Date:         Sun, 4 Aug 1996 09:28:48 +0200
From: Bjoern Skolander <skolander@BAHNHOF.SE>

REPORT II AUGUST 3, 1996 FROM HARARE, Report nr 7
by Mai Palmberg,
co-author of the report "Human Rights and Homosexuality in Southern
Africa"

Book fair finished without violence, and without GALZ

The Zimbabwe International Book Fair has, to everybody's relief, closed
its gates for this year without major violence. GALZ were, as I said in
my first report this morning, present and had a decorated stand. When I
saw it, or rather the crowd surrounding them, at noon there were fairly
aggressive young men right into their stand, even some standing on their
table, shouting at them, hardly a civilized way to visit a book fair.
The members of GALZ patiently answered questions and explained who
they are and why. Next time I passed their stand, however, in the late
afternoon, they were gone, and so was their stand. There had apparently
been a tense situation, when some guys had overturned their tables,
some of them were hit, and they feared that the situation  could get
out of hand, and chose to leave.

One can say, and GALZ will most probably say, that the security provided
was insufficient. But one must realize that it was difficult to get any
security initiatives from the authorities. One can hardly avoid concluding
that the government would have rejoiced if there had been violence and
chaos. The security guards employed by the book fair did their best,
but as one of them told me: "We are not used to public unrest". Having
the riot police on the book fair ground would probably  have incited the
aggressive young males even more, and in any case there were probably
just as many non-violent as potentially violent persons in the crowd
around the book fair.

Some people at the book fair are asking why the GALZ have to risk
the book fair. It is up to GALZ to explain their reasoning behind their
participation. To me it seems logical that they took up the book fair
trustees' statement that they would not allow the encroachment on freedom
of expression that happened last year, and that they would go to court if
there was undue government interference. In conclusion, I think that in
the battle between the ant and the elephant, the ant won. But there is much
prestige involved, and the story does not end here.

Mai Palmberg