Mz. Tom Foolery ([info]theamaranth) wrote in [info]postqueer,
@ 2008-06-12 14:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Brazilian President calls homophobia a "perverse disease"
Brazilian President calls homophobia a "perverse disease"
By Sophie Picheta • June 11, 2008



The president of Brazil has become the first nation leader to launch a conference with the sole purpose of promoting gay equality.

The First National Conference of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals was inaugurated by president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who called for a "time of reparation" in Brazil.

At last week's conference President Lula announced his support for gay rights, and stated he will "do all that is possible so that the criminalisation of homophobia and the civil union may be approved."

He also called homophobia "the most perverse disease impregnated in the human head."

Toni Reis, president of the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transvestites and Transsexuals, advocated a gay statute.

This would codify in law specific rights that Brazil's legal framework could not prejudicially deny to LGBT citizens.

The conference, which was called an important historic event in the history of Brazil, coincides with the news of a gay Brazilian army sergeant who was recently arrested, reportedly for desertion.

He had given a series of media interviews about his sexuality before he was detained.

Homosexuality has been legal in Brazil since 1823, except in the armed forces, and civil unions are allowed in some areas.

However, homophobia and gay-bashing remain significant problems in the country of 184 million people.


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7922.html


I am really proud and excited that a leader in the world is actually saying these things. It gives power and strength to those of us who are actively striving for gay equality.

The only thing i don't agree with is the 'criminalization' of homophobia - I don't think it's right if someone discriminates against those who are gay, bi, trans or intersexed, but laws should be made to protect against this - but you can't criminalize a thought.

(Post a new comment)


[info]imfallingup
2008-06-12 09:15 pm UTC (link)
Criminalization of homophobia is, I think, intended to mean stigmatizing it, making clear that it is unacceptable to express or act upon, as queerness has been historically criminalized. It is one thing to prevent people the right to make their own choices and have their own thoughts, but I am always rather disturbed when I see the thought police idea applied to actions of social change intended to favor disempowered people; those people are disempowered in a large part precisely because societally acceptable thoughts include a predominance of social myths that endorse those people's oppression.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]theamaranth
2008-06-12 09:21 pm UTC (link)
I just see that outlawing discrimination in the workplace, schools, housing and every other area is basically "outlawing" that kind of racial discrminiation. with the change of the laws, the next generation was brought up with these ideals, that discmriniation or bias against that group was immoral. same with the womens' vote, and childrens' rights.

you can't outlaw a thought, and really, i'd be worried if something like that passed. we can pass laws so others are not discriminated against in housing, jobs, and such, but to pass an intolerance law about being tolerant is just silly and just as oppressive.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]imfallingup
2008-06-12 09:58 pm UTC (link)
with the change of the laws, the next generation was brought up with these ideals, that discmriniation or bias against that group was immoral. same with the womens' vote, and childrens' rights.

In what parallel universe are you living in where the changing of laws is all it took to make such discriminations and biases actually immoral by the next generation? I'm not even sure why you're bringing up racial discrimination, being as racism is an even more obvious example of how making racist actions and expressions against the law has not in fact stopped racism from existing; covert racism is almost more dangerous because it's very easy to say, you're still alive, why are you complaining? And children's rights? I don't quite know if you were trying to imply that children have all the rights they deserve now. The women's vote thing is certainly baffling, as "women's" suffrage was quite a bit more than a generation ago for white women only, and it wasn't till, what, a generation and a half ago that African American people, regardless of gender, saw the Voting Rights Act signed, and what happened during the 2000 US presidential election in Florida? Oh right, black votes thrown away.

In other words, what?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]theamaranth
2008-06-12 10:02 pm UTC (link)
uh, history.

the generations after we won the womens' lib and release of slavery of black people is when children were taught that we are all equal. in fact, it TAKES changing laws to show most people that we are equal. we can't wait for peoples MINDS to be changed to change laws.

I'm not even sure why you're bringing up racial discrimination, being as racism is an even more obvious example of how making racist actions and expressions against the law has not in fact stopped racism from existing;

no, but i would bet you a million dollars it's better now than in 1880 because of the laws we passed.

uh, and maybe you should get down off your high horse. i was perfectly civil, you don't need to get insulting.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]imfallingup
2008-06-12 10:14 pm UTC (link)
I never said to not change laws. I'm saying legislating action alone doesn't work, certainly not over a generation, certainly not alone, and without work done to condemn oppression WITH endorsement of people in positions of power, all that changes is that it a person can live in the midst of people who hate them rather than dying at their hands. And I am biting my tongue at how you can dare to say that people have been taught that people actually have been taught that all people are equal and then dare to call on history. Do you actually believe that?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]danadocus
2008-06-12 11:43 pm UTC (link)
i'm just guessing here and maybe i'm just asking to be flamed..

but i think the point is that you have to make change for people to believe in it.. so while laws don't change thoughts, they do change the shape of the world around you. removing legal discrimination changes it in one good way, but calling things equal doesn't make equality, equity does - but that's enacted through laws too.. and when you grow up in a world that looks different, then you (or at least a significant number of your peers i hope) also begin to think a bit differently. and maybe it is incremental, but it's moving somewhere good.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Yes and no
[info]imfallingup
2008-06-13 06:24 am UTC (link)
Equity isn't enacted through laws alone, though, and that's part of my point. The ideas that are the basis for oppressions and that make up institutionalized homophobia/sexism/racism/alla that stuff are just that--institutionalized. They don't go away simply because acting on them is illegal, and if people can't act on what they consider their ideas and opinions (regardless of how they came upon these ideas and opinions), they fester and become explosive--and then they accuse the government of excessive control and giving certain people special rights, anyway.

And as much as it's true that it gets better when people grow up in a different-looking world, keep in mind that it's still a world mediated by those who've been living in times before such and such change. Core ideas that are the roots of oppression simply take new forms; if it's not okay to kill queers or prevent us from working, then it's okay to exotify us as the people that put on the great shows in bars where one can take their conservative friends for a "surprise", it's okay to laugh at gender-nonconformativity because "my friend is gay", it's okay to blindly interact with people assuming they all are coming from the same blank slate without considering that to get everyone to an even grade you've gotta treat everyone a little differently.

In other words - in order to make acting on homophobia illegal you have to identify every nuance of how one can act on it, and that's both complicated/constantly involving and makes people feel constrained in a different way than when an idea is publicly condemned and spoken of as criminal. Such a condemnation goes right to the source of a problem.

Small-scale metaphors: when a young child is hitting another kid (or other form of physical bullying) you can tell them they're not allowed to hit other people, or you can tell them it's a problem to hurt other people and that hitting hurts. you can look into why they feel the need to hurt someone else. But simply telling them not to hit other people?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]theamaranth
2008-06-13 02:42 pm UTC (link)
Changing the laws was done WITHOUT the majority's consent. It was not voted upon, freeing blacks from slavery was not voted upon - it was just DONE by lawmakers. Of COURSE it took hard work and took a lot of suffering and lives - dear god!

first of all, when you said In what parallel universe are you living in where the changing of laws is all it took to make such discriminations and biases actually immoral by the next generation? that was kind of out of this world to even suggest. Oh yes anonymous internet commenter, i think we can change a law and everything is dandy! woo hoo!

But on a serious note, the change of laws DID help, because it lead the way to abolishing segregation, women and minorities were shown BY the laws that they were equal and that IN ITSELF gave them strength to keep going. This spread to their children, and those brought up knowing the laws changed to include them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]danadocus
2008-06-12 11:38 pm UTC (link)
i don't think any place could pass a law that outlawed some kind of thought, and if so it would never hold up in a court and would go away anyways. outlawing homophobia equates to outlawing homophobic actions - i.e. making targetted attacks hate crimes, making discriminatory policies illegal. that's how i see it.. and i think that's f*cking rad.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]theamaranth
2008-06-13 02:43 pm UTC (link)
outlawing homophobia equates to outlawing homophobic actions - i.e. making targetted attacks hate crimes, making discriminatory policies illegal. that's how i see it.. and i think that's f*cking rad.

agreed. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]maggiebloome
2008-06-13 03:25 pm UTC (link)
"do all that is possible so that the criminalisation of homophobia and the civil union may be approved."

Wow that's a poorly constructed translation :P it sounds like he wants to approve the criminalisation of both homophobia and civil unions!

Uh, I mean this is totally awesome and I need to stop reading grammar blogs :P

(Reply to this)

[info]myid
2008-06-14 02:48 am UTC (link)
I can see how homophobic speech might be considered an incitement to violence in a country where gay-bashing is a huge problem. Also, I'm not familiar with Brazilian law, but if all hate speech is prohibited then it's logical that homophobic speech would fall under the same rule.

(Reply to this)

[info]lunalovegoddess
2008-06-23 08:22 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for posting this. I think it's freakin' awesome.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…