The Tribune

THE misleader who speaks for the anti-rights group —which claims to be a Christian organisation — is at it again. This time, he and those of his ilk feel threatened by an event that has nothing to do with them. They consistently demonstrate that they believe they are the main characters in a story and the plot must centre on them. When anything happens that does not advance what they believe the plot to be, it is a problem for them. They then decide to make their problem a problem for everyone else. It would not matter much if they did not bring their problems to the rest of the country with vitriol and violence.

For anyone who has not seen this in the news, it is probably still quite easy to guess what, exactly, the anti-rights group has agitated itself about this time. It is, of course, LGBTQI+ people and the mere discussion about LGBTQI+ experiences. An organisation is hosting Pride activities this week, and the line-up includes a lecture entitled Black Bahamian Subject Formation: From Non-Subject to Subject Part II. It will be delivered by Dr Kreimild Saunders at the University of The Bahamas, and there will be a panel discussion with Erin Greene and Helen Klonaris. The anti-rights group misleader purports that this event taking place at the university has troubled him because taxpayer dollars fund the university. In addition, he has used the usual harmful refrain that is offensive to both young people and LGBTQI+ people — that young people are idiots and that they are being preyed upon. This, as we should all know, is not true. Young people attending university have met the requirements to be there and are actively seeking knowledge in a way that is meant to challenge them to engage new material, think critically, and express their positions with clarity and supporting evidence.

The misleader said the event is “an affront to our national values” which raises an important question. What does he think are our national values?

During the public consultation process ahead of the drafting and publication of the National Development Plan of The Bahamas, the Secretariat asked people to share their visions for The Bahamas. Some of the contributions are in the Plan, on the pages immediately preceding the Introduction.

From “Equality for all persons born in The Bahamas” and “I want to see the youth of The Bahamas truly have opportunities to live the life they desire” to “Have leaders with mature decision-making skills” and “The restructuring of our education system — better education, better schools — an educated country,” the vision for The Bahamas is not about and does not promote exclusion or discrimination. There are photos of flip charts with sticky notes that have a range of short visions which include “less crime”, “better education”, “better healthcare”, and “better economy, more choices”.

There is no focus on division. There is no stated desire for discrimination on any basis. There is no call for less fundamental freedoms or rights. The contributions focused on progress, equality, safety, industry, and education.

Branding LGBTQI+ people a “special interest group” is rather funny, particularly coming from a special interest group. Yes, there are LGBTQI+ advocates. Yes, LGBTQI+ advocates have identified shared concerns. Yes, there is work to influence public policy. Yes, this involves lobbying. Yes, this includes applying pressure to decision-makers. The same is true of women’s rights advocates, climate justice advocates, and many others. This is how groups are formed. There is an area of common interest and/or concern. There is commitment to address the issues together. The activities take various forms and can include direct advocacy, engagement with media, and public events. There is nothing unusual about this, and there is nothing about LGBTQI+ advocacy or Pride events that pose a threat to anyone, whether or not they recognise LGBTQI+ people as people, or as people with human rights.

What special interest group has been more hateful than those that use religious text to limit the rights and freedoms of others? What special interest group has focused more on preventing people from accessing their human rights than the anti-rights group that abuses biblical text and exploits Christianity? What special interest group has focused less on the needs of its own constituents and lobbying for the end of discrimination and violence that affects them than the anti-rights group that abuses biblical text and exploits Christianity? What special interest group has taken more from its constituents and yielded them less than the anti-rights group that abuses biblical text and exploits Christianity?

Sure, LGBTQI+ advocates can be deemed a special interest group, so long as we remember what special interest groups do and why, and that this term is not only applicable to groups people do not like and it is not applicable to groups people would prefer stayed silent and invisible. The “special” interests for LGBTQI+ advocates are human rights, and no one can deny that they are, indeed, special in that they are “designed for a particular purpose or occasion” (as stated in the Merriam-Webster dictionary), but we must be clear that human rights are no different for LGBTQI+ people than for anyone else, aside from access. They are not unique, and they are not extra. They are what must be accorded to all.

The anti-rights group is opposed to human rights because they afford us freedom. It would prefer a country where it had full control and people could be forced to do as it wishes, believing only what it believes, living only in alignment with its narrow interpretation of biblical text, even with the existence of different denominations that use the text in a variety of ways. It wants sameness. To avoid diversity, it would prefer to restrain. It has taken as its duty the complete brainwashing of people of which it accuses its chosen opposition. It has stooped to the low of attacking an institution of tertiary education for educating people who choose it.

The misleader spoke of “immoral indoctrination” of young people, and says nothing of his own practices or that of anti-rights groups and its members. What of the indoctrination of men who have been led to believe that they are in charge and women should cower in their presence and give in to their whims. What of the indoctrination of women who have been convinced that their health and wellness are less important than the happiness and the illusion of superiority of the men in their lives? What of the children who are told to be quiet about the abuse they experience, and convinced that the abuse they experience and the silence they must keep is love? What of the indoctrination of people with low or no income whose money goes into collection plates when their own plates are empty at dinner time? What of the special interests of the people who benefit from this brainwashing, in their finances and in their social status? Is this behaviour not an attack on the moral tenets of the country? Are those the “Spiritual Values” upon which this nation was supposedly founded?

The people who want to curtail the rights of others are consistent in their twisting of the constitution. They reference the preamble of the constitution as though it is the constitution itself when, in fact, it is not. It is the section that comes before the constitution even begins, hence the prefix “pre” which means before.

A panel discussion is not a debate. It is designed for two or more people to present on or be in conversation about a specific topic or in a chosen thematic area. There is no expectation that there be different opinions, but that people bring a variety of responses to questions and provocations. There is no need for a Pride event to bring any dissenting voices, and for various reasons. These include the fact that anti-LGBTQI+ voices are everywhere, all the time, and that Pride exists because LGBTQI+ people need a safe place to engage each other, allies, and other members of the communities within which we live, and because LGBTQI+ people are responding to the historically shaming that resulted in hiding.

The National Development Plan is based on four pillars — governance, human capital, environment and infrastructure, and economy. The vision for The Bahamas where human capital is concerned is stated as “The People of The Bahamas desire a country where the innate potential of each person is respected, nurtured, developed, protected and enabled to flourish.” While it does not use human rights language, it speaks to equality and non-discrimination, and this has to exist in all of the pillars. Educational institutions, of course, are included.

If it is not a place to meet and engage with people who are not like us, what is a university? If it is not a place to gain access to new information and to explore different perspectives, what is a university? If it does not support community initiatives and expose students and faculty to issues of national importance, what is a university? If it does not create space for challenging discussions, what is a university? If it does not prepare students for the world beyond its property, what is a university? If it does not participate in public dialogue, including on political and social issues, what is a university?

A university is a “place of learning,” as noted by the misleader. That learning must not be limited to any religion or interpretation of any religious text, the university being free of religious interference and the country guaranteeing religious freedom. Education on LGBTQI+ issues and engagement with LGBTQI+ people is not synonymous with “[promotion] and [advancement of] a homosexual agenda.” Education is not a recruitment exercise, no matter what the anti-rights group may itself practice. There is a way that people and institutions expect others to behave the way they do and, based on that expectation, they read everything as a threat. Perhaps the anti-rights group will be able to, someday, look in the mirror and see itself for what it is and recognise that its fears are rooted in its own tactics.

Perhaps the people who follow the misleader will take time to think for themselves and recognise that LGBTQI+ people are not enemies, and the event planned for Thursday, October 5, is not a threat to them or their beliefs. Perhaps they will remind themselves of the love and non-violence of Jesus and choose to embody that rather than lashing out at people who have worked to create a space for discussion, and not debate.

Perhaps the additional publicity will draw a larger audience than previously expected, and the event will be an opportunity for LGBTQI+ advocates to share information, sensitise people to the needs of LGBTQI+ people, and invite people to genuinely engage or to disengage in peace.

Unfortunately, for reasons unrelated to the anti-rights group and its predictable nonsense, I am no longer able to participate in the panel discussion that will follow Dr Saunders’ keynote address. I look forward to watching the recording and contributing the conversation at another time and in another format.