The original report only had the ministress claiming that the artworks were ‘pornographic’, nothing more, nothing less. How this equates to homophobia I don’t know.

Unfortunately, as is sadly the case for journalism these days, the full context is not given; only that quote. The general public thus has to trust that the journalist’s conclusion is indeed what the ministress meant.

Later in the article, an uncited report is given that the department tried to stop the display of naked lesbian images. One needs to ask why? Was it because they were images of naked people, images of lesbians or because they were pictures of lesbians who were also naked. There is not enough information to decide.

If you take the Ministress’ comments in this article, then she doesn’t have to be homophobic to be offended. There’s nothing unconstitutional about being offended by nudity. And in the ministress’ defence, if the exhibition was intended to be viewed by members of all ages, then the artist should have been a bit more conservative in her choice of art works.

Back to the original press-release though, I fail to see how nudity is “immoral, offensive and going against nation-building”. At most, the ministress could only say that the art was in bad taste considering the age of some of the audience.

Rob

hahahahaha good point