Queering Palestinian Solidarity Activism
Yoshie Furuhashi | 08.06.2004 22:15 | London
GLBT activists in Palestinian solidarity movements must reckon with pro-Israeli-occupation propaganda that comes with a seemingly pro-gay twist first of all. Queering the Palestinian liberation movement has to be based on the initiative and leadership of GLBT Palestinians themselves, not of a predominantly white male group like OutRage!. After all, the point of all liberation movements is self-emancipation. However well-intentioned white male queer activists may be, their actions would be effective only when they prove themselves as reliable allies of GLBT Palestinians, rather than ineptly trying to zap a multiracial interfaith demonstration for free Palestine.
A British gay rights direct action group OutRage! claims that gay and lesbian activists were attacked by "an angry, screaming mob of Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organisers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)" (OutRage! Press Release, "Gays Attacked at Palestine Rights Protest: Attempt to Silence Debate on Murder of Gays," May 15, 2004). The incident concerning the OutRage! zap action has been sensationalized by Nick Cohen ("Saddam's Own Party," The New Statesman, June 7, 2004), accuracy of whose report is questioned by a left-wing blog Lenin's Tomb: ("Cohen's Own Party," June 04, 2004). I'll set aside the question of whether those who did not welcome OutRage!'s zap action were actually "Islamic fundamentalists, Anglican clergymen, members of the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and officials from the protest organisers, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC)," pending more reports on the same incident. Instead, I'll ask a more general question of how non-Palestinian GLBT activists should participate in Palestinian solidarity activism, the question that has been scarcely addressed among Palestinian solidarity activists.
According to the OutRage! press release, OutRage! and the Queer Youth Alliance joined "a rally for free Palestine" by carrying "placards reading: 'Israel: stop persecuting Palestine! Palestine: stop persecuting queers!'" (May 15, 2004). While I agree with OutRage! spokesman Peter Tatchell that "[f]reedom for Palestine must be freedom for all Palestinians -- straight and gay," why carry placards that falsely allege that it is "Palestine" as such that persecutes all queers for the mere fact of their sexual identify or practice alone, while ignoring how the Israeli occupier's recruitment of collaborators reinforces homophobia? From an Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem's report on "the responsibility of Palestinian political organizations and their activists for the torture and killing of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with the Israeli authorities during the Intifada" as well as "violations of human rights by the Israeli authorities in the recruitment and operation of collaborators in the territories" ("Collaborators in the Occupied Territories: Human Rights Abuses and Violations," January 1994, p. 1), we learn that some Palestinian political organizers charge the Israeli Security Services of using isqat, which means "exerting pressure, usually through sexual means, in order to recruit collaborators," for instance, "plant[ing] collaborators to have homosexual relations with minors in detention. The latter are then threatened with exposure if they do not cooperate" -- the charge which B'Tselem cannot find evidence to prove or refute but regards as having "wide implications for interrogations, confessions, and executions of suspected collaborators" (B'Tselem, pp. 23, 25).
In contrast to B'Tselem, Tatchell is quoted as saying in the OutRage press release: "Gay Palestinians live in fear of arrest, detention without trial, torture and execution at the hands of Palestinian police and security services. They also risk abduction and so-called honour killing by vengeful family members and vigilante mobs, as well as punishment beatings and murder by Palestinian political groups such as Hamas and Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement" (May 15, 2004). The way Tatchell puts it makes it sound as if Fatah and Hamas arrest, detain, torture, and execute any and all gay Palestinians based on their homophobia alone when straight Palestinians have nothing to fear from them. He also conflates "honor killings," which are akin to domestic violence, with killings carried out by political organizations, thus introducing further confusion. Homophobia can indeed raise its ugly head in the Palestinian organizations' punishments of suspected collaborators:
* On August 25, 1990, Qaher Mahmud 'Awwad 'Odeh, age 24, the son of the mukhtar of Qusrah village in the Nablus District, was killed by masked men from the Fatah. According to an investigation carried out by B'Tselem in the village in August 1993, it appears that 'Odeh was brought by his kidnappers to a cave in the mountains, where he was interrogated and beaten for hours on grounds that he had passed information to the GSS, set cars of village residents on fire, and conducted homosexual relations with young men from the village. In the middle of the interrogation 'Odeh's interrogators left the cave to have a rest, leaving him tied-up inside. When they returned, they found him dead. (B'Tselem, p. 90)
* Nabil 'Abd al-Hamid Jawadat was married, with one son and one daughter, and worked as a vendor of soft drinks and ice cream in the market of the Nusseirat refugee camp. As far as is known, there were no implicating rumors about him. He was known as an ordinary man who tended to keep to himself, and had no close friends. In the second year of the Intifada he was arrested on suspicion of throwing stones at soldiers. He was sentenced to prison, and spent four months in the Ketziot camp in the Negev. During this period he joined the Fatah Organization in the prison. After his release, he resumed his regular routines.
Jawadat was kidnapped by unknown assailants in the area of the market on the evening of October 11, 1993. Two days after he was kidnapped, the Fatah, Popular Front, and Communist Party organizations proclaimed in messages on the camp's walls that they condemned the kidnapping. The Hamas did not take part in the condemnation.
Three days after the kidnapping a protest meeting was held outside Jawadat's house, following a call by the Fatah Movement. On October 15, 1993 his body was discovered in a black plastic bag in the village of a-Zaweida. There were indications of brutal torture. Attached to the bag was a circular of the 'Iz a-Din al-Qassam cells. The circular detailed a number of reasons for Jawadat's killing: collaborating, engaging in isqat, conducting homosexual relations, taking part in firearms exercises and going on operations with the army, and shooting at youths.
On the same day the Fatah issued a circular in response to the Hamas circular. The Fatah condemned the act. The Jawadat family, together with the Fatah Movement, set up a condolence tent, where Palestinian flags flew and national songs were played. At the entrance to the tent photographs of Nabil's body were displayed, showing the signs of the brutal treatment he suffered. [Copies of the photographs on file at the B'Tselem office]. Large numbers of residents visited the condolence tent and condemned what had happened. Supporters of the Hamas Movement did not take part [in the condolence visits and condemnations]. (B'Tselem, pp. 111-112)
Homophobia is a factor in only a tiny minority of cases of punishments of collaborators investigated by B'Tselem, however, as is evident in the "Breakdown of Suspicions Leading to the Imposition of Punishments" (B'Tselem, pp. 105-106). Arrest, detention without trial, torture, and execution of suspected collaborators should indeed trouble solidarity activists abroad as well as Palestinians in the occupied territories, especially since the majority of suspects, according to "data supplied to B'Tselem by the [Israeli] Ministry of Defense," turn out to have "no connection to the [Israeli] government":
According to data supplied to B'Tselem by the Ministry of Defense, between 35 and 40 percent of those killed were employed by the government, or were in some other way connected to one of the branches of the Israeli administration. The remainder of those killed had no connection to the government. Ten to 15 percent of these were killed for criminal activity, "especially in drugs and prostitution"; and a small number were killed "because they violated the ‘directives of the uprising’" or, for example, sold pornographic video films in defiance of the orders of the Islamic organizations. (B'Tselem, p. 1)
It is impossible to address this problem, however, without grasping it -- including the context of the Israeli occupier's use of collaborators -- accurately first of all: "The collaborators received preferential treatment from the authorities, and many of them took full advantage of their status. Collaborators, especially those who were armed, frequently used violence against other Palestinians, whether as part of their duties as collaborators or for personal motives. For these and other reasons, which are described in the report, broad sections of the Palestinian population fiercely objected to the activity of the collaborators" (B'Tselem, p. 2). Tatchell's misleading statement makes it difficult for solidarity activists to confront the problem, as his statement leads us to believe that the problem is homophobia and homophobia alone, in separation from both the reality of collaboration and (sometimes paranoid) fear and hatred of collaborators, both of which are logical consequences of the military occupation.
What approach, then, might GLBT activists in Palestinian solidarity movements take? Firstly, as a statement by QUIT! (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) -- one of whose founders is a Palestinian gay man -- shows, GLBT activists in Palestinian solidarity movements must reckon with pro-Israeli-occupation propaganda that comes with a seemingly pro-gay twist:
Recently, the queer and mainstream press have reported on three Palestinian gay men who say that they were severely abused and humiliated by Palestinian police. One of the young men reportedly escaped the police, only to be threatened by his own family. They have been living underground in Israel for the last several years, and now Israel is deporting them back to Palestine, where they fear being killed as suspected collaborators.
As queer activists, we condemn the persecution of LGBT people anywhere in the world. This includes Palestine, where many LGBT people experience special oppression living in conservative religious communities, within an oppressed nation.
LAGAI, one of the groups involved in QUIT!, has been actively working for two decades to support queers in north, central and south America, Africa, and Asia. When we first formed, QUIT! took an active role in organizing to support the Egyptian gay men who were arrested in a raid on a gay bar in 2001. We have at times had to struggle for inclusion in the Palestinian solidarity movement, because there were some individuals and groups here who objected to our presence.
We strongly believe that any struggle for liberation has to include queer liberation, because queers are part of all oppressed groups.
However, the story about the three Palestinian men is being used by pro-Israeli gay organizations to suggest that the military occupation of Palestine is justified by anti-gay oppression within Palestinian society. We are outraged by this cynical response to the stories.
Palestine is by no means unique in being a place where gay people are threatened, abused or tortured by the police. It happens in every western society, including in San Francisco. Palestinian queers are also not alone in being in danger in the small conservative towns and villages where their families live, or in being threatened with violence from their own families.
What is unique is that Palestinian queers are prevented from leaving those repressive small towns and from meeting and organizing with other queers by the ever-tightening restrictions on their movement imposed by the Israeli occupation forces. When Israeli soldiers stop young men at checkpoint after checkpoint, telling them no, they cannot travel outside of their villages, they do not ask them if they're gay and need to leave because they fear violence from their families. Israeli police routinely threaten to "out" queer Palestinians if they do not provide information.
The presence of Israeli occupation forces in Palestine does nothing to help and much to hurt LGBT Palestinians. ("Statement of QUIT! Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism on the Persecution of Gay Men by the Palestine National Authority")
Secondly, queer political organizations that wish to promote debate among Palestinian solidarity activists on the question of treatment of GLBT individuals in Palestinian society should ask themselves if their own groups are not racially exclusive. Looking at the photograph of OutRage! demonstrators that accompanies the aforementioned press release on its website, I can only conclude that the group is predominantly white and male:
Queering the Palestinian liberation movement has to be based on the initiative and leadership of GLBT Palestinians themselves, though. After all, the point of all liberation movements is self-emancipation. However well-intentioned white male queer activists may be, their actions would be effective only when they prove themselves as reliable allies of GLBT Palestinians, rather than ineptly trying to zap a multiracial interfaith demonstration for free Palestine. OutRage! might begin by listening to Rauda Morcos, the coordinator of ASWAT [Voice], which is a Palestinian lesbian group endeavoring to develop a lesbian-feminist perspective within Arab society and to formulate its own criticism of the politics of the Israeli occupation, autonomously of Israeli lesbian and gay projects: "Rauda Morcos lebt in Israel, ist Palästinenserin und seit einem Jahr Koordinatorin der Lesbengruppe ASWAT, die als erstes Projekt versucht, eine lesbisch-feministische Perspektive innerhalb der arabischen Gesellschaft aufzubauen. Autonom von israelischen Lesben- und Schwulenprojekten soll eine eigenständige Kritik der Okkupationspolitik formuliert werden" (Lizzie Pricken, "Koalitionen auf Zeit: Über den Aufbruch palästinensischer Lesben," Gigi: Zeitschrift fuer sexuelle Emanzipation 31). Then, the next outing of OutRage! would likely be more productive and inclusive of queer Palestinians whose interests OutRage! professes to represent.
According to the OutRage! press release, OutRage! and the Queer Youth Alliance joined "a rally for free Palestine" by carrying "placards reading: 'Israel: stop persecuting Palestine! Palestine: stop persecuting queers!'" (May 15, 2004). While I agree with OutRage! spokesman Peter Tatchell that "[f]reedom for Palestine must be freedom for all Palestinians -- straight and gay," why carry placards that falsely allege that it is "Palestine" as such that persecutes all queers for the mere fact of their sexual identify or practice alone, while ignoring how the Israeli occupier's recruitment of collaborators reinforces homophobia? From an Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem's report on "the responsibility of Palestinian political organizations and their activists for the torture and killing of Palestinians suspected of collaborating with the Israeli authorities during the Intifada" as well as "violations of human rights by the Israeli authorities in the recruitment and operation of collaborators in the territories" ("Collaborators in the Occupied Territories: Human Rights Abuses and Violations," January 1994, p. 1), we learn that some Palestinian political organizers charge the Israeli Security Services of using isqat, which means "exerting pressure, usually through sexual means, in order to recruit collaborators," for instance, "plant[ing] collaborators to have homosexual relations with minors in detention. The latter are then threatened with exposure if they do not cooperate" -- the charge which B'Tselem cannot find evidence to prove or refute but regards as having "wide implications for interrogations, confessions, and executions of suspected collaborators" (B'Tselem, pp. 23, 25).
In contrast to B'Tselem, Tatchell is quoted as saying in the OutRage press release: "Gay Palestinians live in fear of arrest, detention without trial, torture and execution at the hands of Palestinian police and security services. They also risk abduction and so-called honour killing by vengeful family members and vigilante mobs, as well as punishment beatings and murder by Palestinian political groups such as Hamas and Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement" (May 15, 2004). The way Tatchell puts it makes it sound as if Fatah and Hamas arrest, detain, torture, and execute any and all gay Palestinians based on their homophobia alone when straight Palestinians have nothing to fear from them. He also conflates "honor killings," which are akin to domestic violence, with killings carried out by political organizations, thus introducing further confusion. Homophobia can indeed raise its ugly head in the Palestinian organizations' punishments of suspected collaborators:
* On August 25, 1990, Qaher Mahmud 'Awwad 'Odeh, age 24, the son of the mukhtar of Qusrah village in the Nablus District, was killed by masked men from the Fatah. According to an investigation carried out by B'Tselem in the village in August 1993, it appears that 'Odeh was brought by his kidnappers to a cave in the mountains, where he was interrogated and beaten for hours on grounds that he had passed information to the GSS, set cars of village residents on fire, and conducted homosexual relations with young men from the village. In the middle of the interrogation 'Odeh's interrogators left the cave to have a rest, leaving him tied-up inside. When they returned, they found him dead. (B'Tselem, p. 90)
* Nabil 'Abd al-Hamid Jawadat was married, with one son and one daughter, and worked as a vendor of soft drinks and ice cream in the market of the Nusseirat refugee camp. As far as is known, there were no implicating rumors about him. He was known as an ordinary man who tended to keep to himself, and had no close friends. In the second year of the Intifada he was arrested on suspicion of throwing stones at soldiers. He was sentenced to prison, and spent four months in the Ketziot camp in the Negev. During this period he joined the Fatah Organization in the prison. After his release, he resumed his regular routines.
Jawadat was kidnapped by unknown assailants in the area of the market on the evening of October 11, 1993. Two days after he was kidnapped, the Fatah, Popular Front, and Communist Party organizations proclaimed in messages on the camp's walls that they condemned the kidnapping. The Hamas did not take part in the condemnation.
Three days after the kidnapping a protest meeting was held outside Jawadat's house, following a call by the Fatah Movement. On October 15, 1993 his body was discovered in a black plastic bag in the village of a-Zaweida. There were indications of brutal torture. Attached to the bag was a circular of the 'Iz a-Din al-Qassam cells. The circular detailed a number of reasons for Jawadat's killing: collaborating, engaging in isqat, conducting homosexual relations, taking part in firearms exercises and going on operations with the army, and shooting at youths.
On the same day the Fatah issued a circular in response to the Hamas circular. The Fatah condemned the act. The Jawadat family, together with the Fatah Movement, set up a condolence tent, where Palestinian flags flew and national songs were played. At the entrance to the tent photographs of Nabil's body were displayed, showing the signs of the brutal treatment he suffered. [Copies of the photographs on file at the B'Tselem office]. Large numbers of residents visited the condolence tent and condemned what had happened. Supporters of the Hamas Movement did not take part [in the condolence visits and condemnations]. (B'Tselem, pp. 111-112)
Homophobia is a factor in only a tiny minority of cases of punishments of collaborators investigated by B'Tselem, however, as is evident in the "Breakdown of Suspicions Leading to the Imposition of Punishments" (B'Tselem, pp. 105-106). Arrest, detention without trial, torture, and execution of suspected collaborators should indeed trouble solidarity activists abroad as well as Palestinians in the occupied territories, especially since the majority of suspects, according to "data supplied to B'Tselem by the [Israeli] Ministry of Defense," turn out to have "no connection to the [Israeli] government":
According to data supplied to B'Tselem by the Ministry of Defense, between 35 and 40 percent of those killed were employed by the government, or were in some other way connected to one of the branches of the Israeli administration. The remainder of those killed had no connection to the government. Ten to 15 percent of these were killed for criminal activity, "especially in drugs and prostitution"; and a small number were killed "because they violated the ‘directives of the uprising’" or, for example, sold pornographic video films in defiance of the orders of the Islamic organizations. (B'Tselem, p. 1)
It is impossible to address this problem, however, without grasping it -- including the context of the Israeli occupier's use of collaborators -- accurately first of all: "The collaborators received preferential treatment from the authorities, and many of them took full advantage of their status. Collaborators, especially those who were armed, frequently used violence against other Palestinians, whether as part of their duties as collaborators or for personal motives. For these and other reasons, which are described in the report, broad sections of the Palestinian population fiercely objected to the activity of the collaborators" (B'Tselem, p. 2). Tatchell's misleading statement makes it difficult for solidarity activists to confront the problem, as his statement leads us to believe that the problem is homophobia and homophobia alone, in separation from both the reality of collaboration and (sometimes paranoid) fear and hatred of collaborators, both of which are logical consequences of the military occupation.
What approach, then, might GLBT activists in Palestinian solidarity movements take? Firstly, as a statement by QUIT! (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) -- one of whose founders is a Palestinian gay man -- shows, GLBT activists in Palestinian solidarity movements must reckon with pro-Israeli-occupation propaganda that comes with a seemingly pro-gay twist:
Recently, the queer and mainstream press have reported on three Palestinian gay men who say that they were severely abused and humiliated by Palestinian police. One of the young men reportedly escaped the police, only to be threatened by his own family. They have been living underground in Israel for the last several years, and now Israel is deporting them back to Palestine, where they fear being killed as suspected collaborators.
As queer activists, we condemn the persecution of LGBT people anywhere in the world. This includes Palestine, where many LGBT people experience special oppression living in conservative religious communities, within an oppressed nation.
LAGAI, one of the groups involved in QUIT!, has been actively working for two decades to support queers in north, central and south America, Africa, and Asia. When we first formed, QUIT! took an active role in organizing to support the Egyptian gay men who were arrested in a raid on a gay bar in 2001. We have at times had to struggle for inclusion in the Palestinian solidarity movement, because there were some individuals and groups here who objected to our presence.
We strongly believe that any struggle for liberation has to include queer liberation, because queers are part of all oppressed groups.
However, the story about the three Palestinian men is being used by pro-Israeli gay organizations to suggest that the military occupation of Palestine is justified by anti-gay oppression within Palestinian society. We are outraged by this cynical response to the stories.
Palestine is by no means unique in being a place where gay people are threatened, abused or tortured by the police. It happens in every western society, including in San Francisco. Palestinian queers are also not alone in being in danger in the small conservative towns and villages where their families live, or in being threatened with violence from their own families.
What is unique is that Palestinian queers are prevented from leaving those repressive small towns and from meeting and organizing with other queers by the ever-tightening restrictions on their movement imposed by the Israeli occupation forces. When Israeli soldiers stop young men at checkpoint after checkpoint, telling them no, they cannot travel outside of their villages, they do not ask them if they're gay and need to leave because they fear violence from their families. Israeli police routinely threaten to "out" queer Palestinians if they do not provide information.
The presence of Israeli occupation forces in Palestine does nothing to help and much to hurt LGBT Palestinians. ("Statement of QUIT! Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism on the Persecution of Gay Men by the Palestine National Authority")
Secondly, queer political organizations that wish to promote debate among Palestinian solidarity activists on the question of treatment of GLBT individuals in Palestinian society should ask themselves if their own groups are not racially exclusive. Looking at the photograph of OutRage! demonstrators that accompanies the aforementioned press release on its website, I can only conclude that the group is predominantly white and male:
Queering the Palestinian liberation movement has to be based on the initiative and leadership of GLBT Palestinians themselves, though. After all, the point of all liberation movements is self-emancipation. However well-intentioned white male queer activists may be, their actions would be effective only when they prove themselves as reliable allies of GLBT Palestinians, rather than ineptly trying to zap a multiracial interfaith demonstration for free Palestine. OutRage! might begin by listening to Rauda Morcos, the coordinator of ASWAT [Voice], which is a Palestinian lesbian group endeavoring to develop a lesbian-feminist perspective within Arab society and to formulate its own criticism of the politics of the Israeli occupation, autonomously of Israeli lesbian and gay projects: "Rauda Morcos lebt in Israel, ist Palästinenserin und seit einem Jahr Koordinatorin der Lesbengruppe ASWAT, die als erstes Projekt versucht, eine lesbisch-feministische Perspektive innerhalb der arabischen Gesellschaft aufzubauen. Autonom von israelischen Lesben- und Schwulenprojekten soll eine eigenständige Kritik der Okkupationspolitik formuliert werden" (Lizzie Pricken, "Koalitionen auf Zeit: Über den Aufbruch palästinensischer Lesben," Gigi: Zeitschrift fuer sexuelle Emanzipation 31). Then, the next outing of OutRage! would likely be more productive and inclusive of queer Palestinians whose interests OutRage! professes to represent.
Yoshie Furuhashi
e-mail:
furuhashi.1@osu.edu
Homepage:
http://montages.blogspot.com
Comments
Hide the following 41 comments
Thoughtful and Intelligent
09.06.2004 00:14
I for one will be interested to see how the issue pans out over the coming weeks. Perhaps we can all learn from the renewed debate about how various left wing, anarchist and gay campaigns relate to each other. Consensus will probably be difficult to reach, but the above article suggests how we can discuss tactics in a comradely fashion.
Thank you.
In solidarity to all
Caz
Independent Left
Paedophiles?
09.06.2004 06:14
Do we have a subversive man/boy lusting elite running the show perhaps ?
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/blair_protection.html
Could their objective be to nurture homosexuality and homophobia at the same time, in order to divide and rule...?
esme
Breaking it down to basics
09.06.2004 08:27
But before we start, I'd like to make clear that our presence at the Trafalgar Square demo was *participation* NOT a "zap". But, let's leave that for now since it will end up being a shouting match over semantics and a diversion from the core issues.
So, let me start by asking what the specific objection is to our call for an end to the Israeli persecution of Palestinians and calling on Palestinians to stop their persecution of gays and lesbians?
We strongly disagree with the argument that gay persecution justifies the Israeli occupation - that's absurd; and we certainly DO agree with the obvious fact that Israeli imposed restriction on movement seriously affect the options on LGBT Palestinians - which is why we the first part of our placard condemned Israel.
Brett Lock
e-mail: indymedia@outrage.org.uk
Homepage: http://www.outrage.org.uk
Paedophiles?
09.06.2004 08:35
You can't seriously be suggesting that the raping of minors is "nurturing homosexuality". In what sense?
Brett Lock
e-mail: indymedia@outrage.org.uk
Homepage: http://www.outrage.org.uk
Disingenious
09.06.2004 15:52
"we certainly DO agree with the obvious fact that Israeli imposed restriction on movement seriously affect the options on LGBT Palestinians - which is why we the first part of our placard condemned Israel."
Well, no.
In the debate here on indymedia,
(see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/05/291498.html)
it was like squeezing blood from a stone to get Outrage to condemn Israeli state homophobia.
And when I showed how the occupation and the wall affected queer palestinians, you responded that I was "playing semantics."
qj
queer jew
Another case of poor tactics I think?
09.06.2004 16:44
There is another problem too which I will deal with first because, well it is simpler (I think?): The question of our dear friend Nick Cohen. He is one of a few Blairite, pro-war journalists who is (apparently?) watching us, "Big Brother" like and exploiting these apparent "divisions" in our movement to his own political ends (which ammounts to not much more than Blair apologism). Firstly I have a rule of thumb: If Uncle Nick is quoting you in one of his diatribes to confirm his mantras (repeat after me: "the left is as bad as the right, anti-war protestors support Saddam, Galloway is a bigot, Respect are homophobes"), you are probably doing something wrong -so lets do our best to avoid this!! Secondly, what the hell right does this man have to criticise us?? I don't remember seeing him on any of our demonstrations (he's far too clever for that!)?? I think I'm right in thinking that he wasn't on any of the anti-war demonstrations. I'm also pretty sure he has not attended any of the Palestine Solidarity demos and he probably hasn't attended any of the Gay Pride marches/events either (please correct me if I'm wrong??). In fact, what has this man ever done for our movement?? Nothing! So, lets get one thing settled then: Nick Cohen is a parasite on our movement, so lets not feed him!!
Ok, now the big one: Tactics, or at least confusing good principals with tactics. This how I see it: We have a great movement that consists of various groups that are working together (or not?) on various issues. Most of these groups have sound principles but have a big problem working with other groups. This example demonstrates this problem quite spectacularly I think?? The intervention of a well respected Gay rights group (OutRage!) intervening into the Free Palestine campaign with what I think are inapropriate tactics, perfectly sound PRINCIPLES but non-the-less poor TACTICS. OK, maybe you don't quite apreciate this point so let me demonstrate with a hypothetical example, with reversed roles: Now, I heard through my somewhat limited grapevine that Respect leafleted the Gay Pride festival in Birmingham just last week. I'm not entirely sure how successful this was, or weather Respect succeded in involving some of their Muslim affiliates in this intervention (maybe some Respect people could fill us in on this??), but it will do for the sake of argument. Ok, now let's imagine that the Respect leaflet carried the slogan: Blaire: Stop oppressing British gays!; British gays: Stop oppressing Muslims! (ie a complete reversal of the above mentioned intervention). Now I think we can all agree that, well, let's say it wouldn't have gone down very well for a start. Also, no-one would disagree if people who were attending this event (gay or straight) reacted "angrily" or even "mobbed" the Respect people and through them out of the event. I for one would assist the organisers in doing this and have a damn good word with the guys handing these leaflets out about tactics (and where to get off!!). Now, let's imagine our good friends in Respect got a bit miffed about this and started going on about how they were "attacked by gay activists" on thier website afterwards and then started naming names of the various groups who were responsible for this "attack". Then our good friend Nick Cohen gets wind of this and writes a big article about it in the Observer or New Statesman, repeating his Orwellian mantras (repeat after me...) and everything just goes pair-shaped! Ok, now do you see where I'm coming from?? Perfectly sound principles but terrible tactics! For the sake of our movement we need better tactics!! I think this was a genuine mistake form our OutRage! people but it does demonstrate how this issue is becoming a problem!! We need to discuss this long and hard I think (but play nice guys!!). Maybe we need some conference on tactics or something with EVERYONE involved (yes including the SWP and Respect!!), or maybe I'm just being naive??
I do think that THE biggest and most important issue our movement faces at the moment is how we (non-Muslims) relate to the Muslim organisations. Respect are getting a whole load of flack for this right now from many quarters (and Big Brother Cohen is loving it!!) but I think they have started a VERY IMPORTANT (if flawed??) intervention. Let's face it, this has never been attempted before and, despite what some people may think of Respect, at least they are getting their hands dirty and having a go. I also think it is better to have a go at this and make a few mistakes than not at all. We all saw what happened in France with the Hijab ban that even most of the left supported, to their shame, on the grounds that it was "progressive" and would somehow "help liberate Muslim women". Well, this kind of tactic might please Uncle Cohen but I think everyone here would agree it represents a disaster for the movement in France! It also demonstrates my point: If you let principles overide tactics, you end up benefiting the right! So, my question is this: If Respect do not provide the right formula for working with the Muslim groups (who are just as much a part of our movement as anyone else!!) then what do we do instead?? Whats more, who else is out there actually attempting to do this?? Rather than standing on the sidelines and moralising about "alainces with reactionary Islamic groups" (which, to be honest, probably just sounds like an intellectual version of what Killroy-Silk says to Muslims!! Or even the BNP -their 2001 leaflet says the "M" in Muslim stands for "woman mollestors!!")?? Should we not be with them showing them how it is done constructively rather than just criticising from the outside?? We do want the Muslim groups on our side don't we?? Or is it only on "our" terms??
Andy S
Slogans
09.06.2004 17:10
Brett Lock
e-mail: indymedia@outrage.org.uk
Homepage: http://www.outrage.org.uk
Fair point!
09.06.2004 17:26
Ok, it was a bad "hypothetical example", but surely you see the point I was trying to make?? The example sounds quite ridiculous, but surely middle class whites discussing how Muslims should be more progressive on this newswire sounds ridiculous to REAL Muslims?? Anyway, what about the tactics?? How do we get Muslims working together with Gays and vise versa, without simply sounding like "intellectual equivalents of Killroy" to Muslims (which you gotta admit, we do sometimes!!)?? Are Respect really doing us such a disservice to the extent that "Uncle Cohen" makes out they are?? Come on guys!! This is OUR movement we are talking about!!
Andy S
Paedophiles?
09.06.2004 18:04
Ah, right, got it. I see what you are saying now Brett. Those Palestinian boys were child prostetutes when they were born ? The desire to sell ones arse for some kind of artificial security from their Israeli oppressor is innate. Of course, why didn't I think of that before !
To tell you the truth, I had always wondered how paedophiles knew which kids to molest. Although, thinking about it, if it's that obvious, perhaps you can explain to us what the tell tale signs are ? Throwing stones ? Being shorter than adults ? What ?
Sarcasm
Semantics
09.06.2004 18:16
No, I said you were playing semantics because you failed to differentiate between the fact that Israel's treatment of gay Palestinians stemmed from them being Palestinians, not gay. Homosexuality is not a crime under Israeli law, but it is under Palestinian law. You seem intent on making acknowledgement of this simple fact seem like support for Israel, which it isn't.
QUIT point out that "When Israeli soldiers stop young men at checkpoint after checkpoint, telling them no, they cannot travel outside of their villages, they do not ask them if they're gay and need to leave because they fear violence from their families." It is clear that the difficulties encountered by Palestinian queers in this regard is not a consequence of Israeli homophobia, but a byproduct of the overall persecution of Palestinians by Israel - which we protested!
We have also protested to the Israeli Government for their failure to take steps to help gay Palestinian asylum seekers, but even so, appealing to their humanity in dealing with gay Palestinians seems a bit lame when they don't treat ANY Palestinians with humanity! Which is precisely what we protested - remember: Israel - Stop Persecuting Palestinians!"?
We've thrashed out all the recriminations and angry exchanges (as well as whether homosexuality is a non-genetic perversion and the moral equivalent of incest) on the other thread. I really hope we can stick to constructive discussion on this thread.
Incidentally, if anyone feels moved to add their voice to calls for the Israeli government to urgently address the cases of gay Palestinian asylum seekers, details can be found at:
http://www.jfjfp.org/campaignfiles/FuadMoussa.htm
Brett Lock
e-mail: indymedia@outrage.org.uk
Homepage: http://www.outrage.org.uk
Paedophiles
09.06.2004 18:21
That's not what I'm saying, I'm asking you how that is "nurturing" homosexuality? Do you think that homosexuals can be manufatured?
In fact, don't even answer. This is the typical diversion from the issues that I want to avoid on what is supposed to be a *constructive* thread. If you want to equate child rape with "nurturing homosexuality" go right ahead.
Brett Lock
Fair point!
09.06.2004 18:42
Peter Tatchell has been trying for almost 20 years to open a dialogue with the PLO and they have consistantly refused to discuss the issue. In 1995 he raised the issue with the PA Justice Minister who also refused to discuss it. Neither the PLO nor the PA Justice Ministery have ever denied that their agents arrest, torture and murder queer Palestinians, but a senior PLO official did admit to him privately that this went on. The official expressed his personal regret but said that people supporting queer human rights were a tiny minority within the PLO and the PA.
So, we're open to suggestions.
Brett Lock
Brett's complete denial of the Nature vs Nurture debate...
09.06.2004 20:29
One must pressume, Brett, that because it suits your agenda to do so, you are now quite happy to propergate the myth that there is no debate over whether homosexuals are born as (Nature) or socialized into (Nurture) homosexuals.
Maybe your are truly unaware....? Allow me:
The 'Nature' school of thought, believes that homosexuals are born into it though there have been no conclusive studies to support this.
The 'Nurture' school believes that homosexuals are conditioned by environment - homosexuality is learned behaviour.
Once you have had time to absorbe that revelation, you may want to ask yourself what the consequences might be for this argument should it be that homosexuals are born into it. (no real significance IHMO!)
Then consider the consequences of the argument should it be that homosexuals are conditioned by environment...
It means, Brett Lock, that a subversive man/boy lusting elite could indeed be running the show, nurturing both homosexuality and homophobia at the same time, in order to divide and rule !
In which case it could mean that you are perhaps inadvertantly mixed up in it all by proxy of your actions, and that those who you see as your enemy, have far more moral justification for no wanting to get involved with you at OutRage! than maybe you realise.
Not only that, but maybe the same subversive divide and rule tactic are being used on other issues that keep society from realising their collective potential, such as race relations. For example: surreptitiously fast-tracking migrant into the country, and then getting the media whores to scare the confused masses about the "flood" of migrants comming into the UK....Whilst not bothering to make any kind of real concerted effort to quash fascist orginization like the BNP. Of course, for something as cunning as that, the media (or at least parts of it) would need to be in on the charade. (waves to Mr Cohen..)
Frustrated Sun Reader
Forget it!
09.06.2004 20:46
(by the way I'm not saying all Muslims are homophobes or anything like that Note- "the religion itself")
Paul C
Win their support by fighting their battles too
09.06.2004 22:27
Ok, no disrespect to Peter Tatchell (I have a lot of respect for him actually -I like the way he carries himself in tv interviews and well, doesn't take any shit!!), but have you ever thought you might be going about this the wrong way?? Firstly, I don't think trying to aproach Islamic groups at the top is necesarily the right way to go about this. Surely it would be better to try to forge these links through common struggle -like the Palestine Solidarity stuff, only through connecting with people on the same level. The point about tactics applies here though (made above). I really don't think we should be writing the Muslim groups off though -especially now. I think NOW in particular is an ideal opertunity for breaking through on this -which is why, and I make no apologies for saying this again, I think Respect ARE making some genuine breakthroughs here. They are holding political meetings in Mosques and Muslim comunities all accross the country. OK some people here think they are going about this the wrong way, but come on guys!! I don't see anyone else having a go!! In fact, this is the first time anything like this have EVER been attempted (or at least since the war) and, to be honest, I think it is pretty exciting!!
The point is though, if you wanna win support from sections of society that have fundamental beleifs that go against you then you have to prove at least one thing before you can even begin a dialogue with them. That you are prepared to support them in their cause UNCONDITIONALLY. If you acheive this then they can't exactly turn you away can they?? Like for instance, if the BNP petrol bomb a Mosque you go and knock on the door and say "hello, I represent OutRage! the Gay rights campaign group, we would like to express our shock etc, here is some money we collected for your new Mosque". Simple but effective!! The point though is to be able to adapt to what is happening, and I really do think things are happening out there now, particularly where British Muslims are concerned. Most of us here are just stuck in our old ways -conservative! We need to be able to adapt to some pretty damn exciting things going on in politics at the moment, which means rolling your sleeves up, getting out there and getting stuck in to turning this fantastic anti-war movement into something broader and more political. But we have to do this now!! Forget about the last 25 years or whatever, that was then, this is now!! I think one of the young activists from the anti-war movement (blogging as "Gay Lad") got this exactly right in a previuos thread on a similar topic (I quote here without permission but I'm sure he won't mind??!!):
"Building Bridges
08.06.2004 13:21
Anarcho, Andy S and Caz. Thanks for a bringing reason back to this thred. We shouldn't let a few bitter anti-gay people derail an honest discussion about tactics. I voted Green (sorry anarcho!) this time, but I appreciate what Andy is saying about Respect working with and building tolerance amongst people. When I went on the big Feb 15 2003 March against the war, I was with my student gay society. There was such a variety of people there - old communists, hippies, punks, pacifist Christians - we even saw the Cornish Independence Party!! We had no problems at all with anyone. I heard about a lad raising a homophobic placard on one part of the march, and all the people around telling him he was out of order & taking it down. Spoke to a couple of Muslim girls who liked my gay rainbow badges and a housewife who was on her first demonstration. There seemed to be alot of mutual respect (no pun intended).
Maybe i'm being over optimistic, coz there are plenty of bigots out there, but there are loads of ordinary people too who are human and friendly.
Regards to all anti-fascists.
Gay lad "
You can read the full thread here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/292823.html
I reccon you put him in charge of OutRage! -Cos I reccon he could teach you a thing or two about tactics!!
Andy S
Resolving the issue
09.06.2004 23:33
Logically, if homosexuality results from environmental conditions, children that are subjected to a normalisation of homosexual behaviour will be more likely to turn out gay than children raised in a traditionaly hetrosexual environment.
The institution of the biological family is not merely an arbitrary social construct tyrannically imposed on the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority; it is civilization’s expression of nature’s two-billion-year-old solution to survival: sexual reproduction.
Hence, should the collective will of the people in a democracy have a say in the possible nurturing of homosexuality in children ? ...i.e. before certain gay rights activists proceed to systematicly subject their homosexual lifestyles upon every child in the world - whilst I should add, showing what is often seen as a total disregard for the majority of people who traditionaly support the nurture theory ?
esme
Evolutionary Evidence
10.06.2004 04:47
Thank You
In solidarity
Caz
Indpendent Left
Bring on the Wacko's
10.06.2004 05:58
AnarchoRadio
No more disruptions!!
10.06.2004 08:37
Andy S
Your soooo Uptight!!
10.06.2004 13:05
do we have to live life constantly justifying our existence to people?
Homosexuality exists in all societies to some extent. If it was only environmental factors that 'caused' someone to be gay why would they be in Palestine or Egypt or Saudi or anywhere that homosexuality is not widely tolerated.
I know of some gay people who say say they knew they were homosexual from a young age and never really seriously considered heterosexuiality. the same way heterosexual children can think about gay sex but not really consider seriously as their way of life.
Can I just say in defense of the rationality of homosexuality.....
1: Statistically male rape is far more often carried out by so called 'heterosexuals'
2: Statistically rape of women far more opften carried out by male 'heterosexuals'
3: Statistically sexual abuse is more often carried out by a male 'heterosexual' member of the family.
4: Statistically 'homosexuals' are victims of 'heterosexual' violence and intimidation/.
5: Statistically child abduction and murder is more often carried out by a male 'heterosexual'
And I could go on.............
It seems to me that mainstream 'heterosexual' society has alot more psychological problems and isssues regarding orientation and consent than gay society does. Being loaded with primitive violence, guilt, fear and shame 'heterosexual' thinking is quite dangerous it would seem.
why don't you examine your own 'straight' values and think about what you've been taught by that before scuppering gay issues.
just look at the music,fashion,cosmetic industry and look at all those barely pubescent Lolitas. Isnt that dangerous!!
Al
Moving ahead
10.06.2004 13:18
More troublingly, in order to "forge these links through common struggle" would we have to step back from criticising Egypt when they round up gays or Suadi Arabia when they execute them. Whould we have to bite our tongue when the MCB lobbies against civil partnerships in the UK, and not condemn Muslim countries for blocking the Brazillian Resolution at the UN? (Hardly any non-gay activists I've spoken to even know what the Brazillian Resolution was - it was the proposal to add sexual-orientation to the United Nations Human Rights Charter which earlier this year was blocked by a coalition of Muslim countries and The Vatican.) Should we simply ignore some of the worst human rights abuses against queers worlwide in case we offend Muslims in the UK?
How do we become part of "a common struggle" when there is little hope that queer issues will ever be seen as part of the common struggle.
I believe in the same human rights for everybody, including those with whom I disagree. I think religion is irrational superstition, but still I support freedom of religion. We support the inclusion of violence against Muslims in hate-crimes legislation; the MCB opposes gay-bashing included as a hate crime. We think it would be disgraceful if a person could be fired just because of their religion, the MCB and their Christian allies want exemption from equalities legislation so they can fire gay people. They're attacking OUR community, we're not attacking theirs, but you want US to jump through hoops to gain "acceptance" from the Muslim community - which even gay Muslims themsleves have been unable to achieve.
You say you are working with Muslim groups. At what point will *you* be prepared to challenge Muslim homophobia and open the dialogue?
I think your sentements are noble, I really do, but regrettably, I believe they are unrealistic.
Brett Lock
e-mail: indymedia@outrage.org.uk
Homepage: http://www.outrage.org.uk
Homophobia
10.06.2004 16:10
Thats just ridiculous. It's a paradox, just like this following statment:
"Statistically male rape is far more often carried out by so called 'heterosexuals'"
Unbelievable twaddle ! A man who comits an act of sodemy against another man is a homosexual. Hetrosexuals, by definition, do not have same sex intercourse, whether it's consenting, or not !
What gay activist need to understand is that there ARE two sides to this debate. Your highly subjective opinions are just that - mere unsubstantiated opinion. You opinions are not fact ! You will never resolve any gay issues successfully unless you address both sides of the argument on homosexuality.
Adult sibling who comit incest are also a minority group who are prejudice against, and just like homosexuality, there is no conclusive evidence to support the nature or the nurture theory on why they do what they do, i.e. whether incest it is innate or the result of social conditioning. Should we therefore accept incest as an alternative lifestyle which should be promoted and protected in the same way homosexuality is ? Should we have an Incest Museum ? Should we be teaching our kids education on incestious relationships ? If not, why not ? Surely to accept one and not the other would be sexual discrimination.
It appears that merely because scientist were trying to prove homosexuality was innate, that was enough for gay activist to get ahead of themselves. In presicely the same way as some people who were trying to prove that much hyped and assumed theory that Saddam had WMD got ahead of themselves... Are those who did not believe Saddam had WMD suffering from a mental illness (Bushphobia) as well...?
It seems obvious to me that there parallels to be draw between the tactics used in the neo-cons Project for a New American Centry (PNAC) and the "bring em on" style gay crusade sweeping the world, especially when they both use that; you're either with us, or..' type ideology in their rhetoric..
Perhaps one could even say the so-called 'war on terror' is piggy-backing the fight against homophobia just like some kind of parasite would, just to further undermine the neo-cons' enemy, by selfishly refusing to even consider the nurture theory as being relevent to the issue of homosexuality - when it clearly is! I say parasite because in the event of an angry reacition (from 'all' those who support the nurture theory, not just Muslims, as may have been suggested be some here) the host, in this instance gays, would suffer as a direct result of the parasite hitching a ride.
Perhaps subversive methods are fine when the moral justification is clearly justified, but when subversive methods are used for achieving objectives where the moral justification is in any kind of doubt (which could be said with both examples here) it is often proved counter-productive, as hindsight will show us that in the long term, the truth will out and invariably causes an almighty backlash. (e.g. the rise and fall of Hitler's Nazi Germany)
Gays have the right to assume you were born gay, but you can not continue to state that homosexuality IS innate unless there is some evidence to prove it. Until such time you have to consider both sides of the argument. Hence, people have just as much moral right to object to homosexualty as they do incest. Calling anyone who is not 100% behind the much hyped and assumed theory that homosexuality is innate, a homophobe, is complete and utter insanity, and is no different to saying those who object to incest are suffering from a mental illness !
Hetrosexuals have just as much moral right to object to homosexualty as they do incest - Get use to it.
esme
"isquat"
10.06.2004 16:30
I suppose they are just a few a "bad apples"......
Sarcasm
Reading Matters
10.06.2004 18:04
"Biological Exuberance" by Bruce Bagmiehl. (Biologist examines the rich seam of animal homosexuality same-sex relations and pairing throughout the natural world).
"Homosexuality - A History" by Colin Spencer (might be out of print now, but shows the normalcy of gays, lesbians and transgendered people throughout history, from the paleolithic onwards)
"Anything But Straight - Unmasking the Scandals and lies behind the exgay myth" by Wayne Besen (Huge academic expose of the far right groups that spend vast dollars on trying to show that gays are 'made' and that they can (should) be 'unmade')
"MEN WITH THE PINK TRIANGLES"
By: Heinz Heger
ISBN:1-55583-006-4
Publishers blurb: For decades, history ignored the Nazi persecution of gay people. Only with the rise of the gay movement in the 1970s did historians finally recognize that gay people, like Jews, Gypsies, and others deemed "undesirable," suffered enormously at the hands of the Nazi regime.
"Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, And Sexuality In Nature And People"
By: Joan Roughgarden
Publisher: University of California Press
UPC: 0520240731
(This is a heavy going and very academic book, but well worth the effort. From the blurb: leads the reader through a fascinating discussion of diversity in gender and sexuality among fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals, including primates. Evolution's Rainbow explains how this diversity develops from the action of genes and hormones and how people come to differ from each other in all aspects of body and behavior. disputes a range of scientific and medical concepts, including Wilson's genetic determinism of behavior, evolutionary psychology, the existence of a gay gene, the role of parenting in determining gender identity, and Dawkins's "selfish gene" as the driver of natural selection).
Gay Lad
Interesting
10.06.2004 18:16
No, sorry - just kidding. Don't let the bashers get to you. Esme's a no-body hijacking the thread like Alf said. Can we get back to tactics and Palestine - I was enjoying it!
Solidarity to all
Caz
Independent Left
...
10.06.2004 19:35
Caz ---- I am not saying I think there is going to be a gay takeover of the world. You appear to have developed 'an irrational fear' of my argument......What I am saying is that, appart from unfounded homophobia, like sanctioning violence agains gays just because they are gay, hetrosexuals, even the most philisophical, do have just as much moral right to object to homosexualty as they do incest.
Answer me this as honsetly as you can: Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving managamous relationship ?
esme
More From Yoshie
10.06.2004 20:35
http://montages.blogspot.com/
Tues June 8: A "Clash of Civilizations," Sending Pink Sparks Flying?
http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/clash-of-civilizations-sending-pink.html
Mon June 7: Making Zionism Gay or Queering Israel into Post-Zionism
http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/06/making-zionism-gay-or-queering-israel.html
Lousi Aragon
Esme is in denial
10.06.2004 21:13
Esme let me say that you seem very angry. Your language seems to expose your homophobia masquerading as a moral intellectual discussion. Parasites? Hitler? Neo-cons?
I ask again why when gays act for their rights are they equated with morally repugnant ideas such as incest? If you were a victim of incest I dont think you would be making this argument.
I suggest going and listening to some gay people to find out why they are gay. I think you will find most of them will say they were borne that way.
If you knew anything about rape you might understand that rape has always been used as a punishment by a powerful person or persons against a weaker person whether they are heterosexual or not. The revelations in Iraq have borne this out but in fact it is a very old problem, especially in war.
Male rapists do not in the main engage in a gay lifestyle or have gay sex with men or accept gay rights. The rape is a power tool! The studies are out there if you wish to do some research.
It was not long ago when male rape was not a crime here in the UK. The most a rapist could get was actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm.
I notice you do not answer my question as to why gays exist in societies that are not tolerant of gay issues.
I dont think you can really substantiate your arguments either Esme.
Where is the evidence that homosexuality is soley a product of nurture?
Obviously incest is a part of the human experience but is it appropriate?
One of the oldest causes of conflict is that of gaining 'new blood' into the tribal group.
eg kidnap of women and children.
Even isolated communities in the middle of the Amazon jungle for example will rather war against another tribe in order to avoid incest.
Anyway does it matter whether homosexuality is innate or not?
As for Palestine. Vive la resistance!!
Al
Denial
10.06.2004 22:30
As for you question: 'why do gays exist in societies that are not tolerant of gay issues.' The answer is obvious, for presicely the same reason incest exists in societies that are not tolerant of incest...!
And yes, I can substantiate my argument, and am evidently more than willing to do so... You see, I have had the same argument with several people now, and non of them could challenge my argument without contradicting themselves in the proccess. Now if my argument is as weak as you say it is, you'll be more than happy to point out were you think I am wrong.
In the meantime, to prevent you looking like your in denial, I suggest you answer my question:
Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving managamous relationship ?
esme
Here she goes again
11.06.2004 03:25
1. 'Caz' may or may not have developed an fear of your arguments. She is however, perfectly rational in doing so. Especially if you have children or access to gay youth, your effect on them could be devastating. As Al has told you previously, psychological abuse of gay teeenagers and young people by anti-gay extremists is a real issue.
2. As you state, incest has been practiced in some *very limited* human societies in history - usually, if you hadn't already noticed, amongst heterosexuals. The Ptolemaic example from the third to first centuries BCE is the only one that springs to mind at this stage. Certainly, its historical prevalence is miniscule compared with homosexuality,which was tolerated - even celebrated - in societies on every continent and throughout the millenia of our development. Incest also occurs amongst very small groups of primates, primarily bonobos, a relative to our ape antecedents (according to our current levels of knowledge). Objectively, therefore, from a zoological viewpoint, incest is morally neutral. But if you think you're going to win the argument with such a tired cliche, then you are sadly mistaken. Human society has distinguished incest because of the possiblity of genetic birth defects from incestuous heterosexual pairings. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has no deleterious effect on offspring. There are of course some groups - primarily religious - who maintain that gays are 'out to get future generations', but they have provided no evidence to support their wild assertions. In fact, latest research demonstrates that children who are brought up with gay relatives in their lives are more likely to be able to relate to both genders and choose a career for themselves outside of limiting gender role assumptions.
3. 'Gay lad' has provided you with a reading list - which is good of him, because I think he has every right to tell you to take a jump. But rather than educate yourself, or immerse yourself in the evidence, you have thrown it back in his face. Why not have a look at the texts he recommends, or surf the web for a precis even. You may find something of interest, or at the very least, your arguments will be subject to rigorous questioning. That is the mark of a truly inquiring mind.
4. I see that you have chosen not to restate your previous assertion that homosexuals are trying to deny the nature/nurture debate. But, I still think it's worth examining your statements again in the light of what we now know from this thread.
4a) You say homosexuals are trying to prove that they were 'born that way'. Not so. Homosexuals spend much time debating their origins and gay philosophers have disagreed passionately on the issue. There is no consensus, any more than there is a homosexual conspiracy.
4b) You seem to have a vested interest in persuading us that homosexuals are made and not born. Why? If tomorrow it were proven to be true, what difference would it make, or would you advocate the compulsory torture of gay youth to try and 'reorinetate' them? (something that pseudo-Freudians wasted a lot of time trying to do in the 40's, 50's and 60's, without success)
4c) If homosexuality was proven tomorrow to have a genetic origin, then how would your position be modified. Would you rethink your position, or join the little lamented late Lord Jakobovitz (monickered "Thatcher's Rabbi" given his broadly right wing ideology) in advocating genetic tests for homosexual foetuses and aborting them? If your philosophy ends with exterminism, then it is only right you share it with us.
Well, that about wraps it up for Esme's pseudo-arguments for now. I think this thread is more or less closed. Esme - congratulations for derailing an interesting debate on Palestine with your fruitcake theories. Doubtless you will emerge somewhere else to repost the same allegations the next time a 'gay' themed thread emerges. When you do, don't act surprised when people call you to account. As you yourself put it - you can just "get used to it".
AnarchoRadio
For the sake of brevity...
11.06.2004 04:23
Q: Is it right for society to prejudice against incest when performed by two consenting adults in a loving managamous relationship ?
"No" ---- "Because to accept homosexuality and not incest would be sexual discrimination...?" Are you sure...? I don't think society would not tolerate that. Think again !
"Yes" ---- Well of course!
Then why would you expect hetrosexuals not to prejudice against homosexuals when, just like homosexuality, there is no conclusive evidence to support the nature or the nurture theory on whether incest it is innate or the result of social conditioning. After all, they are also in a minority group and are prejudice against by society. What if incest is innate and homosexuality isn't ? We don't know for sure, do we ? And on the surface, incest certainly seems more likely to be genetic, seeing as it obviously occurs in families..!
Surely the truth is, with the jury being out equally on both homosexuality and incest, to accept one into your culture and not the other would be hypocritical sexual discrimination based on the law of the land, instead of the same (flawed) reason and (paradoxical) argument given for accepting homosexuality ? Using the same logic as gay rights activists, aren't the LGBT moraly obligated to add the letter 'I' to it's acronym to protect and promote incest as well as lesbians gays, bisexuals and transexuals, in order to avoid hypocrisy ?
If you are moraly happy to prejudice against incest, perhaps hetrosexuals don't have to accept homosexuality either. Maybe the idea of a Gay Museum to a lot of people is just as offencive as would be an Incest Museum to most people. Perhaps therefore we shouldn't even consider teaching other peoples kids education on homosexuality after all ? Think about it objectively. Why would hetrosexuals accept the teaching of homosexuality, and not incest (unless they were being bullied into it using the paradox that is 'political correctness gone mad'.) ?
Hence, people do evidently have just as much moral right to object to homosexualty as they do incest.
And bizarre as it may seem, using the same fuzzy logic of gay rights activists, those who comit incest have presicely the same moral right (but not legal right - which actually means they are discriminated against more than gays!!) to parade down a high street near you, flawnting their alternative sexuality as "normal", whilst campaigning for kids to be educated on the normality of incestious relationships, and using all sorts of subversive methods to achieve their objectives along the way, which not only deliberately antagonize, but show a total disregard for anyone elses beliefs and opinions.
How do you feel about that.....?
esme
esme
An Interesting Perspective on Incest
11.06.2004 09:44
An Anarchist Perspective on Incest
by Sarah Valery 9:04pm Sun Apr 25 '04 (Modified on 9:58am Tue Apr 27 '04) article#9986
Why Incest should be decriminalised and promoted in our "society"
Incest is sexual activity between close family members. It is a taboo in most "societies" and a criminal offence by being an impediment to marriage in most countries, as well as being opposed by most modern religions.
But the exact definition of what is a "close family member" varies widely: some jurisdictions consider only those related by birth, others also those related by adoption or marriage; some prohibit relations only with nuclear family members and ancestors or descendants, while others prohibit relations with aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, and cousins as well.
Anthropologists, foolishly, have found that all "societies" place restrictions on who one may marry (for those that belive in marriage). Although "marriage" should not be confused with sex, many societies in the past only permitted sexual relations within the bounds of marriage — hence, their rules regarding marriage were the same as their rules regarding sex.
In some other societies, where sexual relations were permitted outside marriage, persons prohibited to marry were also prohibited to have sex. The most closely related biological kin — parents, children, brothers and sisters — are wrongly but almost universally included.
Most societies also specify rules that encourage and sometimes FORCE marriage within groups, frequently ethnic and religious ones. Even in modern Western societies, individuals consistently express preferences for mates from similar social class and educational backgrounds and attempts to violate this endogamic principle can cause dramatic resistance from the associates of the violators, despite the society's pervasive emphasis on love and individual choice.
In most of the Western world incest generally refers to forbidden sexual relations within the family. However, even here, definitions of family vary. Within the United States, marriage between (first) cousins is illegal in some states, but not in others, and sociologists have classified marriage laws in the United States into two categories.
There is also the much rarer phenomenon of consensual incestuous relations between adults, such as between an adult brother and sister. This is illegal in most places, but these laws are sometimes questioned on the grounds that such relations do not harm other people (provided the couple have no children) and so should not be criminalized.
Incest may be a form of inbreeding and some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. However, Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. First, in many societies partners with whom marriage is forbidden and partners with whom marriage is preferred are equally related in genetic terms; the inbreeding argument would not explain the incest taboo in these societies.
The "inbreeding" argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population. Inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals.
As an Anarchist, I strongly support Incest being decriminalised.
I further support it to be promoted and encouraged in schools as part of an alternative to the failed and discredited capitalist falsehood of "marriage" and the grinding hardship and oppression that forced-heterosexuality has created for so many individuals.
The narrow-mindedness and fanaticism of a small section of this world has created many dangerous and unhealthy attitudes.
Incest is NOT taboo.
Incest is something to be cherished, promoted and celebrated.
In Anarchy,
Sarah Valery
http://www.brisbane.indymedia.org.au/front.php3?article_id=9986&group=webcast
esme
Indymedia is not the forum
11.06.2004 10:25
I'm truly sorry, but I don't have the time and resources to wade through all the irrelevant "noise" and malicious distractions or to argue for lesbian and gay people's right to exist. I look forward to exploring the issues another time in another forum.
The post following this one - by Peter Tatchell - reflects where we are coming from on this issue as well as responding to issues raised in the initial posting to this thread. OutRage! welcomes entering into constructive round-table dialogue with the PSC, Respect, STWC or any other group involved in this issue.
Brett Lock
e-mail: indymedia@outrage.org.uk
Support Palestine, but challenge homophobia
11.06.2004 10:33
The PSC made this claim in a letter to the left-wing Morning Star newspaper, published last Saturday, 5 June. It was objecting to OutRage!'s criticism of the officially-sanctioned persecution of queers in the Palestinian-controlled areas of Gaza and the West Bank, and to OutRage!'s revelation of attempts by PSC officials and stewards to silence this criticism.
Members of OutRage! joined the PSC demonstration in London on 15 May, supporting an end to Israel's human rights abuses against the Palestinians.
Contrary to claims by the PSC, we did not stage a "counter-demonstration". We were there in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. Our placards said, "Israel: Stop persecuting Palestine".
But we also called for an end to the torture and murder of lesbians and gays by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Our placards additionally read, "Palestine: Stop persecuting queers".
It was never our intention to disrupt the PSC rally or create a big commotion. We had a small, low-key presence. Our aim was to raise awareness. We wanted to alert the supporters of Palestine, in the hope they would help us pressure the Palestinian leadership to halt its oppression of queers.
What turned a minor presence into a major incident was the excessive response of the PSC organisers and stewards. They surrounded us, ordering us to the back of the demonstration. When we refused, they blocked out our placards with their own, obscuring our message. They also shouted us down, preventing us talking with journalists and other protesters who wanted to find out more about the suffering of queers in Palestine.
The PSC now denies this intimidation and censorship took place. But it was filmed by a Channel 4 documentary maker, Darren Lewey, and photographed by four professionals, including the respected left-wing and pro-Palestine photographer Paul Mattsson. They all corroborate OutRage!'s version of events.
In a bid to deflect criticism, the PSC has issued a statement saying it opposes homophobia. Fine words. But what has it done to challenge the violent homophobia of the PLO, Hamas and PA? I wrote to the PSC nine years ago, asking them to urge the PLO to stop killing queers. The PSC did nothing. I emailed the PSC office six weeks ago requesting dialogue. They never replied.
The PSC accuses OutRage! of damaging solidarity with the Palestinians. That's right PSC, blame the people who defend the victims, and let the oppressors off the hook. It is the PLO's and PA's homophobia that is damaging solidarity, by dividing gays and straights - both here and in Palestine.
While the PSC ignores the persecution of Palestinian queers and their pleas for help, OutRage! does not. We heard their appeals for solidarity and acted.
Astonishingly, the PSC letter in the Morning Star completely ignores the issue of PLO and PA violence against lesbians and gays. It offers not a word of sympathy to the victims of Palestinian homophobia, and makes no offer to raise the issue with the Palestinian authorities. The PSC is in deep and total denial. Yet again we seem to have a so-called progressive movement implying that queer lives are expendable for the sake of the greater good of a revolutionary struggle.
There is no doubt that Palestinian queers are the victims of horrendous homophobic violence. This is confirmed by the independent Israeli human rights groups B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights, and by the Israeli gay organisations, Aguda and Open House.
Two senior PLO officials have admitted to me privately that homophobic violence is sanctioned by the Palestinian leadership. Officially, the PLO refuses to discuss the matter. I have tried several times over the last 20 years to quietly and diplomatically raise this issue with the PLO. It has rejected all overtures and attempts at dialogue. That is why OutRage! had to protest. To do nothing would be collusion with homophobic tyranny.
The PSC implies that OutRage! has no right to campaign in solidarity with Palestinian queers, arguing that "Palestinian lesbians and gay men must be allowed to determine for themselves how they wage that struggle". We agree. That is why Outrage!, unlike the PSC, is not ignoring their desperate pleas for help.
I have supported the Palestinian struggle for national liberation for 30-plus years. But freedom for Palestine must be freedom for everyone - straight and gay. Unless we challenge the abuse of queer human rights now, homophobia will become entrenched in a new Palestinian state. If the PLO and PA get away with persecuting queers, they will also be emboldened to trample on the rights of other Palestinians too. Pressuring them to respect queer rights will help create a stronger human rights culture and that will
benefit all Palestinians.
These issues aside, OutRage! values the work of the PSC. We will continue to support its efforts to help secure a free Palestine. We hope that in return the PSC will work with us to pressure the PLO, Hamas and the PA to abandon their homophobia and create a truly liberated nation based on human rights for all.
Peter Tatchell
"freedom for Palestine must be freedom for everyone"
11.06.2004 11:11
At least be honest about it...!
esme
Logic
11.06.2004 12:05
Which begs the question, why are some people so ready to accept the idea of having sex with a family member? Could it just be attitude? I don't see why not. There are many cultures that permitted the practice of incest, including the Polynesians. Is it so ridiculous to think it could it be because the idea has somehow been normalised to them, through some sort of socialisation process? if so why would homosexuality be any different? Could it just simply be because they are "special"...?
Sarcasm
Give it a rest!
11.06.2004 14:00
You you like having the same argument over and over and over and over???!!!
As Brett Lock said to you in last thread:
--------------
Generally speaking, the law should not involve itself in the consenting sexual relationships of adults, (whetehr monogomous or not).
Incest where there is a possibility of procreation is rightly prohibited for the reasons given. Where there is no chance of procreation, I do not believe there has ever been a single case where the law has sought to intervene or prosecute. Moreover, the laws against incest usually extends only as far as prohibiting marriage (which implies the posibility of procreation. Intention is irrelevant since a great number of children are conceived despite their parents intentions.)
I am not aware of any country where the force of the law actively seeks out incestuous couples to prosecute them, much less persecutes them.
------------
So there he said it! - NO, unless incest will harm others - like if procreation is possible there is no reason why the government or society should involve itself in the sexual relations of adults capaple of making consenting decisions. And they don't! Where the hell is the Insest Rights Movement??? Surely there would be one if anyone other than YOU thought it was a PROBLEM??!!
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!!?? OTHER THAN TO PISS PPL OFF!!??
Pissed Off!!!
"So there he said it!"
11.06.2004 15:56
What Brett actually did previously was to give a politicians answer, which was to not actually answer the question at all, in fact he even went as far to deny incest was a problem worth addressing.
You asked: "Where the hell is the Insest Rights Movement???"
See: "An Interesting Perspective on Incest" (posted above)
You also asked: "WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!!??"
First of all, all this repeating myself could have been avoided if straight answers had been given the first time I asked, instead of the subversive weasle worded double talk I have had to put up with.
What I and a load of hetrosexual parents want is an aknowlegment from OutRage (and other gay rights activist) that hetrosexuals have every moral right to object to such thinks as homosexualty being taught to their kids (as they do incest!), and, for OutRage to make it abundantly clear to all (something quotable!), that OutRage's intentions are to campaign for the acceptance of homosexuality aswell as incest (if indeed that is the case). I don't think some people who support OutRage realise they are supporting incest aswell as homosexuality. People have a right to know presicely what it is they are supporting.
One must pressume that because incest is a criminal offence and therefore patently discriminated against, OutRage will be challenging the law, to prevent further dicrimination. Anything else would contradict itself (as I predicted), and would therefore be highly hypocritical, and if reputation is anything to go by, highly unlikely!
The general public should at least be aware that with the support of OutRage, those who comit incest have presicely the same moral right to parade down a high street near you, flawnting their alternative sexuality as "normal", whilst campaigning for kids to be educated on the normality of incestious relationships, and using all sorts of subversive methods to achieve their objectives along the way, which not only deliberately antagonize, but show a total disregard for anyone elses beliefs and opinions...
Believe me, people do not want incest introduced to them as a supposidly acceptable and normal alternative lifestyle, moralized using the same flawed reasons and paradoxical logic that has been use for the acceptance of homosexuality. You would have to be mad to think otherwise!
esme
Its so sad
11.06.2004 22:15
LETS GET HIS CLEAR ESME, ARE ACTUALLY ADVOCATING THE CRIMINILISATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY OR NOT?
Next she will be saying we should support peadophiles because they can have loving relationships or maybe rape should be legal because some people enjoy it.
The problem with this argument is that it is essentially circular, like arguing the existence of God. No one has a definitive proof that it exists or does not.
its the same with all moral arguments, one can argue one way or the other but THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL TRUTH except that we are born and we die but hen is that an illusion or dream in itself.
Esme, you said that you had discussed this with gay people. But do you discuss with your fellow parents?
Do you seriously discuss with them that incest should be a socially acceptable practice. I think not because they would probably lynch you if you did.
I am amused at the way you have used the discussion of Palestine and Homosexuality to rant ANONOMOUSLY over the internet while you no doubt talk of homosexual perversion in private with your friends like little children who find something embarrasing OR ARE YOU REALLY TURNED ON BY THE IDEA after all you seem to be rather obsessed.
Why is your argument flawed?
Well at least historically homosexuals have contibuted positively to society in art, philosophy, music, film, politics, law, economically and in numerous other ways, encompassing all peoples in common sruggle for our human rights.
As far as I see incestuous couples have contributed nothing.
Esme lets forget moralising and philosophy for a moment, I would really like to say that YOU ARE FULL OF ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT!! and I pity your poor children for having to live with you. HOW DARE YOU!!
ANYWAY I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A NEW THREAD TO DISCUSS THESE SOCIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA IN ORDER TO LET GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS GET ON WITH DOING WHAT THEY DO BEST AND DISCUSSING ISSUES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO GAY RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN GENERAL.
Al
Now your buggered !
12.06.2004 12:29
What's are they to do...?
If I was Peter Tatchell, Brett Lock, or any of the others at OutRage!, I'd take a little break and do some serious, logical and objective thinking - for a change!
All you others that have gone remarkably quiet all of a sudden... Don't tell me your scared to admit the truth, i'd never believe it.
Al ---You can try an prevert (seems to be your, erm, 'speciality') what I've said all you like. The evidence is cleary writen above....and will be found by thousand of people who put key words in to search engines. Key words like: Homosexuality, Peter Tatchell, Brett Lock, OutRage! etc,etc................."!"
esme
PSC opposes homophobia
04.07.2004 23:05
Frankie Green
Frankie Green
e-mail: frankie.green@btinternet.com
Homepage: http://www.palestinecampaign.org