[Reader-list] Queers Protests Against Bush

[Kaushiki Rao]

Hey all

As many of us probably know, George Bush is coming town.  A massive
public rally against Bush's policies will happen in Delhi on Thursday,
the 2nd of March, sometime in the morning.   It will begin from
Ramlila Maidan and move onto ITO. I'll send more details as soon as I
get them.  Come!

How do Bush's policies affect us?  For one perspective, read the
following JNU pamphlet.

Hope to see lots of you there.
Kaushiki



A QUEER PROTEST AGAINST BUSH'S VISIT TO INDIA – II
A CRITIQUE OF BUSH'S DOMESTIC & INTERNATIONAL POLICIES FROM A QUEER PERSPECTIVE

While on the one hand, George W Bush has waged bloody and tortuous
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has led to much international
condemnation and protest, the more insidious ideology governing his
presidency which has often manifested itself in religious
fundamentalist, patriarchal and homophobic policies in the United
States and the world has received significantly lesser international
attention, let alone condemnation. In 2003, George W Bush signed a law
that put several restrictions on the use of US funds internationally.
Organizations using US funds were made to take a loyalty oath by which
they were not allowed to 'promote' or 'advocate' the practice of
prostitution. The law made HIV/AIDS funding conditional on the equal
promotion of abstinence and faithfulness strategies with condom usage
and promotion, and shifted funding away from condom distribution. It
also instituted a global gag rule by which organizations providing
abortion services or even providing information about abortion
services could not receive US funding.

These rules have had horrifying implications for organizations and
countries working to promote health and human rights worldwide.
Several organizations that accept sex work as a legitimate form of
work have therefore been denied any US funding, to detrimental
results. Empowering sex workers and helping them organize and form
labour unions often helps ensure the maintenance of their rights. Sex
workers' labour unions in places like Sangli, Maharashtra and
Sonagachi, Kolkata have been more instrumental in preventing the entry
of underage women and men into sex work than the violent and brutal
'rescue' policies promoted by the Indian and US governments.
Organizations promoting the use of condoms to prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS among sex workers therefore have been doubly hit by the
recent US policy because it makes their work incumbent upon condemning
sex work, and because they then have to promote 'abstinence' from sex
to sex workers, something that they organizationally, ethically and
ideologically cannot stand up for. What such a policy ironically adds
up to is asking sex workers to take a position against themselves.

Brazil in May 2005 chose to turn away $ 40 million in US funding
rather than sign such discriminatory clauses. However, not all
countries have been able to stand up to such adverse US policies.
Uganda, which has the reputation of having some measure of success in
the battle against HIV/AIDS, and which instituted a highly progressive
sex education and HIV/AIDS curriculum which among other things
focussed on condom usage, saying 'no' to sex, avoiding sexual violence
and maintaining sexual hygiene in its primary schools is now promoting
abstinence-only strategies in its primary schools under the weight of
US pressure. Abstinence-only strategies assume that people, and
especially marginalized communities may always have the capacity to
say 'yes' or 'no' to sex, and deny the importance of condoms in
preventing sexually transmitted illnesses. Furthermore they emerge
from a highly moralistic and religious fundamentalist ideology that
uses religion to dictate heteronormative strictures to people. Even
beyond the developing world, in the US itself, school and college
students are being asked to take virginity pledges, often wearing
virginity rings as a sign of their commitment. Problematically, should
the urge to have sex arise among people who have no recourse to
information about safer sex, there is a huge possibility of them
living unhealthy lives with adverse effects for themselves and for
others involved.

Even more ironically, while George W Bush has condemned Iran as being
part of the 'Axis of Evil' and is now preparing to wage war against
it, the US and Iran are firmly united in the promotion of their
patriarchal and homophobic policies. In January this year, the US
voted in favour of an Iranian-backed resolution that sought to prevent
the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and another queer
organization from participating in the United Nations' Economic and
Social Council. The US thus joined Iran and other overtly homophobic
countries such as Zimbabwe in winning the resolution, even as India
chose to abstain from the vote. In 2004, George W Bush also passed the
Federal Marriage Amendment, an amendment to the US Constitution which
defined marriage only as a union between one man and one woman and
nullified same-sex marriages that had earlier taken place in
Massachusetts. Also the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy of the US Army,
whereby soldiers may be fired from the Army if they reveal that they
are lesbian, gay or bisexual, promotes silence around the sexual abuse
of lesbian, gay and bisexual soldiers in the Army. This policy still
remains on the statute books. George W Bush has through his Christian
fundamentalist, patriarchal and homophobic policies helped in the
spread of HIV/AIDS and wounded heavily the sex workers' movement
across the world, besides denying basic rights to lesbian, gay and
bisexual people. Therefore from a queer perspective which is an
outlook that seeks to question existing norms around gender and
sexuality in society and challenge institutionalized and compulsory
heteronormativity, we stand up strongly against George W Bush's visit
to India.

NO TO BUSH! NO TO US FUNDING! NO TO SILENCE AROUND SEXUALITY!