Recognition as a people
One of the innovative ideas of the recent gay nationalism movement was the suggestion to define the LGBT-community as a people and seek a recognition before the United Nations. This was apparently also the main motivation behind the selling of passports and citizenship certificates by the deceased GLK - to give some signs of cultural "homeland". Though the praxis was certainly ill-fated and didn't separate between affiliation to a state versus affiliation to a people, the idea behind it was pretty smart.
Jon Matlick, the former Lord Protector of the GLK has commented in our Caffé and brought it to the point:
[/color][...] It was a GOOD idea with a lot of potential. Not because it would give GLTBi people a place to escape and go live in isolation. Not because it was/is important to have a territory to claim as our own. It was a GOOD idea because IF “Official” recognition could have been achieved it would have given the Global GLTBi community a voice on the world stage.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 15 and 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, among others, could have been better enforced and violation prosecuted before the International Court of Justice. In my mind, THIS was the ultimate goal of gaining recognition as an Independent Nation and therefore the reason that a territory was important. This is why I stuck with the “Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea” for as long as I saw even a glimmer of hope that the goal might be achieved. [...]
In my reply, I have noted that it was then
not necessarily to claim a territory to seek recognition as a people:
[/color][...] a recognition by United Nations was/is an important part of the original project and its successors. Though I do not share your views about lacking necessity to be able to actually offer refuge to real human beings, I understand that it would be a greate step forward by a recognition as a people (not necessarily as a nation). You see, Sinty and Roma are peoples, not nations as well as many diverse minorities living abroad. All of them are in posession of passports of their host land, but they are protected as minorities. Is this a kind of status you would appreciate for the gay people? So why claim Cato? Wouldn't a rightfully acquired cattle farm serve much better? One can have different opinion about the real use of such level of recognition, and I am not sure that a tiny state on a tiny reef would change the situation for the gay people considerably. [...]
This point (being a people
independently from having a territory) is one of our central issues, I think. Indeed, the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" guarantees in its article 15: 1) the right to have a nationality and 2) the right to change one's nationality. Why shall we not define our own nationality and take advantage of our rights? There are no rules prescribing the procedure for definition of a nationalithy, in doubt the self-counsciousness certainly shall suffice.
The recognition as a people would hopefully lead to consolidation within the GLBT-community and strengthen our appearence to the world in generall. The self-counsciousness as a people will not only help in talks for our self-administered territory, it would lead to a higher cultural output and a rise in solidarity within the GLBT-communities.
The approach followed by the "Unified Gay Tribe" might be a good first attempt in this direction, if thought consequently as a definition of a
"tribe" and not a
"state", which it of course is not. Hovewer, the all-inclusive definition of this tribe is less helpful to actually determine what makes us different from other peoples, as till last developements
anybody non-homophobic could become member of this tribe. The same is true for the "Gay Commonwealth Kingdom". The political correctness is a good habit, but not a very practicable thing when you are describing a people and establishing a nation. I hate to write this here, but heterosexuals do
not belong to the primarily targeted groups - they are simply "not of the same blood". It would be
much more important to actually integrate gays and lesbians from outside of the US and Europe than care about heterosexual grandmothers and cousines. Much more attention must be paid to the needs of our brothers and sisters in the third world: for them it's not that much a question of equal jobs opportunities, but a simple question of life and death.
We will need a very serious discussion about the definition of our people. Are the gay and lesbian people affiliates of our new-defined people (likewise "tribe" or "nation") by the right of mere existence, or is a membership in a specified organization required? Isn't it completely illogical then that a heterosexual member of such an organization is a "tribe member" and a homosexual non-member is not? How comes that there are
various organizations claiming the exclusive right to represent the entire LGBT-population on this planet?
My answer to this dilemma is, that the "gay people" exists independently from any organization - just as roma and sinti do exist without the need to be formally "declared". The only thing we can do is, to try and describe this folk by it's peculiar customs and traditions and look forward strengthening it's self-consciousness as a people. It would be helpful as well if our people would have the possibility to affiliate to any of our regional/international groups under the common agende of being one folk, independently on organizatory structures. A (territorial) state requires a government, while a folk as such does not. A folk needs institutions, coordinating its cultural, political and economical developement and lobbying it's intersts on regional and international level. We must admit, that the GLBT-people already
has many such institutions on national and even few on international level. What we need is to make the next step and achieve a
new quality of this coordination - a true multi-lingual LGBT-community with
one central library,
one central archive and
one common history. Private initiative is a wonderfull thing, but some large projects require a "national effort" for their realization. All this we could achieve, even without having a state of our own - the self-consciousness as a people and smart management would suffice fully.
Imagine, how great our potential would increase, if we would have full access to our ressourcess in form of taxes in a country of our own. Though the self-administered LGBT-territory is not necessary to be recognized as a people, it would bring us significant progress both in cultural and humanitarian aspect and therefore should be one of our central goals, as well.
We should investigate the possibility of cooperation with ethnographic organizations which might turn out to be helpful on our struggle for public recognition as a people like any other. For example,
"The Society for threatened peoples", located in Göttingen/Germany, has a long history of human rights work in connection with endangered ethni - we should carefully contact them and ask for recognition as a people as well. This will be not easy, but upon some time we might succeed - and there are more organizations of this kind, and they form the public opinion step by step.
Website of
"The Society for threatened peoples":
http://www.gfbv.de/ (english version selector on the left upper corner);
List of peoples in question:
http://www.gfbv.de/bedrohte_voelker.php[/color]