Some Thoughts on the Uganda Bill
Travis High, 12.25.2009

I never imagined how wonderful Hillary Clinton would be as Secretary of State. I admit, like many people, I followed the media’s portrayal of her as shrill and polarizing as a 2008 candidate. But I’ve come to have a tremendous respect for her as Secretary of State.

This feeling was cemented for me when she and other senior officials spoke out against the heinous anti-homosexuality bill in Uganda. In a December 14 speech at my alma mater, Georgetown University, Clinton outlined the Obama Administration’s outlook on human rights. There were many things she said that were contentious and long-awaited by human rights observers, but none was more noteworthy than her statement of the Department of State’s concern and increasing engagement over the bill in Uganda. I’m so glad the question was raised by one of my fellow Hoyas – because in her speech you only hear it in the serial-comma-list-of-things-we-are-concerned-about sort of way, which in other circumstances makes support for LGBT rights superficial. This is indeed a “new frontier” for U.S. involvement in human rights (a difficult enterprise in many circumstances). She seemed a bit uneasy speaking about it, but considering the circumstances, I can forgive her for dancing a bit around the issue.

I was also very pleasantly surprised to read that the U.S. Representative for my hometown district of Lancaster, PA, Joe Pitts (R-PA), was one of a group of signatories to a letter to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni urging him to defeat the proposal. You can read the text of the letter here.

Fortunately for LGBT Ugandans, President Museveni has already agreed to weaken some of the bill’s harsher terms. It is unclear whether this back-peddling is in deference to the threats made by numerous governments and organizations to cut off funding for HIV/AIDS programs there.

I don’t know a whole lot about Uganda, but I definitely agree with the familiar refrain: “Injustice anywhere means justice is denied everywhere.”

The Angel de la Independencia in Mexico City

Earlier yesterday, Mexico City’s capital assembly voted 39-20 for a bill that would change the city’s legal definition of marriage to “the free uniting of two people.” (There were 5 abstentions.) The prior code had marriage as the union between a man and a woman. As noted by the Associated Press, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who is a member of the left-winged Democratic Revolution Party, is expected to sign the bill. If and when Ebrard does, Mexico City will be the first Latin American jurisdiction to legalize gay marriage. Mexico City’s politics is dominated by the Democratic Revolution Party, which has legalized both abortions and (prior) same-sex unions.

This piece of legislation will have a dramatic impact on Latin American politics. Mexico City, with a population of around 8.84 million people (Federal District) is the most populated city in the Western Hemisphere. The city joins other Latin American polities in ensuring greater marriage equality. The BBC News points out that same-sex (civil) unions are already allowed in countries like Ecuador, Columbia,  Uruguay, with the last allowing same-sex unions nation-wide.

But all is not smooth going. It is guaranteed that there will be backlash by the conservative religious, political parties in Mexico City. Where the extension of some (legal, political, human) right is made larger, many of those already possessing the right will protest. Luisita Torregrosa, a contributor to Politics Daily, tells us the conservative, sectarian backlash to the legislation:

All is not smooth going. President Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party promises to challenge the law in the courts, the Roman Catholic Church will press its anti-gay campaign, and conservatives will blame the gay victory on the capital’s liberal bubble. “They have given Mexicans the most bitter Christmas,” said Armando Martínez, the president of the College of Catholic Attorneys.

That sounds familiar. Latin America has a history of persecuting gays and lesbians — Fidel Castro infamously imprisoned gays — and banishing them to the shadows. Gay victories are few. Buenos Aires was close to allowing the continent’s first gay marriage last month when a court blocked it, and though Rio de Janeiro is one of the world’s most tolerant cities, it has no gay marriage prospects.

In other words, LGBT rights advocates cannot become complacent with this recent victory in Mexico City. (Remember California?) The struggle is never over. The LGBT Rights Movement in America is the civil rights movement of the 21st century.

The marital day fiasco… up until a few days ago my company uhh let me rephrase that the company I work for offered all employees one day of paid leave to be taken at the time of marriage. Of course I thought this policy was great when I started here since I knew Yang and I would be traveling to the state of the free (MA) to get our license sometime in the next year or so. I’m fully aware that our marriage legal or otherwise would not be recognized by state laws so to make sure I wasn’t getting ahead of myself by planning to take a day that unjustly I was not entitled to I inquired with HR if the marital day would be applicable to me. After a little uncertainty the HR person checked with the department president and I was given the go ahead as well as congrats on my upcoming wedding. So fast forward a few months Yang and I have booked our trip to Boston and I go ahead and put my time off request into the system. The next day my manager tells me because same-sex marriage is not recognized I’m not able to take the company marital day.

WTF??? it was already approved so I print out my six pages of supporting emails and go right to the top. I speak with the HR pres himself and he states he “forgot” about previously giving the ok but since he did I can go ahead and take the day. Ok everything’s fine… or so I think, the next day I come in to work and there’s an announcement on the company website that the marital day is no longer being offered to anyone effective 1/1/10. Wow the things people will do to avoid supporting equality. I’ve spoken with a few coworkers, friends, and Yang and we all believe the day was taken away because of the small uproar I caused, but hey I have to fight for my rights and if everyone isn’t entitled to something then no one should be it’s only fair. Glad I got this vent over with til next time take care ~Yin

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Newsweek is out with its annual list of predictions for the coming 2010 calendar year and #9 states: Obama Does Nada on Gay Rights.

Patience became the 2009 mantra of the gay rights movement, which generally supports Democrats. Many activists believe that in his heart Obama supports their flagship issues: the ability to serve openly in the armed forces, to be protected from employment in the workplace, and the right to marry (even though he’s on record as favoring civil unions over marriage). But they’ve received almost nothing for their troubles. What the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community has learned this year is that the president is ultimately a pragmatist. Although his very presence in the White House is the stuff of culture wars, Obama himself is reluctant to wade into one. Moreover, if socially divisive policies have the potential to compromise his legislative agenda, Obama has proven that he simply won’t pursue them. Expect this tension to become more acute as the 2010 elections loom—and for gay rights to be shunted aside again. The last thing this pragmatist president will do is hand election-year ammunition to an already energized conservative base that’s venomously opposed to gay marriage.

Unfortunately, I think Newsweek’s prediction of our “fiercest advocate” in 2010 is correct. I also think the president needs to remember; 20% to 25% of the netroots happens to be LGBT. We helped get Mr. Obama elected in 2008. Let’s see him win reelection without our support in 2012.

INTERVIEW: Openly gay speaker-elect John Perez

Posted using ShareThis

By a margin of 39–20 and five abstentions, Mexico City has passed a law legalizing same–sex marriage, and the mayor of the city will likely sign it. This makes Mexico City the first jurisdiction in Latin America to legislate marriage equality.

Via.

Via the AP:

Mexico City on Monday became Latin America’s first municipality to approve gay marriage, an aide to a city lawmaker told AFP.

“It was approved overall by 39 votes in favor and 20 against, with five abstentions,” said a spokesman for the bill’s chief sponsor, assemblyman Davi Razu.

Spokesman Oscar Oliver said city legislators were now taking up a measure in the bill that would allow married same-sex couples to adopt children. The new measure modified a civil union law already on the books in Mexico City, as in other Latin American nations including Uruguay and Colombia. In Argentina the Supreme Court is to rule on a court-approved gay marriage that was challenged earlier this month.

Hopefully, wedded bliss will afford some couples momentary distracton from the constant terror of a “low intensity civil war” between the drug cartels and lawless military.

(Note: My apologies for my conspicuous absence from this blog for quite some time. Classes have ended, and now I’ll be talking your ear off about domestic affairs.)

I’d like to take an in-depth look at what the LGBT community has seen this year, what promises have been fulfilled, what’s gone wrong, and what’s to come in the future. Today I’ll begin with Iowa, but keep your eyes on our blog and look out for more posts on what we’ve seen regarding LGBT rights in 2009. Future posts to come on New York and New Jersey, and other LGBT issues such as hate crimes and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

It’s not completely shocking when socially liberal strongholds like Massachusetts and Vermont legalize same-sex marriage. But in April of 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court surprised America by allowing gays and lesbians in the American Heartland the right to marry.

The question is, how did the LGBT community win the unanimous support of a court with several self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans, especially on this issue? Lambda Legal argued on behalf of same-sex marriage in Varnum v. Brien (the case which granted marriage in Iowa). Their legal team spent nine years prepping for this case, and chose their plaintiffs carefully. They defended six same-sex couples, three of whom had children, and all of whom were in lengthy, committed relationships. Couples with children can make all the difference in cases like this. It’s much easier to show that same-sex marriage does not destroy families and children, but actually supports them, when the plaintiffs have families. They also mollified conservative fears by including a religious accommodations clause, which stated that religious institutions are not legally required to perform or recognize Iowa’s same-sex marriages.

And although we think of Iowa as a typical midwestern state, it historically has never behaved quite like the rest of the heartland. Iowa was one of the first states to allow women’s suffrage and interracial marriage. Interracial marriage cases are often referenced in same-sex marriage cases, so perhaps it is not so surprising that this year’s biggest same-sex marriage victory took place in Iowa. It has a unique history of civil rights liberalism that should not be ignored.

Will this decision last? Some states, like California and Hawaii, passed same-sex marriage in the courts, but then rescinded it through ballot initiatives or the legislature. Luckily for the gay and lesbian community, this is unlikely to happen in Iowa. Citizens cannot initiate a change in the Iowa constitution. In order to remove same-sex marriage, the Iowa legislature would have to vote for it in two consecutive legislative sessions, and then it would be voted upon by the public. It looks as if Varnum v. Brien is here to stay.

What can we learn from Iowa? First of all, don’t underestimate the importance of the image couples you are representing. Bringing forward families instead of couples speaks volumes to the courts. Second, we need to take another look at social liberalism in this country and figure out where LGBT support really lies. Most of us would never have believed that Iowa would have same-sex marriage while California does not. (We’ll delve further into this issue when we take a look at Maine, NY, and NJ). Finally, although this case is under the Iowa Supreme Court, and therefore other state Supreme Courts are not required to follow this precedent, the Varnum court determined that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage failed at the intermediate scrutiny level. They found that the law was not substantially related to an important government interest, and therefore it violated the Iowa Constitution. Again, other courts are not forced to uphold this, but it will be interesting to see how this precedent affects other courts and challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hilary Clinton made a statement recently about the US “possible” involvement in the protection of LGBT rights in other countries, in particular Iran, Iraq and more recently Uganda. For those of you who are unaware of what is currently going on in Uganda, the government there which to introduce an Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which will remove the rights of any LGBT individual living in Uganda and immediately brand them as criminals, with the penalty to be execution. If you like and believe statistics then this article in the Huffington Post states that “94% of Ugandans consider themselves religious and 95% strongly oppose the legalization of same-sex relations.”… What is happening in Uganda and what people think there about Homosexuality is quite frightening. I’ve seen religious prosecution against the LGBT community even in Australia, and it seems to be a rising problem in Middle Eastern and African countries. How did this happen? Are more and more people becoming “born again” christians and taking the bible to literally? Or are LGBT’s the new scapegoats for the wrong doings of others? with a “the world is going to shit, so let’s blame it on the gays” mentality. It is quite frightening… if you would like to read about the bill this article by Ariel Rubin about sums it up http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariel-rubin/ugandas-anti-homosexualit_b_397090.html

Now down to the positive… here is what Hilary Clinton has to say about Uganda!

Today, Adrian Fenty, the mayor of Washington DC, has signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in that city. The United States Congress has thirty days to overrule the law. If nothing happens, marriage equality will arrive in the United States’s capital on January 17, 2010.

The fact that the United States Congress has the authority to overrule the city results in two additional things worthy of note. First, at times in various states, it has been argued that since some states’ legislatures are debating pressing matters like the economy, there is no time to debate and legislate on less pressing issues. Surely the fact that the United States Senate is debating a health care bill, which is a pressing issue, would mean that there is no time to overrule Washington.

Second, there’s states’ rights. Although the District of Columbia is not a state, the principle behind states rights’— allowing national subdivisions to make their own decisions— is important. If you only support states’ rights when states do something you agree with, you are not really supporting states’ rights. You have to support states’ rights to pass laws you disagree with; otherwise, blathering about states’ rights when they do something you agree with is just vacuous rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy. One cannot be for states’ rights and at the same time support overruling the District of Columbia.

Via AP:

 A senior BBC executive apologized Thursday for hosting an online debate over whether gays should face capital punishment in Uganda. The broadcaster drew criticism from some lawmakers and users for the discussion forum, which ran under the headline: “Should homosexuals face execution?”

BBC’s “Africa Have Your Say” Web site asked for people’s views on a proposed Ugandan law that would punish some homosexual acts by life imprisonment or death. The African country’s parliament is also considering rules that could jail family and friends for up to seven years if they fail to report their homosexuality to authorities. Critics complained Wednesday that the debate was sensationalist and inappropriate. Lynne Featherstone, an opposition lawmaker with the Liberal Democrats, said she was deeply offended that the BBC thought it legitimate to debate killing gays. BBC World Service director Peter Horrocks wrote in a blog posted on the broadcaster’s Web site: “We apologize for any offense it caused.”

He said the headline was too stark in hindsight. Editors had changed it to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?” after they closed down the debate. He added, however, that the program was a legitimate and responsible attempt to encourage discussion about a crucial African issue. The program provided “a platform for debate that otherwise would not exist across the continent and beyond,” he wrote.

I am Gay… I’m not going to deny it and I’m quite open about my sexuality because it is who I am and as long as we live in a world where people are too afraid to be who they are then nothing will ever change. My partner is fighting internal family religious bullying, yet is still standing strong against those who wish to “convert” her and “pray away the gay”. She is strong, but I’m honestly sick and tired of religious intolerance, especially from the Christian faith. I was born and raised Catholic; I’ve read the bible and I know what it does and doesn’t say about homosexuality, but the bible is a collection of stories written by a group of people to depict moral superiority and to also project stories of hope, love and morality. Yet more often than not these stories get twisted into literalisms which are dangerous… But we won’t get into that right now… What I want to get into is how religious intolerance and homophobia have, in the United States, stooped to a new ultimate low… Now the public restroom is a battle field for discrimination again us queer folk…

To read the full article written by Stephanie Mencimer go to the following URL: http://www.alternet.org/sex/144512/the_religious_right%27s_potty_paranoia/

Young Honduran LGBT Activist Murdered in Wave of Violence and Impunity
12/17/2009

Press Release from International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission – http://www.iglhrc.org

For Immediate Release

Contact: Marcelo Ferreyra: (54) 11-4665-7527, mferreyra@iglhrc.org (Spanish, English)

(December 17, 2009) On December 13, Walter Tróchez, a 27 year-old gay rights activist and member of the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup d’Etat, was shot in a drive-by attack by unknown assailants. He died several hours later in a hospital in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. According to Honduran NGOs Red Lesbica Cattrachas and Feministas en Resistencia, his is the sixteenth known murder in the Honduran lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community since the military coup on June 28, 2009. Since the ouster of the country’s democratically elected government, a climate of impunity has enabled systematic acts of transphobic and homophobic violence. Nobody has been brought to justice for any of these crimes, many of which were committed publicly. More deaths of LGBT people have likely gone unreported.

The human rights of people in all sectors of Honduran society are being systematically violated as the direct result of the military coup. However, the accelerated rate at which LGBT people have been killed in the last five months suggests a targeted pattern of violence.

Those killed since the coup include:

1. Vicky Hernández Castillo, transgender, June 29, 2009
2. Valeria, (Darwin Joya), transgender, June 30, 2009
3. Martina Jackson (Martín Jackson), transgender, June 30, 2009
4. Fabio Adalberto Aguilera Zamora, gay, July 4, 2009
5. Héctor Emilio Maradiaga Snaider, gay, August 9, 2009
6. Michelle Torres, (Milton Torres), transgender, August 30, 2009
7. Enrique Andrés García Nolasco, gay, September 2, 2009
8. Jorge Samuel Miranda Mata (Salome), transgender, September 20, 2009
9. Carlos Reynieri Salmerón (Sadya), transgender, September 20, 2009
10. Marión Lanza, transgender, October 9, 2009
11. Montserrat Maradiaga (Elder Noe Maradiaga), transgender, October 10, 2009
12. Juan Carlos Zelaya, transgender, October 26, 2009
13. Rigoberto Wilson Carrasco, transgender, November 2, 2009
14. José Luís Salandía, gay, November 2, 2009
15. Anonymous man, gay, November 4, 2009
16. Walter Tróchez, gay, December 13, 2009

The work of Walter Tróchez, the most recent victim of this violence, included dissemination of information about human rights in Honduras. As an LGBT activist, Tróchez also reported on the human rights of LGBT people during the coup, and advocated for HIV/AIDS prevention and combating religious fundamentalism.

Like others in Honduras, Tróchez faced significant abuse for his political and human rights activism and his sexual orientation, which escalated after the coup. On July 20, 2009, he was detained by authorities for participating in a peaceful, sit-down protest across from the Congress of the Republic. During his detention, he was brutally beaten and denigrated because of his sexual orientation. Then, on December 4, Tróchez was kidnapped and beaten by four masked men who came in a gray pickup truck without license plates, suspected by activists to come from the police investigative unit (DNIC). He managed to escape and file a complaint to national and international authorities just days before he was murdered.

Three days before the murder, on December 10, 2009—Human Rights Day—Honduran LGBT human rights defender Indyra Mendoza spoke to State and civil society representatives at the United Nations in New York. Mendoza warned that the situation of LGBT people in Honduras is dire, calling for “states free of discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity [and] free from impunity” and challenging religious organizations’ roles in supporting the coup.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) stands in solidarity and sorrow with the family and friends of Walter Tróchez, as well as those of everyone killed in these bloody months. The international community must support the courageous activists continuing to defend human rights and LGBT people in Honduras.

All people have the rights to life, security, and freedom from discrimination regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or political beliefs. IGLHRC condemns the systemic persecution and murder of LGBT people and human rights defenders in Honduras and calls for an end to the impunity that allows this violence and oppression to thrive.

As Barry Hatton of the Associated Press reports, the Socialist Party of Portugal is drafting a proposal that would legalize same-sex marriage. The proposal, Hatton notes, will remove a current clause in Portuguese law that stipulates marriage as being between two persons of the opposite sex. It is expected that this proposal will be approved by Parliament.

This news should by no means produce complacency among LGBT advocates. Officially, the Church and State are considered to be separate as spelled out in the Portuguese Constitution of 1976. The country’s religious demographics, however, is overwhelming Christian. Roman Catholics comprise around 84.5% of the population. And just recently as July, the Portuguese Constitutional Court upheld a ban against same-sex marriages. As Hutton notes, “[The Court] said the constitution, while granting equal rights, did not state that same-sex marriages must be permitted.”

But clearly something is wrong with this kind of reasoning. If the Portuguese Constitution requires equal concern and respect – thereby requiring the granting of equal rights – then it is odd to conclude that same-sex marriages need not be granted. The packet of claims and obligations constituting the right to marriage seems to be presupposed as vital to any political community. Whether the institution of marriage is actually an essential social construct is not the issue. To claim that a polity’s constitution requires the equal treatment of its citizens and then to claim, in the same breath, that a sect of its population be precluded from exercising or possessing a historically, fundamental right such as marriage is a contradiction in rationality.

blogsurfer.us

Annise Parker wins for Houston mayor. Houston is now the largest city to elect an openly gay candidate for mayor. [Houston Chronicle]

Firedoglake calls for Susan G. Komen for the Cure to fire spokesperson Hadassah Lieberman for her connections to big PhRMA and her senator husband. [Salon]

200 green business ideas. [Fast Company]

Cincinnati Bengals receiver Chris Henry dies in what authorities are calling a domestic dispute with his fiance. [ESPN]

Senate passes historic funding for violence against women programs. [The Baynet]

Abuse of immigrant workers (women, many underage) by a meat plant – SHOCKING! [Women's eNews]

Top 5 green jobs stories of 2009. [Mother Nature Network]

Brazen Careerist and PayScale release study on best companies for Gen Y workers. [PR Web]

Kurt Vonnegut is now an HR professional [Punk Rock HR]

Employers more worried about brain drain than delayed retirement, says MetLife study. [Insurance Broadcasting]

Debunking generational differences at work. [Nonprofit Quarterly]

Plenty of women are up for the 2009  Eater of the Year, including Rachel Maddow, Meryl Streep and Michelle Obama. [Endless Simmer]

Chronic discrimination in the workplace against women and children still endemic. [HuffPo]

Man who punched Jersey Shore’s Snookie in the face apologizes. [Jezebel]

Hearing on rape kit backlog legislation is step in right direction. [Human Rights Watch]

Should working caregivers as a protected class? [SEIU blog]

“But grandma, I don’t get what the big deal is with you being Secretary of State — aren’t all women secretaries?” —Madeline Albright’s four-year-old granddaughter [AAUW Dialog]

Men against rape: Sen. Franken’s anti rape amendment survives in Senate committee. [HuffPo]

Women reshaping union agendas to stress work-life issues. [Human Resources Executive]

Now women’s success is a negative: civil rights panel names 19 colleges it will investigate for gender discrimination. [The Chronicle]

Finding help for women vets with difficult problems including homelessness [Post and Courier]

The shadowy cabal of theocratic fanatics Congressional fraternal order The Family, whose international counterparts have been associated with the drafting of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act, has denounced the bill.

But now Rwanda’s parliament is also considering criminalizing same-sex relationships and LGBT activism. Via Pink News:

Rwanda’s lower house will reportedly vote today on a revision to the penal code which would criminalise homosexuality.

According to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, the proposed Article 217 of the draft Penal Code Act will criminalise “[a]ny person who practices, encourages or sensitises people of the same sex, to sexual relation or any sexual practice.”

It would impose prison sentences of between five and ten years for those convicted of homosexual acts. The “encouraging and sensitising” aspects would mean a ban on counselling and could impact on health services for gays and lesbians. Fines will range from 200,000 to one million Rwandan francs (£216 to £1,090). According to Box Turtle Bulletin, the average yearly Rwandan wage is just over 200,000 Rwandan Francs.

Rick Warren has extensive ministry infrastructure in the country; so much so he described it as “the first Purpose Driven®nation.” Will he condemn this bill, too?

Via The Guardian:

The BBC today asked users of its news website “Should homosexuals face execution?” on a talkboard discussion for a World Service programme for African listeners. Posted on a BBC News premoderated talkboard, the thread was designed to provoke discussion ahead of the latest edition of interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say.

“Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question, but this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death,” the post said. The talkboard post asked users to send in their views to the programme, which goes out on the World Service and is also available online.

“Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual ‘offences’ be monitored?,” the post added. Premoderated posts included one from Chris, Guildford, posted at 8.59am, which attracted 51 recommendations of support. He wrote: “Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer ‘gay pride’ festivals? Would I be allowed to organise a ’straight pride’ festival? No, thought as much!! If homosexuality is natural, as we are forced to believe, how can they sustain the species? I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation – after which, theoretically there should be none left!”

Another, from Aaron in Freetown, said: “Bravo to the Ugandans for this wise decision, a bright step in eliminating this menace from your society. We hope other African nations will also follow your bold step.”

The Africa Have Your Say programme aired at 4pm today. By 5.30pm, the headline of the discussion had been changed to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”.

Liliane Landor, the BBC World Service acting head of Africa region, defended the radio programme and talkboard post, saying it allowed gays and lesbians from Uganda, whose voices have never been heard in the UK, to talk with dignity about the impact the legislation would have on their lives. The show also included the opinion of those who supported the anti-homosexual legislation, including religious leaders, she said. “The programme was a dignified exchange between people who have differing beliefs,” Landor added.

Given that it is aimed at an African audience, and given that much of that audience probably never heard LGBT persons and allies marshall their points before they were shouted down, the decision might be defensible. It is the obligation of the liberal to stimulate dialogue where they have no legislative or policing power of their own. And also offer asylum.

However, this argument is contingent upon the intended audience. If the post had been seriously posing the question to Westerners, Landor would deserve to be fired. Hard.