D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.

The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?  

Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.

Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election. 

I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.

As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important. 

In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice. 

So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Ghana’s mission to have the United Nations recognize the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement as the gravest crime against humanity is a historic milestone. The resolution adopted on March 25, 2026, with 123 out of about 180 countries in support, marks a major step toward global acknowledgement of the brutality and inhumanity of slavery. A 2022 report by the Equal Justice Initiative, “The Transatlantic Slave Trade,” highlights how during the slave trade, Africans who were enslaved had no rights, freedom, recognition or protection under the law. They had no voice, no bodily autonomy, no respected identity and could be brutally violated with no legal protection. This history represents a grave crime against humanity.

In my opinion, Ghana and the other countries that voted in favor are entirely right to say that such historic events cannot be sanitized or reduced to diplomatic language. Recognition is the first step towards accountability. This matter is important because it is arguably the foundation of the modern-day injustice and inequality people experience, including wealth inequality, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and queerphobia.

The double standard

Yet, despite this important step on the world stage, Ghana’s commitment to human rights appears inconsistent. The same government advocating for justice for enslaved Africans is enacting laws that jeopardies the rights of Africans today. This contradiction between Ghana’s international stance and its domestic policies is at the heart of the discussion.

In February 2026, the Ghanaian parliament formally received the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. The bill is a grave threat to the rights to nondiscrimination, protection under the law, privacy and freedom of association, assembly, and expression. It expands criminalization of LGBTQ+ people, and anyone associated with them. This Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill calls for a three-year imprisonment for anyone who identifies as LGBTQ+, anyone who has gender affirming treatment, anyone who enters into a same-sex marriage or attends a same-sex wedding and anyone who promotes equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. It turns enforcement into a societal obligation rather than just a state function, encouraging people to report anyone who looks suspicious or different. This further legitimizes the brutal attacks on LGBTQ+ people socially, which leaves the people of Ghana with blood on their hands.  

Ghana’s proposed and reintroduced anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is said to be among the most restrictive in the world and will result in the inhumane treatment of LGBTQ+ people. It not only further criminalizes consensual same-sex relations but also targets civil society organizations that are perceived to be supporting equal rights for LGBTQ+ people. So, if this law passes, it will be illegal to support equal rights and challenge the inhuman treatment of queer Ghanaians and allies. Is this not a double standard? Ghana seeks justice for the ill-treatment of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade but is actively in the process of seeking to harm its own people.

This is not theoretical harm; it is practical harm. According to the Human Rights Watch, LGBTQ+ people in Ghana already face systemic stigma, discrimination, harassment and violence, often enabled by both legal frameworks and social stigma, resulting in a hostile climate.

Ghana falls short of upholding human rights at home

On the global stage, Ghana is arguing that the dehumanization of Africans through slavery was so severe that it constitutes the gravest possible violation of human dignity. This argument rests on a core principle that reducing people to less than fully human is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Back at home, the state is endorsing laws that do exactly that to LGBTQ+ people. Criminalizing identity, suppressing expression, clamping down on civic space, monitoring and surveilling citizens and advocating for social exclusion. These are elements of dehumanization signaling that some are less deserving of protection, dignity, respect, and justice. That is the definition of a double standard.

Supporters of these laws often frame homosexuality as un-African, but this claim does not hold up under scrutiny. In his article, “The ‘Deviant’ African Genders That Colonialism Condemned”, Mohammed Elnaiem emphasizes that historical and anthropological evidence shows that diverse sexualities and gender expressions existed across African societies long before colonial rule. Ironically, many of the laws used to criminalize LGBTQ+ people today trace directly back to the colonial-era. This is even supported by the African Court, which, in December 2020, through its Advisory opinion, made it clear that these colonial-era laws are discriminatory and perpetuated marginalization. The African Court also called on African states to take action in this regard.

It is no secret that anti-rights actors are actively operating in Ghana and supporting leaders to advance their anti-rights agenda. They are increasingly organized, visible, well-funded, and influential in shaping state policy. The upcoming 4th African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family and Sovereignty, scheduled to take place in Accra from May 27-30, 2026, is a clear example of this coordination. The conference endorses the so-called African Charter on Family Values, a deeply contested initiative that frames LGBTQ+ people as a threat to children and positions queer identities as foreign ideologies. This platform is being used to legitimize and advance anti-LGBTIQ+ legislation, restrict comprehensive sexuality education and roll back sexual and reproductive health rights. In this context, the treatment of LGBTQ+ people in Ghana cannot be viewed as isolated policy choices, but rather as part of a broader coordinated anti-rights agenda that normalizes and legalizes discrimination. It fuels increasingly inhumane conditions for queer communities and civil society. Ghana is simultaneously rejecting colonial injustice in one breath while enforcing colonial-era morality laws in another.

There is also a legal inconsistency worth noting. Ghana’s own Constitution guarantees the right to life, protection from violence, the right to personal liberty, the right to human dignity, equality and freedom from discrimination and the right to a fair trial. Yet, in practice these rights are not equally applied to LGBTQ+ individuals. Depriving equal rights to LGBTQ+ persons is the same as what the slave owners did to slaves.

You cannot build a credible human rights position on selective application

To be clear, recognizing slavery as a crime against humanity is not diminished by pointing out this contradiction. Both truths can coexist: the UN resolution is a victory and Ghana’s domestic policies remain deeply troubling. In fact, holding both realities together is necessary if the language of human rights is to mean anything at all. Ghana has taken a powerful stand on the global stage. The question now is whether it is willing to apply that same moral clarity at home.

Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a human rights activist.

Colombian artist José Medina, known professionally as José Miel, 34, originally from Bogotá, is going through one of the most complex moments of his public career. Following his exit from “La casa de los famosos Colombia,” his name has been placed at the center of a controversy that has gone beyond the realm of entertainment and into a broader terrain: the debate over freedom of expression, diversity, and the limits of dissent within a society that defines itself as inclusive.

Miel is not an improvised figure. His trajectory in music, acting, and television reflects a sustained process of training, work, and exposure across different platforms. He participated in “Yo me llamo” (2019) and “La Descarga” (2022), establishing himself as a versatile artist within the Colombian entertainment industry. His career has been built through effort, in an industry that does not guarantee permanence without discipline.

However, the recent focus is not on his artistic work, but on his statements.

On March 15, the program “La Red” on Caracol Televisión released an interview on its digital platforms in which the singer spoke openly about the difficult moment he is facing, stating that his words — referring to comments he made after leaving “La casa de los famosos” — “cost him dearly.” His opinions on Pride, inclusive language, and the LGBTQ acronym triggered an immediate and polarized reaction.

From that moment on, the debate moved beyond the content of his words and opened another angle that cannot be overlooked.

Miel is known for the precision, firmness, and clarity with which he expresses his ideas. He is not an improvised artist, neither in discourse nor on stage. However, amid this controversy, a question also arises — one that deserves consideration from a journalistic standpoint:

What was the intention of the journalist, commentator, or media outlet that posed the questions leading to these statements?

This is not about shifting responsibility for what was said, but about understanding the context in which it occurred. At a moment in his career marked by multiple opportunities and projects, Miel’s responses placed him at the center of a controversy with real consequences.

In that sense, it is worth asking whether these were genuine questions within an open dialogue, or whether they followed a more provocative line, aimed at generating headlines or exposing the interviewee in a sensitive terrain.

This is not a minor question.

In media environments where every word can be amplified, the role of the one asking the questions is also part of how the story is constructed.

Within this context, this outlet held a phone conversation with the artist this Wednesday in order to gather his position directly. What follows are his responses to three central themes: the consequences of his words, his identity, and his call for respect.

Regarding the personal cost of expressing his opinion, Miel was clear:

You are now paying a high price for speaking your mind.

Do you regret having spoken out, or do you still believe your voice is non-negotiable?

Response:

“I believe that as human beings we all know that giving an opinion on any topic will bring problems. That’s the problem with society: it doesn’t respect other people’s opinions, because many think they are always right, and that’s not the case. Everyone has their reasons, everyone has their opinions, and those must be respected — even if you disagree.

What I expressed was an opinion without discrimination, without harming anyone, without stepping on anyone. And yet the opposite has been done to me: I’ve been trampled on, harmed, threatened, sent very ugly messages, harassed, hate coming from everywhere.

I knew what I was getting into. I knew what could happen. But I am proud of myself. I am proud of my conviction, and I will defend it until the end, because I truly believe in what I said. I do not regret it.”

When addressing his stance on labels, Pride, and how he defines himself, the artist stated:

You say you don’t identify with certain expressions of Pride or with the acronym.

So how do you define who you are, without labels or molds?

Response:

“Well, I don’t identify with Pride marches because they don’t represent me at all. They would represent me if they were respectful and appropriate, because many families attend — children, grandparents, parents … everyone is there.

And it’s quite disrespectful to see many people — not all, I emphasize — exposing their bodies, wearing very little clothing, drinking alcohol, intoxicated, using drugs. I don’t think that’s the way I would seek respect and equality.

I don’t like the term LGBTIQ+ community or all the letters that keep being added, because I feel that these acronyms make people discriminate more. I understand why they exist, because I know that what is not named does not exist, but I feel it is not the right way.

To me, everyone is part of society. We are human beings.

I don’t have labels or molds. I am a man, I am homosexual, and that’s it. The fact that I wear makeup or more feminine clothing is part of my artistic work, part of the stage. My everyday life is completely different.”

Finally, when referring to the reactions he has received, Miel insisted on a point that runs throughout his position:

You speak about respect, yet you’ve received attacks even from within the same community. What do you say today to those who call for inclusion but do not respect when someone thinks differently?

Response:

“I realized that the same community discriminates against itself. Many gay people have written to support me, telling me how brave I am, that they think the same way but don’t dare to speak.

To those who disagree with my opinion, I say: respect it, even if you don’t like it. You can express your opinion because we live in a free country, but do it with arguments, from your perspective, without stepping on others.

Because that is not the way.

I understand the struggles, I understand what is being sought, but I feel that if other ways of fighting were heard, many things could be achieved through respect and equality.

Everyone is free to think and say what they want — but always with respect. It’s that simple.”

Beyond his statements, what the artist is currently facing was also exposed in the March 15 interview on “La Red.” In that space, Miel described in his own words what he called a “string of problems”: constant harassment on social media, direct threats, hate messages, canceled performances, loss of contracts, and stalled projects due to external pressure and boycott warnings.

This situation not only highlights the media impact of his words, but also the material consequences that expressing an opinion can have in today’s digital environment.

His statements also drew reactions from the political sphere. Colombian Congressman Mauricio Toro wrote on social media:

“Hate and discrimination are learned. Sometimes they are so deeply rooted that they turn against oneself. José Miel, neither you nor I have anything to hide or to be ashamed of. Being free and loving without fear is the greatest thing you can experience as a human being.”

However, this position was also criticized. A significant number of users — even those who do not agree with the artist’s statements — have insisted that his right to express his views must be respected, pointing to a growing tension between inclusive discourse and tolerance for dissent.

The case of José Miel goes beyond a media controversy. It reflects a broader reality: the difficulty of sustaining respect when opinions do not align, even within spaces that promote diversity.

In a context where social media amplifies every stance, reactions to difference become immediate and, in many cases, disproportionate.

Beyond individual positions, what happened raises a deeper question:

Is it possible to speak of inclusion if we are not capable of respecting difference?

The philosopher Voltaire left behind an idea that remains relevant:

“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That is the point.

Because if a society is not capable of upholding the right of others to express themselves — even when it is uncomfortable — then it is not building inclusion; it is merely managing agreement.

And in that scenario, the case of José Miel stops being an isolated episode.

It becomes a test.

A test of how far we are willing to go in respecting others when they do not think like us.

Support does not mean agreement.

In this case, support means something more basic and more necessary: defending the right to exist, to think, and to express oneself without being destroyed for it.