By James Kirchic
On July 19, 2005, authorities in the Iranian city of Mashhad
publicly lynched two teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, for the
alleged crime of raping a 13-year-old boy. Horrific pictures of the
execution, including images of the boys crying while being loaded into
the back of a police van and swinging from cranes in a public square,
went viral. The case became an international cause célèbre, and not only
because the executed were so young. Given the nature of the Iranian
justice system, which makes no distinction between consensual or
forcible sodomy (effectively rendering homosexuality a crime punishable
by death), many suspected that the Iranian government had trumped up
charges of rape against two gay teens.
The story of Asgari and Marhoni soon became a signifier for the
plight of homosexuals in Iran. Popular accounts cast the boys as a gay
Islamic version of Romeo and Juliet, their love doomed from the outset.
“Not since they confronted snapshots of a slightly built young man named
Matthew Shepard and the fence where he was left for dead in 1998 by two
drug-addled no-hopers in Laramie, Wyo., have gay people been so
agitated by a set of photographic images,” the Washington Post reported in an article about vigils commemorating the first anniversary of the hanging.
Among the more prominent gay activists to draw attention to the case
was Peter Tatchell. For more than four decades, Tatchell has been one of
the most outspoken and controversial figures in British public life.
Leading an almost monastic existence, he has frequently put himself in
harm’s way to promote his campaigns. He was beaten by Robert Mugabe’s
bodyguards after attempting to make a “citizen’s arrest” on the
Zimbabwean dictator, and had his nose broken by Russian neo-Nazis while
marching in an ill-fated Moscow gay-pride parade. And though he is
firmly a man of the left (having run for parliament on the Green Party
ticket), he displays a moral consistency that regularly puts him at odds
with his putative political allies. For instance, attending a 2004
Palestine Solidarity Rally in London, Tatchell and members of his group
Outrage! turned up with placards reading both “Israel: Stop Persecuting
Palestine!” and “Palestine: Stop Persecuting Queers!”
Tatchell, citing an underground Iranian opposition group, issued a
press release entitled “IRAN EXECUTES GAY TEENAGERS.” Like others,
Tatchell was quick to label the sexual orientation of the murdered boys,
but he was working under the known fact that they had been victims of a
regime with murderously homophobic laws on its books and a capricious
judicial system in which to mete them out. The following month, Outrage!
amended its original claims of the boys’ presumed homosexuality: “We
cannot be 100% certain,” of the boys’ sexual orientation, Tatchell said,
“but alternative explanations concerning the charges against Mahmoud
Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni are, in our opinion, more credible than the
official Iranian court and media accounts.” It was, Tatchell conceded,
entirely within the realm of possibility that the boys had been the
victims of entrapment, and that their punishment was the government’s
way of sending a message to the Iranian people. It is not uncommon for
the Iranian government to pin false charges against anyone it deems an
enemy. And regardless of what Asgari and Marhoni had or had not done,
their execution was “just the latest barbarity by the Islamo-fascists in
Iran,” Tatchell, a strident opponent of the death penalty under all
circumstances, wrote.
The ongoing persecution of homosexuals in Iran became a subject of
public discussion in 2007 when another young man, Makwan Moloudzadeh,
was executed by the regime for having allegedly raped three boys seven
years prior, when he was only 13 years old. Once again, Tatchell went
straight to work publicizing the case in British media. Moloudzadeh,
Tatchell claimed, was “the latest victim of Tehran’s ongoing homophobic
campaign,” a delicate phrasing that did not assert the individual’s
sexuality one way or the other but rather indicted the regime for its
anti-gay laws and arbitrary justice system.
In these and other matters, Tatchell’s most virulent and prolific
antagonist has not been a member of the Christian right, but rather a
fellow gay activist: Scott Long, who was for many years the executive
director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program
of Human Rights Watch. In 2009, Long published an essay in the academic
journal Contemporary Politics entitled, “Unbearable witness: how
Western activists (mis)recognize sexuality in Iran.” The article was
essentially a summation of attacks that Long had been making against
Tatchell, mostly in private email list-servs, for years. Long
essentially wrote in defense of the Iranian regime against its critics.
By stating that Mouloudzadeh was a “victim” of a “homophobic
campaign,” Long wrote, Tatchell was “mortally incriminating not only
Makwan under Iranian law, but his accusers—now transformed into his
‘lovers.’ All, he implied, were guilty of homosexual sex.” In other
words, by merely reporting the plausibility that Mouloudzadeh had been
sentenced to death for homosexuality and not the rape of underage
boys—as the Iranian government alleged—Tatchell was offering the regime
yet another reason to incriminate the young Iranian.It was as if
Tatchell’s opposition to Tehran’s homophobic legal code, and not the
Iranian regime itself, was responsible for the young man’s death.
Writing about the case of the teenagers executed in 2005, Long did
not just take the regime’s claims of violent sexual assault of a
13-year-old at face value, but went so far as to allege that Outrage!
had “accused him of wanting the rape.” He then mocked people around the
world, gay and straight, who exhibited an “almost Ashura-esque
extraction of emotion from viewing the pictures” of the executed
teenagers. Long then quoted an “acolyte of the ‘gay pogrom’ theory” who
imagined that the two boys might have “went for walks together, or
watched the sun rise over the mountains,” before sneering, “Or perhaps
they raped a 13-year-old boy.”
While Tatchell and others hoped to use these cases to rouse
international awareness about the cruelty of Iran’s revolutionary
government, Long was more concerned by the prospect that the executions
might be used “for promoting fear or engendering division or
intimidating immigrants or selling the idea of war.” The first hangings,
after all, had taken place just weeks after the London Tube bombings in
July 2005. “Memories of old conflicts merged with new tension over
Iran’s nuclear programme,” Long wrote. “When the executions happened,
war talk had already intensified.”
On November 27, 2012, following three years of complaints, Routledge, the academic publisher of Contemporary Politics,
issued a formal apology to Tatchell “for misrepresentations and
distortions” in Long’s essay and announced that the article had been
removed from the journal’s website. That withdrawal occurred two years
after Human Rights Watch had issued a similar apology to Tatchell “for a
number of inappropriate and disparaging comments made about him in
recent years by Scott Long.” Soon thereafter, Long left HRW for a
fellowship at Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program.
The spat between Tatchell and Long exemplifies a substantive and
growing intellectual divide when it comes to issues of human rights and
sexuality. Traditional gay-rights activists such as Tatchell consider
discrimination against anyone for their sexuality or gender expression
to be wrong no matter the culture or religious environment. Long
represents a growing cadre of academic leftists who see stirrings of
“Islamophobia” and “imperialism” whenever Westerners complain about the
homophobic aspects of non-Western cultures.
The latter activists may claim to offer a “queer anti-racist
critique,” but in fact are themselves proffering reverse-racist
arguments that hold non-Western peoples and societies to a lower
standard. And in so doing, they provide cover for various illiberal,
misogynistic, and bigoted attitudes and behaviors—attitudes and
behaviors they would never defend, and, in fact, endlessly decry, in the
West.
Though the intellectual underpinnings of the “queer anti-imperialist”
movement rely heavily on postmodern theorists who were faddish three
decades ago (e.g., Michel Foucault), they did not find specific
expression until 2002, when Columbia University’s Joseph Massad
published an article in the journal Public Culture entitled, “Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World” (the basis for Massad’s 2007 book, Desiring Arabs).
Massad’s essential point is that a shadowy, nefarious conspiracy of
white, privileged, Western gay activists and Zionists (which constitute
the eerily capitalized “Gay International”) “produces homosexuals as
well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” The notion of
gayness as an identity rather than a set of behaviors is a modern and
Western one, Massad argues, and is not shared by men who have sex with
men in Arab cultures. In such cultures, Massad claims, contrary to the
image of repression and backwardness proffered by racist Orientalists,
sexuality is in fact more fluid and free. Moreover, it is Western
attempts to identify such men as “gay” and claim them as part of a human
community transcending religious or ethnic categories that provoke the
hostility against them—and not the fanatical and frankly medieval
cultural and religious attitudes of many Arabs and Muslims.
While it is certainly true that the notion of a homosexual identity
did not become widespread until the 19th century, and that many people
who engaged in same-sex relations did not perceive of their sexual
attractions as encompassing anything more than a set of desires, this is
hardly the case today. It isn’t only that the innateness of
homosexuality makes it harder to oppose as a political program (what,
after all, should society do with gay people if their homosexuality is
something they cannot choose or change?). It is also true, at
least according to gay and lesbian people, the vast majority of whom say
they have absolutely no control over the matter of their sexual
orientation. This fundamental shift in society’s understanding of
homosexuality is due entirely to the effort of Western gay activists and
regular gay individuals who decided to be honest about their lives.
But Western cultural progress on the question of homosexuality is
something that Massad and his acolytes, who see the West as the source
of unmitigated evil and philistinism, cannot acknowledge. And so not
only do they allege an imperialist conspiracy on the part of gay
Westerners to paint Islamic societies as backwards; they also challenge
the very notion of gayness itself. Yet in endorsing the
two-centuries-old view of homosexuality as nothing more than a chosen
set of behaviors rather than an identity, Massad aligns himself not with
the progressive left but with those on the religious right who view
male homosexuality in particular as a freely chosen and deliberately
perverse “lifestyle.”
In 2009, a variety of academics took Massad’s arguments one step
further by publishing a book of essays generally making the point that
criticism of homophobic attitudes in Islamic communities works in the
service of neocolonialism, racism, and war. The most revealing essay in Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality?*was
entitled “Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the War on
Terror.” Hinging upon the premise that “besides terrorism, gender and
sexuality are the grounds upon which the Islamophobic wars at home and
abroad are fought,” the authors sought to portray discussion of
homosexuality in Muslim countries as a new form of the 19th-century mission civilisatrice of the French empire.
Coming in for special scorn were those Muslims who themselves
criticized attitudes in their own cultures. The “popularity in Germany
and Britain” of Canadian lesbian author and activist Irshad Manji, a
globally prominent Muslim reformer, “is a reflection not only of her
charisma but also of the ease with which Orientalisms travel between the
metropoles.” The essay was full of distortions, particularly against
Tatchell, who, the authors alleged, “often describes Muslims as Nazis.”
(As was the case with Human Rights Watch and Routledge, the publisher of
Out of Place subsequently apologized to Tatchell for the slanders made against him in the chapter on “Gay Imperialism,” and withdrew the entire volume from circulation.)
So averse are these academics to finding fault in Arab, Muslim, or
other nonwhite communities that they have attempted to isolate mere
discussion of homophobia by decrying it as a form of racism. Indeed,
according to them, the promotion of gay rights is itself an offshoot of
racism. The authors of the essay “Gay Imperialism,” for instance,
condemned a German-government immigration form that asked for migrants’
views about spousal abuse and homosexuality. “This reflects a
transformation of ‘European’ identities, which besides ‘democracy’ now
claim ‘women’s equality’ and ‘gay rights’ as symbols of their superior
‘modernity’ and ‘civilization,’” the authors wrote, their utter
dependence upon critical theory apparent in the number of scare quotes.
“This elevates gender and sexuality to mainstream political status.
While we welcome this development, we find it vital to note that its
main basis is not a progress in gender and sexual politics but a
regression in racial politics.” In other words, to expect immigrants
from nonwhite majority countries to reject wife-beating and tolerate gay
relationships is to be a racist.
The last stripe in this rainbow flag of cynical distortion is the
alleged phenomenon of “pinkwashing,” defined by City University
professor Sarah Schulman in a New York Times op-ed in 2011 as the
“deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of
Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by
Israeli gay life.”
Though the phrase gained worldwide attention thanks to Schulman, it
actually first came to prominent attention in a 2010 piece in the
British Guardian by Rutgers academic Jasbir Puar, who claimed
Israel was engaged in a “gay propaganda war,” using its supposed
openness to homosexuality as a smokescreen to trick gay activists into
thinking better of it rather than standing with those who argue Israel
is an evildoer because of its conduct toward Palestinians.
The campaign against “pinkwashing” reached a paranoid height in 2011
in a determined campaign by Arab and left-wing gay activists against
gaymiddleeast.com—a Web portal featuring news and information about
gay-related issues across the Middle East. That site found itself under
attack by another—pinkwatchingisrael.com, a self-proclaimed “online
resource and information hub for activists working on BDS [Boycott,
Divestment, and Sanctions] within queer communities to expose and resist
Israeli pinkwashing.”
Gaymiddleeast.com is run by the “British Israeli Zionist Dan
Littauer” and “regularly collaborates with neocolonialist Islamophobes
such as Peter Tatchell,” pinkwatchingisrael.com claimed. (Littauer, in a
response to his critics, explained that the only passport he holds is a
German one). And, according to its enemies, the site failed to condemn
Israel and the positions of its government on issues wholly unrelated to
gay rights (such as relations with the Palestinians). To add insult to
injury, it had the temerity to publish “article after article of [sic]
how awesome Tel Aviv’s gay life is,” rather than the “anti-apartheid
statements of the various Arab LGBT groups.” A separate statement signed
by a coalition of Arab gay organizations acknowledged that, while “no
one has ever asked it to comment on the borders, Jerusalem, or
two-states vs. one state,” gaymiddleeast.com could not be considered as
anything other than a front for Israeli interests.
But if anyone was doing any “washing” here, it was the Arab and other
assorted “anti-imperialist” gay activists, who showed themselves to be
willing puppets of an old Arab nationalist narrative that seeks to
downplay internal conflicts within the Arab orbit (between Arab regimes
and gay activists, for example) and instead direct efforts toward
attacking the Zionist entity. In so doing, they unwittingly twinned
Zionism and homosexuality, which is something that both Islamists and
the secular Arab regimes they claim to oppose do on a regular basis. In
response to the attacks on its editorial content and origins,
gaymiddleeast.com noted that “in some Middle Eastern countries the
accusation of links with Zionism can get activists arrested, tortured,
jailed, and in extreme circumstances even killed. These false
accusations of Zionism are putting the freedom and lives of our
courageous GME contributors in danger.”
What the relativists ultimately cannot stomach are moral arguments
coming from the mouths of Westerners, directed at non-Westerners.
Writing in the Nation, Richard Kim assails “assumptions about the
‘clash of civilizations’ that supposedly pits enlightened, secular,
humane Western society against backward, theocratic, oppressive Islamic
society.” In the mind of the “anti-imperialist,” morality derives from
oppression, and as it is the citizens of the “global south” who have
always been the oppressed, it is they who have the right to figure these
things out on their own terms, free from the hectoring of Americans,
Europeans, or Zionist Israelis. “Absolute demands replace dialogues,”
Long complains. “And the demands neglect disparities of power.” Gays in
the UK, he writes, “have accumulated cultural capital and political
influence” while “British Muslim communities…feel steadily more
besieged, not only by daily prejudice but also by anti-immigrant
hysteria and a security state,” as if the bigotry that exists in Britain
toward Muslims excuses Muslim bigotry towards gays (and others).
These ideas will get an airing in April at the City University of New
York, at a conference entitled “Homonationalism and Pinkwashing,” in
which the United States will also be accused of using its supposed
open-mindedness toward homosexuality as a propaganda tool. To the
proponents of the “pinkwashing” meme, the hard-fought, tangible
victories won by gay people over the past five decades are illusory,
because America remains a capitalist, oppressive, and imperialist
hegemon. “In the United States, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have
been invited into an equality defined, not by rights, but by the ability
to participate openly in immoral wars,” Sarah Schulman writes in the
conference description, reducing over half a century of gay-rights
activism to enjoying, as an acknowledged homosexual, the right to kill
innocent, dark-skinned people. By failing to engage in a more radical,
Marxist critique of society, gay activists have sold out: They advocate
for “assimilationist” goals like marriage and military service, when
what they should really be doing is undermining the patriarchy and
advocating pacifism. They have become handmaidens to “homonationalism,”
or the “collusion between LGBT people and identification with the nation
state, re-enforcement of racial and national boundary, and systems of
supremacy ideology no longer interrupted by homophobia."
As gay people overseas become increasingly emboldened by the gains
seen in the West, they are taking on a new visibility, which can be seen
in the proliferation of gay associations around the world and through
public demonstrations in places ranging from Moscow to Colombo. This has
resulted in a backlash from illiberal regimes and other hostile forces,
often religious but sometimes also secular nationalist. And so the
positive development of gay people asserting their place in society and
demanding legal equality has been met with reactionary counterattack.
In determining a way to respond to this backlash, gay activists in
the West already have a successful template from which they can learn:
the campaign to free Soviet Jewry. Here was a cause that, no matter the
statements of concern from various presidential administrations, had
always remained an afterthought in American foreign policy. It took a
grassroots movement, composed not only of American Jews, to bring the
plight of Soviet Jewry to the forefront. Gay activists concerned with
the oppression of gays overseas ought to find their own champion, as
American Jews did in Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who fought for the
passage of a 1974 provision penalizing countries that did not allow for
the free emigration of their citizens. The campaign culminated in a
massive, 250,000-person rally on the Mall during Ronald Reagan’s 1987
summit with Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev. According to Gal
Beckerman, author of a recent history of the campaign to free Soviet
Jewry, “Every time Gorbachev would walk into a meeting with Reagan by
the mid-80s, the first thing Reagan would do—and we see this in memoirs
and oral histories—is Reagan would pull out a piece of paper with names
of Soviet Jews who had been refused visas or had been somehow sent to
prison for their activism and he said, ‘Well if you want to talk, first
we have to discuss these names.’” Gay activists should aspire to the day
when they can get an American president to reenact this scene every
time a Russian leader or Ugandan president or Gulf sheik visits the Oval
Office.
But a necessary prerequisite of such a campaign is recognition of the
cultural and political virtues of the West, a belief that the West does
indeed have something to teach the world when it comes to the question
of how gay citizens should be treated. This is something that too many
gay activists and intellectuals refuse to do. Rather than expect Muslims
to adopt more progressive and liberal attitudes, “LGBT activists”
should “cooperate with embattled Muslims against police misconduct and
policies of repression,” Scott Long wrote in that now discredited 2009
essay, because “a dress code that can be used against a woman in niqab can target a drag queen next.” Lamenting their “failure to be
political,” Long wrote that Western gay activists “could profit a great
deal from advocates in the Middle East—in Egypt, say, where
secularists, including the very few ‘gay’ activists, have cooperated
with the Muslim Brotherhood on the shared ground of opposing the state’s
control over the body, and a regime torture.” Such a prescription was
laughable when it was made nearly four years ago; it’s a frightening
recipe for disaster today. Following the advice of the “queer
anti-imperialists” does not just pervert the cause of gay rights. It is
quite literally a road to suicide.
http://tinyurl.com/bok6qn9
1 comment:
WOW...
Great Read SoRo...
I guess the radical leftist gay lobby and leftist feminist are slowly committing torturous suicide siding with the islamists lobby. And with their hatred of Christians and America they are also taking the rest of the community with them huh?
I guess soon hanging outed gays and raping and beating outgoing women will just have to be accepted as a diverse way of life, to NOT be racist. And all these diverse views are to be accepted and perhaps even celebrated in stoning or hangings...
One thing is quite clear to us believers, and that is God has a great sense of humor...
Post a Comment