I must state at the outset that I have precious little time for Stonewall as an organisation, as they seem to relish “positive discrimination” and I find Peter Tatchell a brave but rather irritating cock.

Oo-er, missus!

But having said that, I was, quite frankly, astounded by the things I read here:

“Homosexuals can forget about human rights”
– James Nsaba Buturo, former Minister of Ethics and Integrity (!)

“I will never initiate or support any attempts to legalise homosexuality”
– John Atta Mills, President of Ghana

Both of these countries have a form of democracy, although I suspect Uganda’s is more window-dressing than actual. But Ghana’s democracy is highly rated.

Being gay is still illegal in 80 of 196 countries across the world, being a lesbian is specifically outlawed in 45 – in 6 countries the penalty for both is death.

I don’t know how many democracies outlaw homosexuality, but I bet it’s a fair few:

According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[47] According to World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 percent of the world’s population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population.*

All of which just goes to show that democracy can easily be used as a fig leaf for some really nasty aspects of human prejudice and really doesn’t deserve the endless veneration it attracts.

outsider December 9, 2011 at 03:07

When I was a teenager and Harold Wilson was running his first
administration, homosexual acts (though not merely being gay) were illegal in
this country. Death was the penalty for a wide range of murders. Citizens were
free to discriminate against each other on almost any ground. Married women
were taxed as children. At the same time, smoking cigarettes was still
generally thought to be beneficial and asbestos was a favourite material for
do-it-yourself. The country had the same genuine if limited form of democracy
as it does today.

Things have changed a bit since, mostly for the better. In the case of
cigarettes and asbestos, the known facts have changed. For the rest, however,
it has merely been a change in social attitudes.

Why should we assume that, just because we have changed our social
attitudes, everyone else should be expected to change their attitudes and laws
in the same direction at the same time?

I cannot see how it says anything about democracy one way or the other that
social attitudes have been so dramatically reversed in Western Europe in less
than two generations but not in some other parts of the world.

robbiethered
December 8, 2011 at 16:01

What was it, now… “The Wind was a torrent of Darkness, Among The Gusty
Trees, The Moon was A Ghostly Galleon, Tossed Upon Cloudy Seas…” Forgive me,
you had to be there!

binao December 6, 2011 at 00:44

I think we sometimes expect too much of other apparently civilised
countries, on everything from corruption to violence.
On the matter of
homosexuality, my memory of the decriminalisation here is not one of
widespread support at that time. In countries with different values we can
hardly expect them to quickly catch up with and adopt what are our very
recently acquired sensitivities.

Saul December 6, 2011 at 09:25

Spot on.

It’s not that long ago since Apartheid in the US and elsewhere.
Plus
the legalisation of homosexuality is still relatively a recent event. Just
because we suddenly see the light, it doesn’t mean that everyone has to
follow suit.

M Barnes December 8, 2011 at 14:24

I think the legalisation (or decriminalisation ?) of homosexuality is one
of the few instances when the law led the people – as opposed to the usual
situation where people mellow on an issue and the law catches up. In other
words, the law was changed against popular opinion, the people weren’t
terribly happy at the time and then got over it. There is another discussion
to be had about how homosexulality was typically discussed and represented
in the public sphere at the time – was it realistic and rational? was it
humane?
If democracy is venerated and idolised then it cannot be
critiqued and so improved.

john malpas December 6, 2011 at 00:15

What about the country that is slowly trying to suppress white heterosexual
males.
Unbelievable ?

Zaphod December 5, 2011 at 22:11

Simple democracy was never capable of preventing discrimination against
minorities. If anything, it is likely to enable it.

I have a solution, but I’m too busy to tell you about it.

JimS December 5, 2011 at 21:05

I must say I missed the democratic election to legalise homosexuality.

It was probably the same one that closed all debate on multi-culturism,
immigration, hate crimes, minority rights trumping majority rights, EU
referenda etc.

Fall asleep for a moment and all our MPs are marxists, cloned by same
marxist lecturers at Oxbridge.

Engineer December 5, 2011 at 21:15

Just be grateful it isn’t compulsory.

gladiolys
December 5, 2011 at 21:42

ha ha

Cascadian
December 6, 2011 at 04:18

I believe marxism is compulsory at Oxford, maybe homosexuality too.

Perhaps I have to stop reading the Guardian.

Woodsy42 December
5, 2011 at 19:55

If such outlawing is a truly democratic decision then so be it, surely
their country, their laws, whether we like them or not? Or would you suggest
that one country, like Uk for example has the right to interfere in the
internal laws of another because we are morally superior?

JuliaM December
5, 2011 at 21:08

We did that, years ago. It was called ‘colonialism’, and I seem to recall
they liked it….well, about as much as homosexuality!

Cascadian December 5, 2011 at 19:37

I am fairly confident that the “anti-gay” countries are in the ascendant,
add Tunisia, Libya and Egypt to the list for next year. Ask Obambi, Sarkozy
and the camoron and they will tell you these countries are democracies.

Perhaps the peculiar type of democracy we cling to, where everybody has
rights but only a minority of worker drones work to subsidise these
extravagant rights is dying. And when I view the actions of the EU and UN it
is hard to argue that the downfall of democracy would necessarily be bad.

Engineer December 5, 2011 at 19:47

What on earth have the EU and the UN got to do with democracy?

Cascadian
December 5, 2011 at 19:58

Engineer, you are usually so erudite. I am surprised at you!

Everybody agrees those august bodies are the pinnacle of democracy, (I
read it in the Guardian so it has to be true)

Engineer
December 5, 2011 at 21:12

Ah – sorry; my mistake.

Perhaps I should shuffle off back to my shed and leave the worrying
about all this democracy stuff to The People Who Know Better Than Us.
There is, however, a little germ or devil within me that keeps urging me
to be a Revolting Peasant.

Tom
Paine December 5, 2011 at 18:17

Democracy is wonderful, if the power of the state is limited. If the power
of the state is unlimited, we are all thralls, however the government is
selected.

ad December 5, 2011 at 18:07

“All of which just goes to show that democracy can easily be used as a fig
leaf”

That is a rather dubious use of the phrase “fig leaf”. If Ghana is as
genuinely democratic as you suggest, than Ghanian democracy cannot be
dismissed as a “fig leaf”, even when the demos votes for something you
disapprove of.

An action can be both immoral and democratic, if most of the people in the
country support something you regard as immoral.

gladiolys December 5, 2011 at 18:03

Just saying… what would you rather have?

Declaring an interest (gay and lesbian friends), I’d much rather have a
world where all can mix freely and easily… rather than WFW’s ideas which would
lead to isolated communities of one or the other. (The tyranny of
democracy
blah blah blah.)

WitteringsfromWitney December 6, 2011 at 13:06

So those in a community have no right to decide by majority vote the type
of society in which they wish to live?

It is not possible to throw different religions and races, or those with
different practices together and expect peace will prevail because the more
‘equality’ that is imposed, the more one ‘group’ will seek dominance. This
fact is compounded by the purveyors of political correctness – who are the
‘drivers’ of this equality and diversity ‘mantra’ – and who, in the final
analysis, will not even allow others their judgements. They celebrate
‘difference’ but they will not allow people to be truly different, to think
differently and to say what they think.

‘Real’ Democracy does not impose blanket rules dictated by a few, nor
does it produce tyranny.

WitteringsfromWitney December 5, 2011 at 17:43

“All of which just goes to show that democracy can easily be used as a fig
leaf for some really nasty aspects of human prejudice and really doesn’t
deserve the endless veneration it attracts.”

To which, TJW, I would say that I would much prefer if any nasty aspects of
human prejudice were to be imposed by the people, under a system of direct
democracy, rather than it be imposed on us by the elected dictators that we
have under the present systrm of representative democracy.

Just saying………