Words From a Wicked Woman

Exiled Nigerian gay activist Davis Mac-Iyalla has come to the United States in search of political, spiritual and financial support. Founder of the LGBT Anglican organization Changing Attitude Nigeria, he has faced persecution from both his government and his church–being forced to flee to a nearby country where he and others organize in the herculean fight for their rights against the very powerful Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and head homophobe in charge. It is because of pressure from Akinola that Mac-Iyalla and others active in his organization were arrested in 2005 by police in Abuja, the nation’s capitol, held for three days without food and water, beaten and tortured before finally being released. To this day, he suffers from the after effects of that violation of human rights, yet, he continues to speak, organize and advocate for his people–our people–in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He is an LGBT hero.

TWW was in the audience when Mac-Iyalla’s speaking tour came to Cleveland, Ohio on May 23 where he spoke to an audience of about 50 people at Trinity Cathedral. The first thing I noticed was how happy and relieved Mac-Iyalla was to finally be able to bring his story out of Nigeria and into the hearts and minds of people who could have significant influence in putting a stop to the persecution LGBT face in his country. Although it was already illegal to marry a same-sex partner in Nigeria, the legislature, spurred on by Akinola, considered a measure this year that would have carried a five-year prison sentence for advocating for LGBT rights individually or as an organization; providing services for LGBT people, including AIDS/HIV education and prevention; having dinner with another LGBT person in a purely platonic environment; renting space to any LGBT person or organization, and other activities. The bill, called the Same-Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, narrowly escaped passage last March thanks, in no small part, to international pressure from governments and human rights organizations and then-upcoming elections in April. It is hoped that the April 21 poll results will bring about change in attitudes toward LGBT within the new government, however, Akinola and his minions in high office still loom large. Mac-Iyalla was forced to flee his homeland and seek refuge in neighboring Togo amid threats of kidnap, torture and death. It is this story he brings to the U.S. (For more background see Gay Anxiety in Nigeria and Time for a Hard New Push Against Nigerian Anti-Gay Bill.)

Mac-Iyalla began his Cleveland speech by saying that he had tried to refrain from speaking about Akinola because the man is an attention whore who doesn’t care whether what is said is negative or positive, only that his name is mentioned. However, he realized that in order to make Americans aware of the serious dangers of being LGBT in Nigeria, as well as to tell his own story, he had no choice but to also speak of the Nigerian primate who had once declared that there were no LGBT people in Nigeria, much less LGBT Anglicans. It was in response to this assertion that Changing Attitude Nigeria was formed and it was this challenge that led Akinola to turn his considerable powers not just on LGBT Anglicans within his province, but LGBT Nigerians as a whole.

Akinola may be better known in the U.S. for defying hundreds of years of Anglican tradition and poaching dioceses and individual churches within the Episcopal Church, USA (TEC) as they attempt to leave over full-inclusion of LGBT within the life and structure of the denomination, touching off a legal battle royal that threatens to go on for years to come. He is also the primary mover of a coalition of theoretically independent churches within the Anglican Communion called the “Global South” who have threatened to leave unless TEC stops ordaining LGBT bishops and performing same-sex unions. It is supposedly to offer pastoral care that Akinola has affiliated himself with the breakaway TEC dioceses and churches.

Make no mistake, Akinola is a powerful and dangerous man driven by a rabid hatred that is anything but Christian. Because Nigeria is the most populous province in the Communion, he has a built-in power base from which to conduct his heinous campaign against LGBT people throughout the world. I urge anyone who can to hear Mac-Iyalla speak and tell his story in his own words. I will be posting a more thorough article about his fight for freedom next week. In the meantime, I have included a list of cities and dates for the speaking tour. At Mac-Iyalla’s request, I have not included event times. Even here, it seems, he is not safe.

Davis Mac-Iyalla U.S. Tour

Technorati Tags: activism, africa, blacks, christianity, discrimination, episcopal church, gay, homophobia, homosexuality, lesbian, lgbt, nigeria, politics

The following is the first in a series concerning bias against LGBT in all facets of life, including crime and employment, called Fighting Hate. We will look at what’s going on, who is doing what to whom and how. If we don’t know what’s happening, we can do nothing about it.

Passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592) by the U.S. House of Representatives in a 237-180 bipartisan vote on May 3 signaled the success of a 230-plus member coalition led by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) that includes gay and civil rights organizations, labor, law enforcement professionals, religious groups and professional governmental entities in fighting hate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. The coalition includes: the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, America’s premier civil rights coalition; the American Civil Liberties Union; various unions under the AFL-CIO umbrella; all of the mainstream Protestant denominations and several major Roman Catholic social justice organizations; several major Jewish organizations including Hadassah, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee and the National Council of Jewish Women; law enforcement organizations like the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and National District Attorneys Association, and; several associations of governmental entities such as United States Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities.

The bill expands existing federal hate crimes laws to include offenses motivated by actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability; provides “technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution” of bias-motivated crimes under state, local and tribal laws, and; allows jurisdictions to apply for federal grants to help local, state and tribal entities prevent hate crimes committed by juveniles. A little-recognized provision would extend the federal government’s ability to intervene even if the offense was not committed on federal property or the victim was not engaged in one of six federally protected activities at the time the offense occurred as current laws require. The protected activities are: voting; participating in a federal program; working, or applying to work, for the federal government; serving on a jury; participating in a federally-funded program, and; engaging in interstate commerce. The measure is expected to reach the floor of the Senate, where it is called the Matthew Shepard Act (S. 1105), very soon. President George Bush has vowed to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.

What many people do not realize is that the H.R. 1592 coalition includes several black civil rights organizations whose constituency is already included in existing hate crimes laws. However, because they believe it is the right thing to do, they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with HRC and other gay rights advocacy groups to support the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. In doing so, they have become targets of the Religious Right in general and black Religious Right proponents in particular.

In a statement released upon his introduction of the bill, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee and founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) said, “This legislation is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation. Behind each of the hate crime statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.”

According to Hate Crimes Statistics, 2005, an annual report released last October, “7,163 criminal incidents involving 8,380 offenses were reported in 2005 as a result of bias toward a particular race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or physical or mental disability.” Of those incidents, 54.7% were motivated by race, 17.1% by religion, 14.2% by sexual orientation, 13.2% by ethnicity/national origin and .7% by disability. It is generally believed that bias crimes based on sexual orientation are widely underreported. Indeed, many jurisdictions do not keep records of such offenses at all and there are no FBI statistics on gender identity-based hate crimes. The Justice Department is required by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990 to collect data on bias-motivated offenses from legal jurisdictions throughout the country.

Religious Rights organizations vehemently opposed H.R. 1592 after it was introduced by, claiming that it was an attack on Christian values.

In an editorial titled “Conyers’ ‘Hate Grandma’ bill introduced in House” on the Religious Right “news” site WorldNetDaily.com, Janet Folger, president of the Christian activist group Faith2Action, wrote that the congressman “must hate free speech. He must hate equality. And he must hate…grandma. And I think it’s a crime.” She goes on to say that H.R. 1592 would increase the penalties for any crime committed against LGBT and that it would be safer to rob a heterosexual senior citizen. “So, if you’re going to mug someone, better make sure it’s grandma (unless she’s become a lesbian) – because if the guy whose money you steal happens to be a homosexual, you’re looking at a triple sentence. Go after grandma, and it’s one-third off! Hey, why don’t we save everyone a lot of time and just hand out “Conyers’ Coupons for Criminals!”

The so-called “Conyers’ Coupons for Criminals” is a concept almost too convoluted to take seriously, but theoretically indicates the lower level of culpability imposed by committing a crime against a non-protected class; in this instance, a non-LGBT person as opposed to someone who would be protected under an extension of current hate crimes laws.

“The legislation is ostensibly designed to aid local law enforcement officials, but the real objective is to make homosexual behaviors, cross-dressing, and transsexualism into federally protected minority groups. Changeable behaviors are thus to be accorded the same federal protection as race,” wrote the Rev. Louis P. Shelton, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, on that group’s web site. He went on to say, “If signed into law, H.R. 1592 will usher in the death of religious freedom and speech in this nation. Any critical comments about homosexual sodomy will be considered ‘hate speech’ and outside the bounds of First Amendment protections. It has already happened in Canada and it will happen here if H.R. 1592 and other laws like it are not soundly defeated.” The page includes the graphic on the right of a WANTED poster with a supposed picture of Jesus and the heading “For Violation of the Proposed Hate Crimes Law In His Teachings And In His Book ‘The Bible.’”

Interviewed by TWW just hours before the House vote, HRC Regional Field Direction Colin O’Dea said, “I think [the vote will] be a little closer than people thought. I think the Religious Right did a lot more work than we thought they were going to do and caught us a little bit off-guard–not just HRC, but the progressive community as a whole.”

According to the blog Pam’s House Blend, a good read for a summary of the Religious Right’s anti-hate crime bill activities before and after it passed the House (also see these articles), members of Congress were blanketed with e-mail, faxes, letters and phone calls urging them to vote against the measure. Although efforts to amend hate crimes laws to include LGBT people have been introduced since the 1970s, opposition was particularly strong this time, including a failed petition stating that hate crimes legislation would: “Silence the Bible-believing Churches, Pastors and Christians”; “Elevate homosexuality and gender confused individuals such as drag queens, cross-dressers, she-males, etc. to the status of federally-protected minorities. These behaviors will be considered equal to race under the federal law,” and; “Fund anti-Christian curriculum for children K-12, through the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice to promote homosexuality and cross-dressing as normal behaviors,” among other false and inflammatory accusations.

Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., senior pastor of the Washington, DC-area Hope Christian Church and leader of the ultra conservative black Christian political group High Impact Leadership Coalition, held a news conference about a week before passage of H.R. 1592. Flanked by several other black ministers, he said that their joining with conservative white Christians “represents a landmark transition that’s going on in our nation. In fact, what is going on is that there is an amalgamation–a coming together of the black church . . . and the white church against this kind of legislation.” (See this transcript of his statements.) Jackson, at No. 22, was voted one of the 50 Most Influential Christians in America by Church Report Magazine last January. Bishop T.D. Jakes (No. 4), The Potter’s House in Houston, TX; Bishop Eddie L. Long (No. 34), New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Lithonia, GA, and; Dr. Creflo A. Dollar (No. 48), World Changers International are the other black ministers/pastors on the list–all falling squarely in the Religious Right camp.

O’Dea, the HRC regional field director noted that events like Jackson’s press conference are big news because they are so rare. “In communities of color, there are more supporters than most people would think. It makes bigger news when the minister of a mega-church comes out in favor of standing with Bush or standing with the Republicans because [it happens infrequently].”

He is quite right. Much to Jackson’s consternation, by and large, black leaders have been strong supporters of efforts to include LGBT in hate crimes and other pieces of civil rights legislation. “[H.R. 1592] has been endorsed by the NAACP, by other black leadership in high-ranking, kind of official, capacity. But, unfortunately, many of the forerunners of the Civil Rights Movement in the early days are now out-of-touch with what is going on. They are not moving in step with the real grassroots of the black community. So we have a limited number of autonomous, self-appointed leaders who are standing to speak inappropriately for the black community,” he remarked.

Although Jackson did not name specific black leaders, it is a sure bet he included members of the CBC, long-time advocates of civil rights for LGBT people, including support for employment protection, opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and inclusive hate crime legislation.

An analysis of the May 3 House vote reveals that only 11 members did not co-sponsor the bill (including one deceased and one Senate member), and; only four members did not vote for the bill (one deceased, one Senate member and two absent members). In short, H.R. 1592 received the overwhelming support of CBC members. (Voting results taken from GovTrack.us.)

In a press release issued upon passage of H.R. 1592, CBC Chairwoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI) said, “One of our most important charges is to protect and defend [America's] citizens, which is precisely what H.R. 1592, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, introduced by one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. [does]. . . . As we celebrate two centuries of the end of the African Slave Trade, it is our hope that today will be the beginning of the end of the decades of mindless hatred, bigotry, and discrimination against all God’s children. All Americans have an investment in a stable, violence free government, and that is exactly what this bill provides.”

Jackson may not have enumerated specific black leaders for condemnation, however, he did single out the venerable National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for their support of the bill. Former U.N. ambassador and current NAACP Chairman of the Board Julian Bond has been a steadfast supporter of gay rights. As an advisor and colleague of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., he has a unique and unquestionably authoritative view of discrimination in America. When asked in a September 2006 interview conducted by America Online’s Black Voices why a lot of black people think that black rights are reduced when others gain their own, Bond responded, “I don’t know. I think it’s because they don’t have an understanding of the universality of rights. They somehow think, wrongly, that if Joe gets rights, then John loses rights. Which of course, doesn’t make sense. This is a win-win game for everybody.”

In his keynote address at the 2005 Equality Virginia annual dinner, Bond said, “Gay and lesbian rights are not ’special rights’ in any way. It isn’t ’special’ to be free from discrimination–it is an ordinary, universal entitlement of citizenship. The right not to be discriminated against is a common-place claim we all expect to enjoy under our laws and our founding document, the Constitution. That many had to struggle to gain these rights makes them precious–it does not make them special, and it does not reserve them only for me or restrict them from others.”

The NAACP, the CBC, Conyers and Julian Bond were not the only prominent black organizations and individuals endorsing H.R. 1592. Joining them are the A. Philip Randolph Institute; the African Methodist Episcopal Church; the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists; the Congress of National Black Churches; the National Black Police Association; the National Urban League, and; the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Union, among others. Read the entire list of supporters.

Technorati Tags: activism, african-american, blacks, christianity, discrimination, gay, harry jackson, hate crimes, homosexuality, hrc, john conyers, legislation, lesbian, lgbt, politics, religious right

I previewed a six-segment series of articles about what it means to be a beautiful black woman in my April 26, 2007 post The Beauty of Imus: Talking About Sex & Race. All of us are bombarded with standards of beauty that could make any woman of color feel as though she is almost irreparably defective, dreamed up by advertising agencies in New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Buenos Aires, Johannesburg and Tokyo. Although many of these cities are not in Europe, it is a European standard they purvey. The women are tall, skinny to the point of anorexia, lighter-skinned and often blonde, even in those countries where blonde is anything but a natural hair color. What message does this send to those of us who don’t fit the European mode? Certainly, it is nothing healthy.

Anorexia is a growing problem among black American women. According to the article Dying to be Thin: Minority Women: The Untold Story on NOVA Online, “Much research is now focused on identifying factors that affect the onset of eating disorders among African-American women. It seems that eating disorders may relate to the degree to which African-American women have assimilated into the dominant American social milieu — that is, how much they have adopted the values and behaviors of the prevailing culture.” NOVA Online is the Internet outlet for the outstanding NOVA series aired on public broadcasting stations around the U.S. If authors Marian Fitzgibbon and Melinda Stolley are correct, it is reasonable to assume that this adaptation of prevailing culture is hurting our girls and young women in other ways as well.

Every black woman born after 1900 knows that the one physical characteristic that causes us the greatest stress is our hair. A black woman will spend eight hours or more in a beauty parlor at least one Saturday of every month so that she can feel as though she looks fabulous. For many of us, a weekly visit to our favorite stylist is a must. Our grandmothers did it, our mothers did it, we do it and we’ve bullied our daughters into doing the same thing. Our goal is to emerge from that place of pain, sweat and tears with bone-straight, appropriately curled or waved hair by any means necessary.

An article in the September 2006 issue of Black Enterprise Magazine states that one black-owned Fantastic Sam’s franchise in Matteson, Illinois expected revenues of $450,000 by the end of that year. Johnny Williams, the franchisee, said, “The typical African American female gets her hair done weekly . . . Weekly clients generate a lot of revenue for a hair salon.” It would seem so. Black Enterprise estimates total industry sales at $55 billion and that figure is expected to grow, “driven by both the youth market, with its disposable income, and image-conscious baby boomers wanting to keep their look current,” Williams adds.

This habit is further fueled by magazines like Sophisticate’s Black Hair Styles and Care Guide, Hype Hair, Black Beauty & Hair, the British magazine BlackHair and the Dutch-language publication Black Expressions.

The Internet has entered the game on a very strong footing as well. In addition to online sites for print media, there are also sites with no tactile complement. These include Jazma.com, Internet presence of one of the world’s best black salons, Jazma Hair, Inc. in Toronto, Canada; a very robust section on black hair care at iVillage.com; famed Florida stylist Dwayne Pressley; the black hair care catch-all-and-everything site, BlackHairMedia.com, and; two sections on About.com about black hair care–one for whites who adopt black and mixed-race children and another for black women.

Both black hair care magazines and web sites promote an image of black women who have long, straight hair, even if that means gluing synthetic or human hair strands to their own, shorter, hair. A case in point is the May 2007 23rd Anniversary issue of Sophisticate’s Black Hair Styles where the editors have chosen “The 10 Best Styled Women of 2007.” The winner is singer Mary J. Blige who sports long, light brown hair with blonde tinting. Fellow singers Beyoncé and Kellis, one of only two in the list with short hair, round out the top three. Also making the list are the usual suspects: actress Gabrielle Union; media mogul Oprah Winfrey; talk show host/former supermodel Tyra Banks, and; Oscar-winning actress Halle Berry. Singer/actress/American Idol winner Fantasia is the only other woman with short hair. With the exception of Oprah, none of the women could be considered what we in American black culture like to call “thick” or “heavy.” Where is Oscar-winner/American Idol loser Jennifer Hudson’s “Effy” to Beyoncé’s “Deena,” their respective characters from the 2006 Oscar-winning movie Dreamgirls? If ever there was a real woman’s “It” girl, Hudson is the one!

There is a very small glimmer of hope for those of us who choose to wear short and/or natural hair. Almost all black hair care magazines and web sites have a small section for us. They are usually pretty thin on content, but at least they are there. The exception is the web site Nappturality.com geared specifically toward women who wear their hair naturally and love it–or are learning to. According to the home page, “Here you will find photos of all natural styles, comb coils, two-strand twists, afro puffs, afros, dredlocks (dreadlocks), locs and many other natural styles. Styled by napptural-haired women on their own hair. . . Nappturality is all about embracing your NAPPtural, natural hair. Many, many thousands of African American women and women of African descent all over the world have stopped relaxing their hair and are wearing their natural hair proudly. All have different reasons for doing it — damage, scalp problems, illness, hair loss, finances, curiosity or maybe simply being tired of wasting all day Saturday waiting in a salon. Others saw someone on the train wearing a fierce set of locs, coils or twists and started to rethink their choices.” Members write of their journeys to natural hair, there are hair maintenance tips, product suggestions and, yes, lots of photos, particularly in the forums. Most of all, this is a site where women can get affirmation for their decision to go natural. In a world choking with long-haired, straight-haired blondes of African-descent, Nappturality.com is a breath of very fresh air.

A site of interest for those of us curious about the meanings and origins of our fascination with all things hair can be found at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania. The American Mosaic Project–a field study research program in American multicultural studies–hosts “a collection of verbal and visual representations of African American women’s styles” under the banner Sunday Morning Celebration. The representations include articles about church; hats and fashion; music, and, of particular interest; hair.

“African American women’s search for societal acceptance often encompasses struggle between natural and socially constructed ideas of beauty. As an essential component in traditional African societies, cosmetic modification is ritualized to emphasize natural features of blackness. Defined by social occasion such as childhood development to maturity, indicators of marital status or the group to which you belong, beautification of the hair and body play an essential role. In our racially conscious society, presenting a physical image and being accepted is a complex negotiation between two different worlds,” begins the section about black hair.

It seems evident that black women are searching–longing–for acceptance, but from whom? The majority European-descendant population in the U.S. and Europe have a distinct need to see themselves even if that “self” has a black face. DiversityInc.com suggests that it may be very necessary for future and current employees to adopt straight hair in order to get and keep a job in some instances in the succinctly-titled article “Your Hair or Your Job?.”

“Many black people have grown more comfortable with embracing hairstyles that emphasize the characteristics of their hair, and corporate America increasingly is more accepting of braids and short afros. But traditionally conservative industries such as banking and law still may turn you down if you don’t look like what they perceive as executive material. Wearing braids or dreadlocks could be the deciding factor in whether you get the job—and, if you do get hired, getting promoted,” says the article. That is racism.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published a new Compliance Manual in April 2006 based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the new rules, Section 15 defines racial discrimination to encompass: ancestry; physical characteristics; race-linked illness; culture (emphasis added); perception; association; subgroup or “race plus” (see the link for a definition), and; reverse.

Furthermore, the Manual states that appearance and grooming standards “generally must be neutral, adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, consistently applied to persons of all racial and ethnic groups, and, if the standard has a disparate impact, it must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” In elucidating this requirement, the Manual specifically mentions hair.

“Employers can impose neutral hairstyle rules – e.g., that hair be neat, clean, and well-groomed–as long as the rules respect racial differences in hair textures and are applied evenhandedly. For example, Title VII prohibits employers from preventing African American women from wearing their hair in a natural, unpermed “afro” style that complies with the neutral hairstyle rule. Title VII also prohibits employers from applying neutral hairstyle rules more restrictively to hairstyles worn by African Americans.” (EEOC Compliance Manual, April 19, 2006. Viewed 05/14/2007.)

An article about the new rules on a web site belonging to defendants’ law firm Ford & Harrison, LLC analyzes the rules and reminds its clients, “[W]hile employers may establish policies regulating hairstyles, such policies must be equitably enforced and should acknowledge differences in hair textures.” In other words, companies cannot refuse to hire black folks because they don’t like hair worn naturally and expect no repercussions.

The reasons for choosing to wear one’s hair in a particular style are complex. Many of us have been brainwashed to believe that anything that resembles whites must be the way toward all good things in life. Others enjoy their masochistic journeys into beauty salon hell every week and don’t mind the burning, dry, itchy scalp and damaged hair they will inevitably suffer as a result of chemical straighteners. Where else can we get someone to pamper us for hours on end, even if we do have to sit and wait and wait and wait until our favorite operator finishes gabbing with her quadruple-booked other favorite client to get to us? I have abandonment issues, balance problems and a short fuse. For me, the entire lonely and unsure obstacle course of hair dryers, hydraulic lift chairs, sinks, curling irons, hair rollers and the like would be like watching paint dry on a beige wall. Therefore, like Aulelia, our guest columnist, I wear my hair in a natural, although very short, style that is more indicative of who I am.

To those who choose to have their hair straightened so that they hatch from their salon incubators looking like somewhat more curvy white women, have at it. Add to the revenues of a black business owner! But, for goodness sakes, think about what you’re doing, why you’re doing it and what you’d like your style to convey about you. Everyone’s style is, ultimately, unique and you don’t have to justify your actions or apologize to anyone. Nevertheless, before you commit to a signature look, maybe it’s best to decide for yourself if black beauty is kinky or straight.

Technorati Tags: african-american, celebrities, discrimination, hair