Clovis and homophobic cartoons
Surely, there is always room for dissent. Every society must respect opposing points of view. That is the essence of every democracy. Yet dissent itself ought to ensure that it is productive, fair and without prejudice. Clovis, the Jamaica Observer cartoonist, is indeed talented. He often colourfully highlights important social issues being discussed within the public arena. Yet, while his pen describes reality, it also often prescribes a deadly dose of condemnation, specifically on the issue of homosexuality.
Clovis's pen leaks not only ink, but blood as well. His caricatures of homosexuals depict transvestite, cross-dressing males who seem to lack all sense of decorum and common grace, whose personality is cantankerous and belligerent. Is this the sum of the LBGT, or specifically, J-Flag community? Clovis seems to think so. Certainly, I appreciate an atmosphere of dissension and I am gleefully ready to express my divergent point of view. Hence, this is not a petition to confiscate Clovis's pen, but rather it is a clarion call to ask the cartoonist to check his conscience and his religious principles - which I am sure he invokes as he offers his disapproval - when creating his caricatures.
When he assails the LGBT community with his virulently homophobic sketches, he muzzles sensible debate by fanning the flames of the Bun Chic-chic man mentality. The most fatal consequence of Clovis's sketches, which is not readily apparent as the bright colours he uses, is the blood that drips from his stained paper. He emphasises a woefully inaccurate stereotype. I am not asking Clovis to paint J-FLAG or any gay lobby in a favourable light. My request is that his dissent should not encourage a bloodthirsty mob. It is one thing to disagree, but quite another to inject animus. The latter, I am sure, cannot possibly sit well with his religious values, or if the case may be, his secular morality.
John E Sabio
The sad part of the complaints is that the people complaining aren't cross dressers themselves but mostly members of the intelligencia, advocacy and those who stay away from engaging this very grouping and those who before now snubbed their very own noses at the same drag culture, and effeminacy what hypocrites are we? how convenient it has become to be used now as pro gay arguments? they stay away from events that may be directed at that community but now find it convenient to write letters about it, that is not to say this particular writer is one such person.