I once asked the immigrant from a
certain country located in the Horn of Africa what he thought about Barack
Obama. The common stereotype is that all Africans regard Obama with some kind
of reverence and as a “hero” to their people; at least that is what right-wing
hate talk radio have told us, and “rational racism” proponents like Dinesh D’Souza have even written books about,
to make it appear that Obama is “foreign” to American principles.
So it was to my surprise that
this immigrant of Africa expressed intense
antipathy toward Obama: “Fuck Obama” he said. Those who heard him kind of
chuckled about it, being so unexpected in its passion. I asked him why he
disliked Obama so much; he said it was because Obama “voted for rights for gay
people.” Now, some people might have certain feelings about people of
“alternate” sexual orientation, but you’d have to be pretty far gone in your
hatred to judge even a politician solely on the fact that he supports gay
rights.
That certainly was the case here.
This person went on to assert that all homosexuals should—and he used this hand
to demonstrate a throat slash. Such are the rights we take for granted, this
elicited surprised bemusement from his listeners; this demonstration of social regressiveness
was so far beyond the pale of current Western thought that such an attitude
could be regarded as being a vestige of barbarism from a distant age—or at
least to those too young to remember that this wasn’t always so in this country.
Given the far greater influence
that religion has in the Islamic world (as well as on the Christian
“fundamentalist” worldview), the Muslim attitude toward any open displays of
homosexuality is a criminal offense in most countries where the religion
predominates—although there are divergent beliefs on the level of punishment,
since the Koran is not clear on the level of punishment. Although jail
sentences, fines or whippings are more usual, homosexuality can be punishable
by death in Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, the Islamic region of Nigeria, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan and Yemen; in some countries, rural regions where central
governments have weak reach, residents sometimes enforce their own "moral" code. While Ethiopia does not proscribe a maximum penalty of death, 97 percent
of both Muslims and Christians believe that homosexuality is the act of
“animals” and must be “disciplined.”
But we also hear of or see people
being beheaded on videos for other reasons that make no moral sense, acts that
seem to be “enjoyed” by the perpetrators. We tell ourselves that this is beyond
bestiality. Of course, we are then
forced to recall the horrors of the Holocaust, and the fact that gun violence
in this country—the latest being the six killed by a former U.S. Marine in
Philadelphia—has never been worse.
We are fortunate that this is a
nation of secular laws. People are not executed or maimed for “ordinary,”
non-violent crimes. They have a chance to “redeem” themselves after a certain
time to reflect and reconsider if they so choose. Violent criminals can expect
“due process” to take its course so that no “mistake” is made in determining
their guilt. But beyond that, this is a country where right-wing speech
intended to provoke hate and intimate violent reprisal against a targeted group
is “protected”—as long as it remains just “talk.”
But no matter what political
or sexual ideology one may be, those who cannot “tolerate” the freedom of
others to say or be who they wish to be, and seek ways to nullify their
existence in permanent ways, are the ones who can expect to be punished—if not by one agency,
but by another. Even race or immigrant hate extremists who think they can get
away with murder because of the “community standard” of where they reside
approves of what they have done, will likely be punished by a higher authority,
usually meaning a civil rights case tried in federal court.
The exception to the rule, of
course, is law enforcement officers, who obey no laws or standards of behavior
but their own, and are generally permitted to by the “standard” set by the
majority. It is understood that there is a “duty” to “serve and protect”
against behavior that falls far short of civilized human norms; the problem is
that it is always after the fact when police respond, and those who they do
take action against tend to be people who are guilty of nothing more than petty
infractions on the process.
Still, what a “wonderful” world
we live in where the majority of us toil five or six days a week for just
enough money to pay the bills for very modest living circumstances—literally
living to work—with only that infinitesimal chance that someone will deem your
life forfeit for something you said, believe in, or are. That is, of course, unless
you live in community where the “standards” allow it.
No comments:
Post a Comment