Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Zimbabwe rejects gay rights, says gay people will be imprisoned

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The only way to get through is by literally cutting ALL aid from the country and evicting Zim from the UN a la Apartheid South Africa until such time as it sorts out its human rights on this as well as other issues. That means COMPLETE AND UTTER EMBARGO – NO EXPORTS – NO IMPORTS. Then the people will rise up and will deal with Zanu PF as they need to. As long as the International community keeps bailing them out, they give the regime the chance to survive. Please can UK have a complete moratorium on Gay asylum seekers from Zimbabwe being sent back.

    1. The saddest thing is, for Zimbabweans straight, gay, black, white, young, old, is that the white supremacist government led by the late Ian Smith forecast that economic chaos and the widespread suppression of liberty would follow on after majority rule.
      How appalling that the freedom-fighters, now in power, are proving him right

      1. There was widespread suppression of liberty in Rhodesia too, both in the colonial and the republican periods. You implicitly acknowledge this yourself, with your (correct) description of Rhodesia as “white supremacist”. For that reason I would question Ian Smith’s idea of liberty. If it meant the liberty to keep the “blacks” in their place – something which Smith and his governent concentrated their efforts on – then of course Ian Smith will have been proved right when he complained of a lack of liberty.

        BTW what was the status of LGBT rights in Rhodesia?

        None of this should be taken as defence of the Mugabe regime which has betrayed the hopes and aspirations of all Zimbabweans – and the many progressives around the world who initially supported Mugabe.

        1. Just to clarify in my last post that the betrayal referred to in the last paragraph *includes* betrayal of progressives around the world, as well as Zimbabweans. The ambiguous punctuation could (t a stretch) be read as conveying the opposite meaning, which was definitely not my intention.

    2. But sadly there is no international community with the balls to demand a stop to all aid. David Cameron is far to scared to do it because he will be called nasty names. Barack Obama is too scared to do it because he may not be re-elected. Some world leaders agree with the human rights abuses and others seem to think that it would only affect those who rely on the aid to survive.

      Sadly those who rely on the aid only see a tiny portion of it anyway because the state and the church take their cut first leaving nothing for those who need it. Even if we stop all aid there is enough grain locked up in church barns to keep the country going for years anyway.

  2. Robert Mugabe also didn’t believe HIV was the cause of AIDS. Isn’t this also the country where men ape lesbians believing that will make them straight. Also, they believe that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Obviously, these people’s bigotry is based in ignorance.
    I agree with the comment that ALL foreign aid from civilized countries such as U.S., Canada, European countries should stop until things change.

  3. If it wasn’t for the tragedy for the people involved in Zimbabwe this would be good PR for LGBT. To be opposed by Mugabe and his gang is a great recomendation.

    1. Keith Farrell 22 May 2012, 11:46am

      most of the more intelligent Zimbabweans have left the country, shame really because it was such a beautiful country with such nice people. but what do you expect, Mugabe (garbage) has destroyed the countries economy, stolen billions and lives in a bunker (so I have herd) has doubles running around to make him look good, has ordered concrete boots for his rivals, look in kareba dam

  4. Is anybody surprised? It’s Zimbabwe – hardly a shining beacon for human rights. They blame half of the misfortunes of the world on gay people – they’re not suddenly going to be altruistic or supportive.

    1. It’s not a shining beacon for anything positive. One of the potentially most prosperous countries in Africa now reduced to being a basket case by the arrogant old thug, and he pretends to be concerned about homosexuality.Mugabe has the Midas touch in reverse.

      This is his way of having a pop at Cameron and his many other critics in the west. Still he won’t be there for long now. Wonder if his henchman have their excuses and explanations ready.

      1. A pity he will be replaced due to natural forces rather than democratic ones. Despite that he will be ;icky, if you think about what happened to his friends Sir Nicolae and Lady Elena Ceausescu…

          1. although he might well wish he was the former…

      2. I am reminded of the joke What did Zimbabwe have before candles? Electricity.

        Under Mugabe’s rule the entire country has leapt back by around 100 years.

  5. Errol Semple 21 May 2012, 11:29pm

    Barbarians.

    1. Staircase2 22 May 2012, 2:16am

      Can I just point out that the Barbarians were European…
      (both literally – and historically…)

      1. Actually the term originated from Greece meaning “anyone who is not Greek.”

        1. Cardinal BoomBangaBangBangILuvU 22 May 2012, 6:46pm

          I think it means someone who sports a beard, and was coined by the Romans, who shaved and were thus civilised.

  6. The America anti-gay Christians have been very busy in Africa making sure that the gays are oppressed and that they spread HIV/AIDS which was made in an America lab by Christian CIA scientist working on biological warfare and population control. Google the fact that Harvard, a Catholic college is buying land in Africa now the size of France and as soon as they kill all the blacks they will own Africa.

    1. Staircase2 22 May 2012, 2:15am

      That does all sound remarkably paranoid to be honest…

      Do I believe that its possible that someone created HIV/AIDS to aid warfare? Yes
      Do I believe that its possible this was done purely so that Harvard bloody University could take over Zimbabwe?
      ….er…No…(‘Catholic’ or not…)

      The West ALREADY bloody well ‘owns’ Africa in very real terms…
      Do you have any idea how vast Africa is? (Its not a Country you know…) To even BEGIN to kill all the people there is a pretty daft idea. Capitalism seeks to HARVEST people – it only destroys what it CAN’T harvest. None of this makes huge sense to be honest…

      1. Keith Farrell 22 May 2012, 11:48am

        I think most of Africa has been brought by China, they are bankrolling Zimbabwe

    2. I know exactly what you are driving at, having fallen asleep on the Tube and woken up in Dagenham, some distance after my intended stop.

    3. Tyler,

      Medication.

      Seriously.

      Now.

    4. Tyler, you can help stop this CIA plot, its easy.
      There is a button on your computer marked ‘POWER’, press it NOW.
      It helps to make them go away.

    5. Paddyswurds 22 May 2012, 12:04pm

      Aids was probably a mutation of a disease similar to cat aids that infected Green Monkeys in large parts of Africa and discovered in the late 20s. The green monkeys were and still are a huge source of bush meat. Bush meat was and still is smuggled into other countries and that was so with Jamaica. In turn Gay men from New York to Miami holidayed in Jamaica and it was the down market “Fire Island” of it’s day and those holidaying Gay men brought the first appearance of what turned out to be HIV to the US around the late sixties. There was no mad scientist at the CIA.
      What mad scientist was going to invent a disease that meant he himself had a good chance of infection if he ever ever had sex again. Possible I suppose.
      Anyway, no conspiracy. Just a natural mutation or evolution of a common disease….

  7. Is anyone else finding the constant stories of OUR brothers and sisters being tortured and mistreated hard on their mental health? It’s wearing me down, it really is I feel helpless and upset

  8. I don’t even know why they bothered giving Mugabe a knife and fork, the man’s a savage. Though he sat comfortably enough after receiving buillions of subsidies and grants. John’s comments are correct, withdraw every bit of funding from this corrupt and oppressive regime until the amend their thinking.

    1. Keith Farrell 22 May 2012, 11:49am

      not going to effect Mugabe, he already has those billions in is swiss bank account

  9. Mugabe’s last breath on this planet is awaited by so many! No revolutionary hero, just another heterosexual thug!

    1. Ivor Putnam 22 May 2012, 5:31am

      Brenton you summed it up so beautifully. That man is a murderer and should not have the privelege of being alive. The day draweres closer, and many ….many people wait for that day. Start resting in peace Robert.

  10. What was the point of spending all those tax dollars on ordinance and stealth bombers and nuclear submarines if not to rid the world of governments that violate human rights? Where’s the return on investment in creating all those high-tech weapons? Let’s get the military to do what it is trained and paid to do. And if the entire military doesn’t want to do it, I’m certain there are enough GLBT and Allied soldiers/experts who would gladly carry out such missions for the military. And taxpayers would get their money’s worth whilie eliminating governments that violate human rights.

    1. Paddyswurds 22 May 2012, 12:17pm

      Danny……..
      ……..Sol let’s see here, you would put the world to rights by being an even bigger thug. Let me guess ..You are an American, from a country that has the biggest human rights abuses than any developed country on the Planet, and where religious fundamentalism is turning education back 700 years, where an average 3000 young boys and men are driven to suicide yearly.. how many gay boys and men committed suicide in all of Africa last year? Less than twenty.
      Care to comment there big lad?

  11. Simply cut all aid to the Zimbabwe Government instead give as much help and aid to LGBT organisations fighting homophobia and anti-gay actions and other humanitarian groups in the country. Mugabe has prostrate cancer and is expected to die this year.

  12. This is a sad news. When the country is ruled by tyrant, there is injustice everywhere.

  13. What an appalling government. So far to go before they can be considered somewhat civilised.

  14. GulliverUK 22 May 2012, 9:19am

    The government does have better measures to deal with this now. As far as I understand it they fund quarterly rather than annually, which means they can stop funding more quickly. The government funds NGOs (not associated with governments), and projects via the Zimbabwe government. The latter part is known as “bilateral support”, and it’s this part that will be cut in response to statements like this — assuming we’re still even providing any bilateral support to them. When it is cut from bilateral support they said they would then find other NGOs and fund more of those directly – so that aid still reaches those who need it, but directly, rather than via the government of that country.

    What would be helpful is if OUR government actually told us what they’re doing – although I understand if the negotiations or discussions are ongoing and confidential. But I think, as citizens of the UK we have a right to know.

  15. not sure how effective cutting all aid will be. lack of education and associated with it poverty are main reasons behind homophobic attitudes within zimbabwean society. hungry people want food not gay rights and gay people will be blamed for hunger caused by cutting the aid. i can see more backlash against zimbabwean’ s lgbt as a result

  16. Shocking and appalling regime in Zimbabwe.

    Mugabe invited the U.N. human rights chief in hopes of clearing his government, which for years has been accused of being a gross violator of human rights. Civil society groups say Pillay will not see Zimbabwe’s actual human rights situation during her visit.

    Dr John Sentamu called Mugabe “the worst kind of racist dictator”. I agree with him. I would also call him the worst type of homophobic dictator and an abuser of all human rights. Is it surprising that the Archbishop did not point out homophobia or other human rights abuses? No

    Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for nearly three decades and has led it, in that time, from impressive success to the most dramatic peacetime collapse of any country since Weimar Germany.

    Mugabe has also robbed much of Zimbabwes resources for his own personal benefit. An official from Chatham House suggested that Mugabe was unlikely to leave Zimbabwe, but that if he were to leave, he might go to Malaysia,

    1. where some believe that he has “stashed much of his wealth”

      The Times charged that on 12 June 2008, Mugabe’s Militia murdered Dadirai Chipiro, the wife of Mugabe’s political opponent, Patson Chipiro, by burning her alive with a petrol bomb after severing her hands and feet.

      People I am no fan of (John Sentamu quoted above) and Lord Tebbit have castigated Mugabe for his immoral and cruel dictatorship and his racist and abhorrent abuse of his country. This article by Lord Tebbit is very interesting:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1024058/Lord-Tebbit-We-need-lectures-Robert-Mugabe–hes-mad-dog-legs.html

  17. Another Hell Hole.

    I keep wishing all lgbt people would just leave and be brought to the west. Let these countries crumble away.

    Sadly in these places lgbt people are amongst the worst off if we make things harder while they are still there they will be the first to suffer and their lives would be unsustainable.

  18. Zimbabwe, piloted by Robert Mugabe, has travelled back in time. Once one of the most prosperous countries in Africa and a magnet for economic migrants from all over the continent, it now faces a cholera epidemic, the staggering devaluation of its currency, political oppression and violence. Leaders in Africa and beyond are calling for help, and in some cases even outside intervention”, even the African Union has called for him to surrender his grip on power. What form an intervention would take is, however, unclear. What kinds of international laws and customs allow States to intervene, and how do these same laws and customs restrain them?

    When it comes to Africa, the international community is paralysed by experiences of the last decade. We do not want another Rwanda – to sit idly by while genocide occurs ” and yet action in response to Sudan has been slow and indecisive, hampered in part by disagreements in the UN Security Council. There is a thin line to walk when it comes to

    1. weighing up intervention in Zimbabwe. Mugabe is not directly threatening his neighbours or anyone else, but his policies are having a devastating impact on his people and the region. The Rwandan genocide looked like a sudden explosion from where we were sitting, but the seeds had been planted decades earlier, with tensions simmering and finally reaching boiling point with Hutu militia massacring Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands. The West was slow to react, and this paralysis was a crippling blow to the new world optimism of the 1990s.

      In Zimbabwe, it looks like the cholera outbreak may be the final straw in a recent plunge into chaos, and yet Mugabe has been politically ruthless for decades. He has systematically eliminated his opponents and masterminded campaigns of intimidation, leaving him king of the castle and the only ruler since independence. The oppression of his people began many years ago, and the disastrous land reform over the last decade has taken food from

    2. everybody’s mouths, relying heavily on a rhetoric of anti-colonialism that he still uses today. Now the time has come that even his friends and neighbours at the table will no longer let him use it. Mugabe’s grip on power borders on the psychotic, and until now nobody has tried to make him leave. South Africa’s former President Thabo Mbeki failed , treating Mugabe like an eccentric uncle he wished not to offend by suggesting it may be time to put down his wine glass and leave the party. But how much can the international community, and his neighbours, actually do?

      Humanitarian law is for the most part concerned with the law of combat and the treatment of victims. Its legal roots are in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which make provisions for, among other things, the humane treatment of prisoners. Humanitarian intervention is an offshoot of this set of laws and customs, and is defined as the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or group of states) aimed at

    3. preventing or ending widespread and grave violations of the fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.

      Humanitarian intervention lies on the fault lines of a central debate in international relations, trying to balance the promotion of human rights and the rights to life with the seemingly opposing ideal of State sovereignty, the basic building block of the international system. So how far is intervention a legitimate exception to the supremacy of sovereignty? The two corners of the debate in international theory are the solidarist and the pluralist views of intervention. Pluralists maintain that sovereignty should preclude any intervention from other states, with solidarists arguing that sovereignty can and should be subsumed under the interests of human rights — indeed that it is our duty to intervene to reduce suffering.

      After Rwanda, the international community had tacitly

    4. agreed not to repeat the experience and to adopt a more solidarist approach, to promote the moral duty to protect and uphold human rights and intervene in those states that fail to protect these rights. This has been commonly evoked since the end of the Cold War: intervention in a State that has violated the human rights of its citizens – not only on moral grounds but also on the grounds that such undermine regional security and, by extension, the international community. But this policy has always been checked by political interests. Under the human rights argument, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had apparent justification. However, the US case for intervention may have been more convincing if their targeting of human rights violations were not so laughably selective. The invasion of Iraq has been widely condemned as illegal under international law, as it was done without UN authorisation. The selective blind spots States have in dealing with human rights violations in one country

    5. while turning a blind eye to others, sometimes for sound regions like global stability, has made the practice of humanitarian intervention seem like organised hypocrisy.

      In international relations, the system of states has its own logic, governed by national interests. This may be a bitter pill to swallow given all the international efforts to the contrary, but it is logical for states to look after their own interests. One must also remember that, until fairly recently, countries did not have to explain to others why they wished to protect their interests or how. International institutions only have as much power as States give them” like fairies, they may cease to exist if States stop believing in them. The building-block of the international system is sovereignty as defined by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. As such it is the responsibility of the State to be a benign provider for its citizens. The theory and practice of international society is centred on the struggle of

    6. moving beyond national interests to international ones, and the obstacles which stand in the way. Because a governments first responsibility is to its own citizens (if only for its own political survival) this is the major motivation for States’ behaviour. By the same token, a State that has so clearly failed its citizens loses its legitimacy to govern – in theory this failure should allow the international system to intervene. It is precisely this fact that is so difficult to reconcile with the concept of sovereignty. It is the role of international institutions to get States to act in the interests of the international community as well as its own, or at least find situations where national and international interests dovetail. Consensus is needed to confer legitimacy on intervention. It is precisely the unilateral nature of US intervention which has made a mockery of the attempt to act in consensus.

      The US’s unilateral moves over the past decade are unusual for our time, but much

    7. more in keeping with the way political history has played out. Human rights, international law, and the United Nations are part of the attempt to make the international system more benign – but these are also rightly still seen by many in the developing world as a continuation of Western politics by other means because the application of these norms has been patchy and selective. This brings us back to intervention and the African continent.

      Under the concept of international responsibility to protect adopted unanimously by world leaders (including Mugabe) at a UN world summit in New York in 2005, intervention in a state’s internal affairs is permitted in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and other mass atrocities, if that state is unwilling or unable to protect its own people. This responsibility places an actual obligation on governments, usually acting through international bodies such as the UN, to intervene in such cases.

      Conventional criticism

    8. accuses other States of not doing anything because they do not have strategic interests in Zimbabwe. But Zimbabwe has abundant national resources, more than enough to give the country and the region the economic prosperity it once had.

      A major argument for intervention in this case, notwithstanding the situation on the ground, is the fact that his people actually voted him out (if only by too small a margin to make it stick). Another is that the chorus of leaders calling for his end includes his erstwhile allies, and not just “Western colonialists”. As such the international community, should they act, has the blessing of neighbours which in the past may have rallied around Mugabe. A UN intervention would probably receive the support of Zimbabwe’s neighbours, which should be enough to tip the scale in favour of acting. Kenya’s president, The African Union, and African National Congress leader Jacob Zuma, have called for Mugabe to step down and called for foreign intervention if he

    9. does not resign. The African Union (AU) was the only organisation, until September 2005, with a mandate to intervene in member-states where “grave circumstances” are taking place such as war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The AU is somewhat constrained however in the wording of its mandate. It can intervene on two grounds: when a state has collapsed and its citizens livelihoods are gravely threatened or when invited by a state that is too weak to protect the livelihoods of its people.

      An internationally-sanctioned intervention could be made under the UN mandate by invoking Chapter VII (which deals with threats to peace) of the UN Charter. All the criteria for such an intervention are met in Zimbabwe. It has lost its sovereignty by failing to protect its civilians from loss of lives and livelihoods and all peaceful efforts to end the suffering of the Zimbabwean people seem to have been exhausted. Mugabe tried to hijack the last elections, and this is not even taking

    10. into account his cumulative political crimes since, and before, independence in 1980. The humanitarian and economic crises in Zimbabwe are directly linked to Mugabe’s disastrous policies. His policies have led to massive violence and death, displacements of people, damages to social and economic systems, acute food shortages, and overall threats to the livelihoods of the Zimbabwean people.

      Any intervention involving sanctions or armed force requires authorisation by the UN Security Council, meaning that were would have to be no opposition from any of the council’s five permanent veto-wielding members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The council has issued a statement condemning the violence and intimidation surrounding the last presidential elections, but the distance from there to making a resolution or sending in troops looks daunting.

      Force will have to be used as a last resort, as long as it is proportional, and may lead to a restoration of human security

    11. in the country. The AU must legitimise such an intervention. However, it would be reluctant to set such a precedent, and could insist on applying the cliche of ‘African solutions to African problems’.

      Perhaps the answer lies within Zimbabwe – some have argued that it is for Zimbabweans themselves to topple Mugabe. If people can hardly feed themselves and are afraid of the repercussions of rising up (and were too afraid not to vote for him), it is unlikely that they will manage to change anything themselves.

      There should be a Security Council resolution soon – if Zimbabwe turns into another Rwanda the R2P will have been useless, and it will harm future efforts for a more uniform policy of humanitarian intervention. It may be time for consistency.

      It is clearly time for the international community to act (its long past time). However, it requires will, determination and leadership. Is that available? Will be avoid another Rwanda?

      Based on an article by Alexa Van Sickle.

  19. de Villiers 22 May 2012, 12:18pm

    The stopping of all aid may cause worse problems.

    There is a proper argument that aid which is given to the government should be ended. However, direct food-aid and aid for direct medical assistance, drugs and equipment should continue.

    Otherwise, people will become even more reliant on President Mugabe and the government for basic food and healthcare needs, which will further entrench his power and that of his allies.

    1. Surely there are the grave circumstances alluded to in Neils comments above that require and necessitate AU and UN intervention in Zimbabwe?

  20. Disgusting.

    They shouldn’t receive any aid, and should lose their UN membership. Maybe sports federation memberships too.

    1. “Disgusting.”

      Yes, all bigotry is disgusting. The problem some people are too mucked up mentally to change, but instead go for stupid lies about their intelligence and puerile boo-hoo stories about how they’re vile human beings but its not their fault.

      Remind you of anyone, Lumi Bigot?

    2. Lumi, you are the same as Zimbabwe:- bigoted, hateful and prejudiced to others for no reason other than a self appointed dictate of what’s is “wrong” and “right” without any evidence. Disgusting is what you must see in the mirror every day.

  21. Cut Zimbabwe off. 100%!!! No more food aid, no more water, no more money, no more construction supplies, no more gas, nothing! Until they begin to improve their legal system and decriminalize homosexuality!

    1. Cardinal BoomBangaBangBangILuvU 22 May 2012, 6:48pm

      Wouldn’t it be easier just to arrest the old bugger?

      1. no because their legal system still discriminates against minorities. people over there need to be educated. arresting this one mofo won’t solve the problem…

  22. Cardinal BoomBangaBangBangILuvU 22 May 2012, 6:39pm

    Can’t be long before Mugabe pops his clogs, and then maybe things will begin to improve for EVERYONE in that benighted place.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all