Hey folks. I’m (finally) back. Gotta tell you about this crap I made. My lecturer gave me a very good info about ILGA’s call paper. But she told me exactly AFTER the LAST DAY. I was confused (WTH??) I texted her, and she said: JUST DO IT.
Okay ma’am. So with my retarded self at the moment, I search infos, esp at hrw.org (yeah I always do) and type for about 2 hours for 300 words abstract. Didn’t found an excellent idea, but the time ditched me. so here it is:
Framing the Puzzles
a comparison between LGBT cases in South Africa and Asia
Consensus is somewhat unconciously fundamental, even in LGBT cases. Let us see this illustration. Two cars are running in high speed and about to crush in an intersection. One driver is from Indonesia and the other one from US. The driver from Indonesia sent a dim. For Americans that means “You can go first”, and so that’s what the US driver did. But for the Indonesian guy, a dim means “Get off the way”. And as you may guess, both cars wrecked to pieces. A single sign, very simple, but with the opposite meaning, causes trouble. Newspaper may spotlight the crash, but the main problem is not the crash, no. The main problem is how a single misintrepeted sign could cause something unexpected, and yes, misfortune.
The same thing goes as no single framework can be applied everywhere, by all means. Therefore, it is simply essential to illustrate the core problem and the intrepetation in each cases. In LGBT cases, it simply implies to the role of the society and government, and especially, what actually does the LGBTs really need.
First thing first, analyzing the current situation by measuring the homophobic level might be crucial at some points. Learning by the cases in Southern Africa like Zimbabwe for example. Naturally NGOs who support LGBTs would most likely do campaign about human rights. But in Zimbabwe, especially in Robert Mugabe’s regime, seems like it’s useless. At that time Zimbabwe’s atmosphere isn’t so stable, and therefore the government would need a power settlement. One of the easiest way is to pursue the old power sources within society: the Church and certain community. And what Mugabe did was picking the shortcut: taking advantage of false HIV issue, and trigger homophobia society to gain power and trust . Well then, the NGOs might need plan B for their moves. In the other hand, LGBT problems might just pop everywhere, and anytime. Thus it could cause a distraction toward where the core problem lays.
In Asia, the problems might be different. In Singapore, LGBT teachers are fired from school and no positive representations are allowed in TV. In India, they become detainees, in Sri Lanka the government restricted internet, phone calls and NGOs . While in Taiwan the people start to open their hearts for LGBTs like what the Hotline of Taiwan Tongzhi did , but this is still a brief start. Other things that might look minor could really matters, such as local values and beliefs, local people’s paradigm, etc. As explained, each countries had different problem and situation, therefore even generally speaking about problems in one part of Asia might be very complicated already. Studying previous cases such as those happened to LGBTs in countries of Southern Africa might help to grasp the situation-analyzing idea better.
 Government Role in the Violation of LGBT Rights in Southern Africa. Marceline Yudith. 2008.
 Together, Apart: Human Rights Watch Report. 10/06/2009.
I’am so not sure by sending this. But yeah, nothing to loose with trying. Besides, it’s not so bad isn’t it? Or is it? >________<