying to make a difference in our communities are overshadowed by brutality and greed of people in high office. They have planted a seed of doubt in our minds. We do not trust anyone because we have been let down for so long. How can we empower ourselves when the government that has inherited the backlog of apartheid further deepens itself  in corruption, maladministration. It is so bad we forget to mention the good that people like Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma did for our country. It stops us from appreciating the good attempts by Aaron Motsoaledi's department of health. It blinds us so much we do not see a glimmer of hope. It just makes us want to turn on each other, kill each other, oppress one another and belittle each other. All because we are not heard. The great start of our democracy is in tatters. The legacy of Nelson Mandela is in jeopardy. Wherever you are Madiba, I wish a happy birthday. You are blessed with long life and people of South Africa who love you, who miss you and long for the unity you once gave us a taste of.

Verwoerd gets the last laugh!

All apartheid supporters – dead and alive are having the last laugh. A good laugh at how little as changed for the black poor child in South Africa. The latest evidence is the lack of service delivery by the Basic Education Department. Six months into the year, school children have not received study material. The children of the ministers enjoy education in private schools and some overseas. 

The failed system is indirectly breeding the next generation of unemployed, disempowered and illiterate people. That will mean more poverty stricken communities, high HIV and Aids prevalence. All this tragedy because the ANC government is continuing the legacy of apartheid by giving our children no education. 

Minister in charge, Angie Motshega should have done the honourable thing; admit that she failed the country and resign. Instead she lied to the nation.

So that is why I say Verwoerd and other architects of apartheid are having a good laugh.  Angie Motshega has forgotten the bloodshed by the class of 1976. Young South Africans, unarmed but fearlessly protested against Bantu education. They were shot and killed. Let not their sacrifices be diminished by your lack of foresight. Angie, resign. 

A Happy Father's to very few men out there

In many black communities (and I'm sure many black folks will agree) there should be very few men honoured on this father's day. It has become culture of a lot of the working class men in their late 50s or early 60s to get their pension funds, abandon their families and go spend their money with floozies. My dad is 64-years-old and hasn't done it(yet). Lucky for me I have already gone through school and I am employed. And so if he does find a floozy to go spend his pension fund with, I (along with my siblings) will be able to take care of mama. 


But it is a different story for many other people out there. These men, never divorce their wives for some odd reason. And when the money is drained from their bank accounts, it suddenly dawns on them that they have families the left behind. Believe me, this is a trend in the black communities. African tradition sometimes dis-empowers women. Simply because they are supposed to welcome these evil people back into their lives. When they die, women are expected to "mourn" these irresponsible men. "Mourning" these men involves wearing a black robe for certain amount of time (usually a year) and to never have relations with any other man till the mourning period is over. Many men in our communities are burdens to their families because they made bad choices. 


I am not in any way stereotyping black men. But I am giving testimony of what I have seen, endured in my short life so far. Even with regard to HIV issues, the men are the fast "transporters" of this virus. It is an unspoken truth that our women do not have control over their reproductive health. Making them vulnerable to HIV and other "crimes" perpetrated by men. 

I agree that we must be cautious in reducing all men and all women to stereotypes – men as “perpetrators” with an aggressive and “promiscuous” sexuality and women as “victims”, sexually and socially passive. Tamara Shefer has critiqued some early gender-focussed HIV/AIDS responses, saying that the initial focus on women and girls resulted in an inadvertent “blaming” of women for the epidemic, reproduced traditional roles and patronised women. She argued that by viewing masculinity and femininity as opposites and “naturally” different, we have tried naively to “empower” women and improve “communication” in relationships, rather than addressing the structural inequalities and power differential between men and women. In addition, not enough gender work with women acknowledged the role of class, race and other identities and ignored positive aspects of female sexuality, such as pleasure and desire.

And so I would k=like to wish a happy father's day to very few men out there. 

Zuma gives middle finger to June 16th commemoration

With 50 percent of our youth unemployed - Jacob Zuma chose to abandon the country's very important commemoration. Who advices the president must have put some very powerful spell on him. For him not see how desperate the youth is to hear from him - he must have taken some serious korobela. A president who is passionate and devoted to the people of his country would have gone to Port Elizabeth for the official celebration. To tell the unemployed youth of our country what his plans are for them. He should gone there to face his demons. One of the them being Julius Malema's supporters who wanted to disrupt the celebrations because they are aggrieved the Zuma convinced the ANC's national committee not to review Malema's expulsion. Party politics has put the youth of this country last on Jacob Zuma's agenda. 

The hypocrisy shown by the president is shocking because just few weeks ago everyone who supports Zuma was up in arm against The Spear painting. The one they said was an insult to the history of our country and its people. I think Zuma's snubbing of the Youth Day commemorations is an insult to Hector Peterson and all those students who stood up against an oppressive regime. If Zuma really fought in the struggle for freedom, why does he not have the power or the strength to face a few aggrieved youths with petty issues. And all this at the expense of many young South Africans who are unemployed and desperate for assurances from the government. 

The message is very clear that the plight of the youth is overshadowed by the infighting, squabbles and power struggles in the ANC. Lest we forget the passion of class of 1976 for  equal opportunities. I really hope that the South African electorate develops an unforgiving heart and a good memory that records the failures of the ANC government. In 2014 our voice should be heard. At the moment our voices fall on deaf ears when we cry and say that our clinics have run out of ARVs. Nobody responds to the lack of clean water in some of our areas. More than 20 years in democracy we still don't have clean water for everyone. 

You Day could have been used by Jacob Zuma to say "Hey, I am aware that you are all angry with us. We acknowledge your anger and please give us more time." 

No such luck! He went off to save his ego and flew to Mexico. I am a very upset citizen. 

An open letter to Ferial Haffajee: A response to The Spear's virtual death by Eusebius McKaiser

Dear Ferial,

You are obviously one of the country's most respected editors and perhaps even, as Peter Bruce, editor of Business Day, rather perceptively observed in his column today, possibly the country's first truly celebrity editor. Your heart is in the right place, and it is little wonder that, filled with compassion for the hurt many have felt at the sight of The Spear (the art work, not the real thing of course!), and fear that some might burn more of your newspapers, hunt you down or kill your vendors even, you decided it is best to take down the image from your website. And you have now done so.

I must admit, however, that I think you made a GIGANTIC mistake. You did the wrong thing. Political bullying, and disrespect for the Bill of Rights, won this morning. Media freedom, I'm afraid, is the loser, and our democracy is worse off for the decision you have taken. Of course, your article explains the relentless pressure you have felt. It reads like a Sylvia Plath poem and seems like a pretty good self-preserving reason for bowing to pressure. No one likes an existential crisis. And Koos Bekker, your big boss, doesn't like a dent in profit. But you're meant to be our principledcelebrity editor, Ferial. Dammit!

Let me make my points bluntly for why I think you wrongly dropped The Spear's balls. This should make for ease of (dis)agreement, I hope.

First, it is not true, as Peter Bruce claims, that taking down the image is in the "national interest". It is (narrowly) in the interest of Jacob Zuma, his family, his supporters, some in the African National Congress who feel insulted, and members of the public who feel the same. But deciding on national interest is not an exercise in simply determining how the majority feels and endorsing those feeling willy-nilly. By that logic, it is "in the national interest" to chuck out the rights of gay people, to bring back the death penalty, and to allow teachers to smack kids in our schools.

That's not responding to the "context" in which your paper exists, Ferial. That is affirming, uncritically, what a vocally dominant bunch says. We should now be mature enough to have critical dialogue.

This means asking yourself whether the "national interest" is really about satisfying the whim of an angry segment of your readership, or even an angry majority in society-at-large. Worse than this, Ferial, consider whether the national interest should be politically decided, depending on what Gwede Mantashe (the ANC's secretary-general) had for breakfast, or how cool headed their spokesperson, Jackson Mthembu, happens to be when he reaches a press briefing?

Second, I think your decision to take down the image undermines your own front page story in yesterday's City Press. You ran an accurate, and very important, cover story that tells us that not all blacks think the same and that not all ANC or alliance politicians think the same. This is why you chose the headline, "Spear divides ANC". And you're right.

For example on The Justice Factor Paul Mashatile (our minister of arts and culture) had a very different take on this issue to Mantashe's and to that of minister of higher education, Blade Nzimande - who has called the painting an assault on the black body. (Let's leave aside the fact that Jacob Zuma's body is his. It is not every black man's.)

Mashatile's tone was more measured. He showed no anger, and he said that there was no ANC "debate" on whether to boycott your paper. His own preference, he said, was for "dialogue" even though he, too, regards the painting as offensive. Similarly, that brilliant old timer, and ANC intellectual heavyweight, Pallo Jordan, also defended the artist's right to artistic freedom on last night's episode of Interface on SABC3, even while explaining that sensitivity is important on the part of artists. And, in an interview in your own paper one of our best writers, Zakes Mda, was scathingly brilliant about Zuma's inability to live with being offended. Mda also denuded silly suggestions that, uhm, nudity is something only white artists dream up. (Mda's article was particularly lekka for showing up the basic ignorance in many critics' viewpoints, borne out of little or no familiarity with art.)

Here's my point. By climbing down on this issue - and following the sentiments of editors like Peter Bruce - you actually do all of us, including black South Africans, a huge disservice. You make it seem - yes, yes, it wasn't your intention Ferial! - as if you woke up this morning and thought, "My good God, they are sooo angry, I had better not hold them to the high constitutional standards I preached last week, if I want to still be alive next week!" I know these are not your literal words. But, alas, Brett Murray is not the only one who produces works open to interpretation, filled with ‘sub-texts'.

As editors, journalists, writers and columnists, our speech acts - our words -are also subject to interpretation. And so I am sorry to add to your headaches by saying that just as Mantashe, Zuma, Nzimande and Jackson - The Big Men Of Politics - were offended by your decision to keep the image on your website, it is my turn to play the "I'm offended!'-card. I am offended - cough - that you have such low expectations of angry readers, and angry politicians. I am offended that you did not take seriously your paper's own recognition that not all blacks think the same, and many of us have your back covered, including many ANC politicians even. Hence my examples of black men who have either clearly supported you (like Mda) or politicians who showed that they can explain being offended by the art work but live with being offended (Mashatile and Jordan).

The right to dignity, as you know, does not include the right to not be offended. This is why Zuma's case is legally impotent. They should have mounted (as it were) a defamation case or a hate speech one under the Equality Act. But of course their legal advisers are not the sharpest tools in the legal shed. (Those legal strategies would not have worked either, but had marginally better prospects.)

Constitutionally, we have to set a precedent which makes it clear that being ridiculed by an artist is legally allowed. Mashatile gets this. Jordan gets this. And no doubt many other politicians not yet interviewed on this issue, get it too. Your decision robs us of an opportunity to entrench, legally, the meaning and implications of artistic freedom. The aesthetic merits of the work are beside the point.

Bad art, like bad politicians, are allowed to exist. That's the point of democracy. One can only hope there isn't a retreat by Murray or the Goodman gallery.

Oh, and by the way, many people think Murray's art feeds into a white supremacist history of reducing black men to their rampant sexuality. I actually think your self-censorship feeds into a white supremacist history of lowering expectations of what black people can handle. The modern version of "Don't teach them maths because they won't get it" seems to be "Don't demand of them what you would demand  of a cosmopolitan, progressive, educated white person - tolerance of artistic freedom - because ‘they' won't get it!"

And yes I KNOW you "did not intent" to say this. I know! But we have seen from the artistic rebukes of Murray from critics like Gillian Schutte that it is ok to ignore intention and simply dump an art work into the annals of racist art's history because, you know, an exposed penis is sufficient to justify the racism card making a not-so-rare appearance in public debate.  

So pardon me, therefore, if I am being equally ungenerous in placing your reasoning in the "context" of white supremacist editorials and columns from years ago that you might not have had in mind this morning when you took your decision. I am just being "historical" in ignoring your intention, and saying you're playing into an ‘anthropology of low expectations'.

Don't condescend black South Africans - hold us to a high standard, and don't take us seriously when we bully you. We're trying our luck, and in this case you caved in. Next week, Gwede will be back, and then what? You must be "brave'', Ferial, as many say you are, and let go of the  prospects of being liked by everyone. Rather be respected for consistency and principled editorial decisions; its way cooler. Seriously dude.

As we say on twitter, a platform you love too, #JustSaying.   

Yours in "robust debate"