OutRage!-report on the demo-Iran Embassy

Report and pics of the demo outside the Iranian Embassy: 4 October against Iran's attacks on gay people (and others).

Celebs join protest against Iran executions and torture

Scott Capurro, Jeremy Sheffield, Q Boy and Josh Rafter picket Iranian
Embassy

Boy George, Matt Lucas, Simon Callow condemn Iranian murderers

Petition rejected by Iran Embassy – Now to be delivered to Foreign
Secretary

London – 4 October 2005

TV soap and film actor Jeremy Sheffield, gay rap star Q Boy, comedian
Scott Cappurro, Big Brother contestant Josh Rafter, out gay Labour MP
Chris Bryant and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell today joined a
50-strong protest outside the Iranian Embassy in London.

The protest was also backed by Little Britain TV star Matt Lucas,
Hollywood actor Simon Callow and pop singer and DJ Boy George.

The protest was part of an on-going series of global demonstrations
against the Iranian government’s arrest, imprisonment, whipping and
execution of gay men.

It was organised by the gay magazine Axm, and by the queer rights
group OutRage!.

OutRage! expresses its appreciation to Axm for its splendid work in
making this protest possible.

“We are here to condemn Iran’s execution and torture of gay men, and
to demand international action against the tyrannical Iranian regime”
said protest co-organiser Peter Tatchell of the LGBT human rights
group OutRage!.

“The international community should issue an ultimatum to Iran: either
respect human rights, or face economic sanctions. There can be no
normal relations with an abnormal regime that executes gay people,
unchaste women, Muslims who renounce their faith, and political,
religious and ethnic minorities.

STOP PRESS: New photo of the executed teenagers:

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=6hang300

Photos of today’s London protest:

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=AXMIran002

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=AXMIran011

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=AXMIran012

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=AXMIran026

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=AXMIran054

http://outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=AXMIranPoster

“Two teenagers were hanged in the Iranian city of Mashhad on 19 July,
on charges involving homosexual acts. A 22 year old gay man, Amir,
recently fled Iraq after being given 100 lashes. He was lashed for
merely being gay, not for having gay sex. The lashes left his back
covered in open bloody wounds. The police warned him that if they
caught him again he would be executed like the teenagers in Mashhad.

“Iranian agents, posing as gay men, have been arranging dates in gay
chat rooms, luring respondents to rendezvous, and then arresting,
beating and torturing them. This is part of a sustained witch-hunt of
gay people by the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran.

“We express our solidarity with lesbian and gay Iranians, and with all
the people of Iran who are struggling for democracy and human rights.
The Ayatollah’s clerical fascist regime is the problem. There can be
no freedom for any Iranian – gay or straight – while the Islamists
remain in power and enforce the barbarism of Sharia law. OutRage!
supports the efforts of Iranian democrats, socialists, communists,
trade unionists, students, feminists and gays to overthrow the Iranian
theocracy,” said Peter Tatchell.

As well as the celebrity speakers, the protest was addressed by
Iranian exiles, representing pro-gay opposition groups that are
battling against the butchers in Tehran.

These speakers included Maryam Kousha of the Iran Civil Rights
Committee, Maziar Razi of the Iranian Workers Solidarity Network, and
Bahram Soroush of the Worker’s Communist Party of Iran. These groups
have backed the LGBT freedom struggle in Iran, assisting OutRage! in
the translation of messages and smuggling out of Iran information
about the persecution of LGBT people.

Thousands of Axm readers have signed the Axm 'Homophobia Kills'
petition, condemning the Iranian executions.

The Iranian Embassy refused to accept the petition.

Instead, the petition will be delivered by openly gay Labour MP Chris
Bryant to the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw MP, with a request that
he calls on the Iranian government to halt its persecution of the LGBT
community in Iran.

We thank everyone who signed the petition.

Endorsing the protest, the star of the Little Britain TV comedy, Matt
Lucas said:

“Recently in Iran two teenagers were executed for being gay. This is
just one example of the constant persecution of gay and lesbian people
by the Iranian government. I support efforts to put pressure on the
Iranian government to stop this persecution. While gay visibility has
grown in Britain in recent years we cannot forget the plight of those
in more hostile parts of the world who live with the daily risk of
jail, torture and execution for no other reason than their
sexuality.'

Hollywood actor Simon Callow (Four Weddings and A Funeral) said:

'I'm sorry, I can't make it to the Embassy on the 4th. I'm filming all
day. But I unreservedly condemn this savage and barbaric treatment of
homosexual men in Iran. It is inconceivable that we should have
diplomatic relations with a country which betrays its citizens in this
way.'

Two gay teenagers were publicly executed in Iran on 19 July 2005. The
youths were hanged in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad,
in North East Iran.

They were sentenced to death by Court No. 19. Iran enforces Islamic
Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex. One youth
was aged 18 and the other was a minor under the age of 18.

They admitted to having gay sex (probably under torture) but claimed
in their defence that they were not aware that homosexuality was
punishable by death.

Prior to their execution, the teenagers were held in prison for 14
months and severely beaten with 228 lashes.

Their length of detention suggests that they committed the so-called
offences more than a year earlier, when they were possibly around the
age of 16 or 17.

“Although the Iranian government claims the youths were executed for
the rape of a 13 year old boy, underground gay groups inside Iran tell
us that the two teenagers were lovers,” said Peter Tatchell of
OutRage!

“They say the Iranian government routinely makes up false allegations
- such as rape, drug-taking and spying - to discredit the people it
executes and to discourage public protests,” Mr Tatchell said.

According to Axm magazine editor, Matthew Miles:

'The shocking images of the executed Iranian teenagers have galvanised
our print and online readers, with thousands of people signing our
petition in a ten day period. As LGBT people in the West finally gain
most of the rights we deserve, it seems we are proving that there is
such a thing as a global gay community by focusing on the struggle for
equality in more hostile parts of the world. Protest is only a step
but, as organisations such as Amnesty International and OutRage! have
proved, it can and does bring change. That is why, along with
OutRage!, Axm magazine organised today’s protest against the Iranian
Government.

Further information:

Brett Lock OutRage! 07xxx xxxxxxwww.outrage.org.uk
Matthew Miles Axm 07xxx xxxxxx / 02xxx xxxxxx. Email:
m-dot-miles-at-axm-mag-dot-com

Sign the petition against Iranian homophobia online, or by post:
Online: www.axm-mag.com
Post: Iran Petition, Axm magazine, 2 Charlotte Road, London EC2A 3DH
www.axm-mag.com
---------------------------------

pirate

Comments

Hide the following 26 comments

If looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck: its a duck!

05.10.2005 16:25

Synchronicity?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4312516.stm

Looks like new Labours fifth column is at it again!

Bermondsey Bill

the whole story is wrong, they weren't exceucted for being gay

05.10.2005 17:53

admit your mistake and move on, im sure the treatment of gay people in Iran is well dodgey but this particularily story is a rubbish

http://www.washblade.com/2005/8-5/view/columns/islamophobe.cfm

Neo-conned

05.10.2005 18:39

When Outrage! say -

“Two teenagers were hanged in the Iranian city of Mashhad on 19 July, on charges involving homosexual acts."

Don't they mean the gang rape at knifepoint (along with several other participants whose fates are undetermined) of a 13-year-old boy?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050815/kim

BTW in 2004 the United States executed more minors than Iran.

Where's the outrage about that?

Against hanging - for getting the facts right

State fabricated charges

05.10.2005 22:19

It amazes me that people here who would never believe official US or UK government sources, much less Israeli government sources, or the old apartheid South African government sources are so ready to believe the official Iranian government sources aboit this alleged "rape" when Iranian activists and oposition parties are all shouting out that it was a made-up charge.

Where is the proof that this rape took place, other than on the say-so of the Iranian government?

Qwerty

hmmm

05.10.2005 22:44

"Where is the proof that this rape took place, other than on the say-so of the Iranian government?"

And where is your proof that it didn't?

Telling us that the Iranian state isn't a reliable source doesn't mean anything.

You also accuse Al-Quds of being unreliable.

So, how would the "Persian dissidents" know if it was true or not?

What did your little protest achieve btw?

Have you noticed this thing yet - no one disgrees that the Iranian givernment is shit, nobody agrees with the death penalty - but lots of people disagree with the manner in which Outrage! conducts its ever so convenient to the warmongers campaigns.

Why do you think that is?

Peter Tatchell's safe seat

Iranian democrats get no support

06.10.2005 07:54

"These speakers included Maryam Kousha of the Iran Civil Rights Committee, Maziar Razi of the Iranian Workers Solidarity Network, and Bahram Soroush of the Worker’s Communist Party of Iran."

Yeah, I suppose these people are all war-mongers too!

The fact of the matter is that because Iran is anti-US all of its opposition politicians, leftwing activists, trade-unionists and other disidents have been told to fuck off by leftwing groups here because highlighting their issues will apparently play into the hands of the US. Well what do you expect them to do? Settle for a shit government that hangs women and children, assassinates worker leaders, imprisons and tortures academics and writers? Of course, if they try to seek international solidarity then they're just supporting the US warmonger agenda.

And another thing. The whole point of Indymedia is about activists reporting the truth that the authorities won't, or deny, or hide or spin... yet you arrogantly ask how Iranian activists know the truth when their government lies - the same way we all do. The same way Indymedia is full of news. Because they're activists, It's their job to know, they're part of the communities where this shit goes down.

Qwerty

..."or face economic sanctions" ...

06.10.2005 08:00

... oh brother!!!

Would killing another million muslim kids produce a fairer world for gay people?

Would it 'be worth it'?

Pink stormtroopers for the bush/blair new world order ...

... you have been outed ...

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com

Outrage about Outrage?

06.10.2005 11:43

"BTW in 2004 the United States executed more minors than Iran.

Where's the outrage about that?"

Outrage was set up to deal with issues relating to gays and lesbians. They campaign about gay and lesbian issues. They do not campaign on issues that don't relate to gays and lesbians such as execution of minors (not that this means they may not care about them). It's like calling the Stop the War Coalition arseholes because they haven't been organising campaigns about global warming.

Anyway, on to the more important issues. Having heard first-hand stories of what has happened in Iran to people involved in heterosexual activities that are frowned upon (e.g. having a girlfriend openly) it's not too hard to give credence to the fact that the way gays or lesbians are treated is disgraceful. That leads us to the question of how we act upon these issues, and how Outrage have acted.

I'm not sure how representative Peter Tatchell is of Outrage as a whole and I disagree with some of what he says, but I think he's always been pretty honest about where he stands in relation to the anti-war movement. He has positioned himself very firmly against the war (his analysis of the reasons behind it seem to be relatively similar to those of most in the anti-war movement) but believes that regime change in a different form, e.g. supporting opposition groups in Iraq, was in the interests of Iraqis in general (and particularly gay or lesbian Iraqis).

Now, I suppose you can always make a case and say that Tatchell and Outrage must be some sort of state asset seeking to dilute the message of the anti-war movement in a classic divide-and-conquer maneouvre. One of the many down sides of this is that you end up with the tendency to impose a blinkered view of what the anti-war movement should be and that those who, while expressly maintaining an anti-war viewpoint, disagree on certain particulars should be labelled as state interests. It's vaguely reminiscent of the way that feminist issues were ignored during most of the anti-Vietnam movement because women's rights was seen as potentially divisive.

The way that gays are treated in Iran is an absolute disgrace and, as people on the left, it is something we should all be concerned about. At the same time, its pretty clear that there has been a strong push to position Iran in a certain way to make a case for some sort of US/UK etc intervention (whether war or something softer is open to debate). However, to say that you cannot campaign as Outrage have done against the actions in Iran without serving the needs of Bush & Blair makes the whole issue an either/or question. You can't complain about Bush's simplistic "with me or against me" black-and-white thinking if you reproduce it yourselves. Do you think that people in Britain could not understand a position that said (in a better phrased way!) "I'm against what is happening in Iran, but very much against war as a solution"?

As Qwerty says, what do you expect those who are the victims in Iran to do? Are they to wait until they get the all-clear from the anti-war movement before trying to sort out their problems?

PS Jackslucid - would you care to re-appraise your "Pink stormtroopers" comment or are you really as much of an insensitive tosser as that statement implies?

Leam

Insensitive moi?

06.10.2005 15:14

Ok, first the politically correct cloth in which to qualify my outrageous[sic] remarks ...

... being no homophobe & having gay & lesbian friends etc etc ...

Would you care to re-appraise the hugely insensitive remarks of these idiots at outrage?

Firstly, it is no secret, no shame and entirely correct to link the threat of 'economic sanctions' with those so recently imposed on the original bogeyman of the middle east ... Iraq ... sanctions that killed millions of women, children ... and probably not a few gay people. How absolutly insensitive is that?

Will it be worth it? Or to quote that famous Crowley line (in full!) .. do as thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the law, but will you still think that when you are the one being sacrificed? ...

Then, are you [outrage] so blind as to see what is in front of your faces?

The truely facist and truely dispicable neocons/zionists/global elites are preparing the ground for one almighty [sic] fucking confrontation with Iran. They are scouting around for ANY ammmo, why do you assist them?

I mean, I know that cheney has a lesbian daughter and that [they] get up to all soughts of bizzare homo-erotic stuff at the skull and bones ... but is this enough for you to aleign yourself [outrage] with them?

And talk of pink stormtroopers is nothing in comparison with the potential for hundreds of thousands more dead muslims is it?

To be honest, if the cap fits ... we are expected to accept that just because you espouse support for gay people, that your methods are sound ... or even effective?

I hate to be the mouthpiece for [my] gay and lesbian friends, but ALL of them recognise that outrage is a shrill publicity seeking joke and wil have nothing to do with it.

If you are so insensitive as to have missed the sound of the drums of war booming loudly ... consider this a wake up call.

Or perhaps you think that gay Iranians are best helped by having the shit blown out of them?

Perhaps gay Palestinians will best be helped by supporting their israeli oppressors as well ...

Outrage is not trusted, nor respected ... in fact it is considered very suspect to those of us interested in evreyones human rights ... so re-appraise that!

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com

pink stormtroopers

06.10.2005 15:52

Heres is the lastest league table of the oppersed by agreement with the cobwebs and the mullahs pulling the strings.

1. muslims
2.middle class students
3.twilight aka cato aka brian blassed
and right at the bottom the working class or more accruraly those white lumpen scum from the eastates.

Mr Lustbather

Peter Tatchell's Revisionist History

06.10.2005 15:56

What Peter Tatchell claims to journalists:-

“Peter Tatchell campaigned against Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war and was involved with a group that printed leaflets urging young men to refuse the draft. In August 1971 he emigrated to Britain to escape being drafted himself.”

http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/petertatchell.html

What Peter Tatchell’s web-site says:-

“Peter Tatchell was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1952. Opposed to United States and Australian aggression against the people of Vietnam, in the late 1960s he became active in the National Campaign Against Conscription, Draft Resister's Union, Christians For Peace, and the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, helping to organise the huge "Stop Work To Stop The War" demonstrations which immobilised the city of Melbourne in 1970.
Unwilling to be drafted to serve in a genocidal war, and faced with the alternative of two years imprisonment, Peter Tatchell went into exile in London in 1971. Five days after his arrival, he joined the newly-formed Gay Liberation Front and, a little later, the Troops Out Movement, supporting its campaign for an end to the British military occupation of north-east Ireland. Since 1971, he has been involved in nearly every major campaign for homosexual human rights in Britain.”

http://www.petertatchell.net/

What an ANZAC Veteran recalls:-

“In 1970, in accordance with the Australian Government's policy, the Training Team began concentrating in Phuoc Tuy Province where the Australian Task Force was also located. With a reduction of the Task force to 2 battalions after the withdrawal of 8RAR on 17 November 1970, the advisory presence was increased to 200. The Team reverted to its training role with the establishment of a Jungle Warfare Training Centre (JWTC) to train Vietnamese junior leaders. Also six-man Mobile Advisory and Training Teams (MATI) were raised to work with Regional Force companies, Popular Force platoons and People's Self Defence Force (PSDF) platoons throughout Phuoc Tuy Province.
With the withdrawal of the Task Force and Logistical Support Group in December 1971, AATTV, though reduced in strength, was the principle unit of the residual force, now named Australian Army Assistance Group Vietnam. The last tasks of the JWTC was to train Cambodian army battalions of the Forces Armee Nationale Khmer or FANK (its previous title was FARK - Forces Armee Royale Khmer).
The Team remained in Phuoc Tuy until the election of a Labor Government in Australia on 2 December 1972, and was ordered to withdraw on 18 December 1972.”

http://www.gruntonline.com/Order%20of%20Battle/ANZACs/anzac6.htm

In summary Peter Tatchell claims:-

1. That he left Australia because he was going to drafted, but the historical evidence is clear that the regular Australian army was being withdrawn completely from Vietnam in December 1971, 3 months after Peter had to ‘flee’ into exile. Even if he had been drafted he would not have finished his basic training in time to participate and he certainly would not be experienced enough to be posted to a training cadre that stayed until 1972.

2. That he was going to be drafted into Vietnam War, again the historical evidence is clear as a gay man Tatchell would have been banned by Australian Military Law from serving, so the two years in prison is nonsense. Further, all gay and lesbians I know who have been sent to prison had great sex lives inside, no straight prisoners has a sex life in prison, at least one they will admit too.

Facts:

1. When Nazis deny historical facts and distort the truth we correctly call them revisionists and reject their lies or distortions of the evidence.

2. Many of the leftist Iranian opposition groups were run from Iraq under Saddam and were intimately involved with the Saddam era security forces and Baath party. Most of these organizations have swapped the patronage of Saddam for the patronage of Bush. Why should anyone trust them?

3. Some find term “Pink Stormtroopers” inappropriate, perhaps you should really complain to Ernst Roehm the founder of the S.A. also known in German as “Brownshirts” and “nazi Stormtroopers”. Ersnt was as gay as Peter Tatchell. This gay man and his gay friends spent a lot of time beating the shit out of Jewish, Communist and Socialist opponents for the Nazis (Like the execution of children I am not interested in their victims alledged crimes or sexuality I just think that it is plain wrong). Funny how gay history only interprets gay people as victims of tyranny and never the source of tyranny. Next you will be defending Nicky Crane because he was gay and died of aids.

Bermondsey Bill

Anti-war and human rights

07.10.2005 08:42

"The truely facist and truely dispicable neocons/zionists/global elites are preparing the ground for one almighty [sic] fucking confrontation with Iran. They are scouting around for ANY ammmo, why do you assist them?"

Firstly, I don't believe that it is impossible to be firmly against the war and to stand up for those who are victims in Iran. As stated earlier, to argue you can't simply reproduces Bush's black-or-white thinking in a different way. Secondly, I believe the consequences of not doing so are quite dangerous. You end up with a monolithic anti-war movement that becomes divorced from the reality of life in Iran (or anywhere else) because you refuse to mention anything that is actually happening that doesn't fit in with how you would like your argument to be. Let's say the anti-war movement "wins". How will you then have the cheek to stand up and try and support gays (or anyone else) if you believe you can't be anti-war and support gay people? What other groups that are in Iran (or elsewhere) and treated appallingly should we all be quiet about? There are groups in Iran that are managing to consistently maintain an anti-US and anti-cleric position but we can't?? I'm sure there are plenty of gay Palestinians who abhor the way they are treated and yet manage to maintain an anti-Israeli line but, somehow, we can't take the same line?

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree (as stated in my previous message, although you appear to have missed or ignored this phrase given your false assertion that I've "missed the sound of the drums of war") that there are people pushing for some sort of action against Iran and they'd be keen on war if they could get away with it. I totally agree that we should do what we can to stop this happening and that this means being careful in how we make our arguments. However, unlike you, I don't think you can make a simple case that to be against war you have to ignore facts that are inconvenient. It may well make it easier to argue against war in Iran if the country was pristine and everyone was happy and no-one was beaten or tortured but that's not the reality of the situation.

"And talk of pink stormtroopers is nothing in comparison with the potential for hundreds of thousands more dead muslims is it?"

Yep, given the choice between hundreds of thousands of dead muslims and someone using the phrase "pink stormtroopers" I'd go for the "pink stormtroopers" remark every time. However, given the choice between someone using crass and stupid phrases and someone thinking before they type I'd choose the latter.

To the final poster, some interesting points about Peter Tatchell (although I'm not sure what the fact he emigrated three months before the Australia army was meant to be withdrawn is meant to prove unless, and it may be the case, the fact that troops were being withdrawn was known ahead of this date) and will from henceforth remember to tell gay/lesbian people to commit petty crime so they can have great sex in jail. And yeah, I did know that Roehm was gay, and if people rewrite history to try and show that gay people who did evil things were not gay then they're wrong. Don't see what that has to do with much though, but hope you're a bit happier now...

Finally, I'm not actually in any way connected with Outrage (bizarre how so many people seem to think that because you defend a group on one point you're a member or you'll defend them on everything). I did particularly like the point that lots of gay people don't agree with Outrage. As a parallel, many more people who would be traditionally called working-class vote Conservative than vote for Respect. Is the proportion of Respect's target group who vote for them greater than the proportion of gays/lesbians who support Outrage? Don't have a clue, but I guess there'd be a fair few people on the hierarchical left who wouldn't be too fond of going down this road of arguing...

Leam

OutRageous!

07.10.2005 09:24

I've always found it slightly odd that many posts on Indymedia's Newswire have zero comments or a single correction, whereas a handful (if that) of subjects tend to bring out the most strident voices for a lengthy slanging match. I think it would boost the credibility of Indymedia's debates if contributors could be loosely accountable. Can they tell us whether they are a member of a political group or organisation, or commenting in a personal capacity? The OutRage! group might be many things, but it is at least accountable to the community it purports to serve. If you want to argue against flawed policies or propose new ones, you could attend one of their meetings. Only lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people are permitted to attend, but I don't personally see this as a problem. I wouldn't expect my local black community issues forum to permit a white person to come along to forumlate policy. But that is a separate debate we can have elsewhere sometime.

Accusing rival political groups of being state assets is a serious allegation. A very dear friend in the SWP once told me that I should not read the 'Class War' newspaper because they were operated by the state. Interestingly, the same issue of Class War newspaper made exactly the same comment about the SWP. And if we are making these allegations, it's worth remembering that for some groups such as the Green Anarchists, Indymedia itself is a part of the machinery which renders popular discourse unthreatening. (By the way, what has happened to Green Anarchist? I read through the most recent issue of the Steven Booth-produced faction and he appears to have developed a spiritual framework influenced by green readings of Christianity. An intriguing change from the middle 90's GA which was characterised by strident atheism. Anwyay, another debate....)

If it's still in print, I recommend a academic study called 'Gay Men and the History of the Political Left' by H. Ooisterhuis (eds). It's a bit heavy going, but any heterosexual wanting to make contributions to homosexual politics and activism would find it instructive to learn about the sometimes constructive, and sometimes shocking and violent treatment of gays and lesbians by past left and anarchist movements. If it's still in print, so you could probably order this title from your local radical bookstore.

Cheers

Caz
Heterosexual anti-Zionist, non-aligned but reads Socialist Worker, Morning Star, Freedom and the Jewish Socialist magazine.

Caz

Indynistan

07.10.2005 13:36

Who said:

"BTW in 2004 the United States executed more minors than Iran.

Where's the outrage about that?"

Needs to have a brain scan, first of all the United States has 5 times more population than Iran so it is normal they execute more people, but more important than that, I could not give a fuck about what the USA do or does not do, in here Iran has murdered 2 people for being gay if the USA does the same it will be their problem it does not make Iran a cool country because while the others muder 100 they only murder 20, yeah cool.

Olaff

A reply to Caz and Leam

07.10.2005 16:49

A historical work by two professional German historians you might be interested in

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/germany/genews014.htm

The Australian government announcement to withdraw regular ANZAC units from theatre was first made in April 1970 - 4 months BEFORE Tatchell went into 'exile'.

"In June 1969, as the South Vietnamese armed forces assumed greater defence responsibility, President Nixon announced that the US would begin to withdraw its forces. Following further US withdrawals in April 1970, Prime Minister Gorton announced a reduction of Australian forces by one battalion.

Throughout 1971 and 1972 the reduction of Australia's forces continued under the administration of Prime Minister McMahon. By the end of 1971 the Australian Army presence had been reduced to 2300 personnel. By mid-1972 less than 200 Australian personnel remained and in December 1972 Prime Minister Whitlam announced the withdrawal of the final contingent. On 26 February 1973 Prime Minister Whitlam announced the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) while retaining diplomatic recognition for the Republic of Vietnam (South). The last elements of the Australian Army left Vietnam in June 1973."

http://www.awm.gov.au/events/travelling/impressions/overview.htm

And a few questions:

How many gay men are murdered by their partners/lovers/friends/casual fucks and how many were murdered by hetrosexuals?

Should gay rights extend to gay men who are nazis like Ernst Rohem and Nikki Crane?

Why is Outrage helping to manufacture a consensus for war with Iran?

Do you think it is wrong to question the motives of Peter Tatchell, Outrage or any other political individual or organisation when they are clearly trying to encourage a war?

My motives? I get angry about people who execute children whatever their alleged crimes and I get angry by those who distort the truth to further their ideology or career.

There, now I feel better!

Bermondsey Bill

Tatchell, Roehm and Outrage

08.10.2005 10:08

To Bill,

As far as the Tatchell information goes, I guess the key fact is that Tatchell claimed he left Australia in August 1971 to avoid being conscripted and that conscription ended December 5th 1972 (the same date that draft resisters were released from jail and pending prosecutions for draft resistance dropped). Tatchell’s claim that he left to avoid being drafted therefore seems reasonable (although obviously his chances of being conscripted may have been notably less than a few years previously). Given that his claim was he left to avoid being drafted I’m not quite sure why you didn’t actually check the date when the draft ended…

I’m not quite sure what all these discussions about Roehm have to do with the realities of abuse of homosexuals in Iran. I know there is a debate about whether human rights are a liberal tool (as Slavoj Zizek says), and given their potential usage I think it’s a valid debate. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying with your Roehm example though. Do you think that having rights as a gay person automatically results in you avoiding any sort of criticism? Is it not possible to be militantly anti-fascist and believe that gay people should have rights? Again, I’m not quite sure why everything has to be so black and white.

As far as Outrage goes, of course its totally possible to question their motives and I’ve said nothing to suggest otherwise (just because I disagree with your argument doesn’t mean I don’t accept that you’re within your rights to raise it). My point has been that sections of the anti-war movement have been desperate to make the case that you cannot defend the rights of gay people in Iran while being anti-war. It may not be as easy as painting a pretty (and false) picture of what is happening in Iran, but there is no reason why you cannot do both.

Leam

Like most things in life

08.10.2005 12:08

Like most things in life, it's all about the timing.

The timing of this 'article' stinks and is highly suspicious, as was the timing of the demo against 'palestinian ill treatment' of gay people.

To those well aquainted with the machinations of the military industrial complex, this just smacks of yet another propaganda front seeking to coerce public opinion (especially amoung the left - voters for blair etc) into a profit driven war.

Whilst I haven't seen any poster here suggest that reaching out and supporting the rights of gay people WORLDWIDE is wrong, the palpable sense of homophobia hangs heavy in the implications of those 'shocked or suprised' by the response of those who are suspicious of the convienince of this.

Those, like qwerty, who annonce that their rights to action and comment are tantamount, will never convince those of us who see their hard work on other issues trashed and appropriated to suit an agenda ill formed and shrouded in zionist rhetoric.

It's all in the timing & your timing stinks.

karen eliot

Timing of Outrage actions

08.10.2005 17:31

Perhaps you can tell Outrage (and anyone else) exactly when they should protest against the way gays are treated in Iran and Palestine to avoid being labelled a state asset?

Obviously protesting against injustices against gay people in Palestine at any time since 1946 would have played into the hands of Israel so wouldn't be allowed.

Likewise, any protesting about injustices against gay people in Iran would be circumscribed at least from 2001 onwards (and probably a lot earlier given the history of UK/USA "relations" with Iran).

Whatever time Outrage choose to protest about the behaviour of gay people in Palestine or Iran is likely to prove "inconvenient" to many in the anti-war movement (due to their bizarre ability to think that being "anti-war" and standing up for gay people should not be done at the same time). However, I'd rather take Outrage's basic line that you can stand up for gay people in Palestine and be anti-war than ignore the issue entirely and hope that no-one will notice about the situation gay people in the area have to live in.

Leam

Iran Routinely Executes Homosexuals

09.10.2005 23:50

Neither Peter Tatchell nor OutRage is the issue here. Imperfect as they may be they are lightyears ahead of other gay groups. This is about Iran's policy of torturing and killing gays and lesbians.

Anyone foolish enough to believe these two boys were hanged because they were "homosexual rapists" is probably naive enough to believe the US invaded Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not surprised the pro-war types would swallow Iran's official declarations on these hangings. But I am disappointed at how readily these lies are propagated by some rights groups and gay organizations. As if the Ayatollahs of Iran have any credibility when it comes to the treatment of gays and lesbians.

Tatchell, OutRage and AXM are doing something concrete about the inequities gays and lesbians face. At the very least they bring these atrocities to the attention of the world. God help us if we depended upon the obsequious American gay organization to protect us and fight for our rights.

As is evident here, it's easy for people who do precious little to criticize those who risk their safety for the greater cause of gay rights.

DaveToronto

Ok Leam

10.10.2005 00:03

1. Peter Tatchell's own web site identifies his refusal to participate in "a genocidal war". As has been argued Tatchell was never going to take part in any genocidal war; first, because as an openly gay man he could not be drafted and second, because there was no chance of him serving in Vietnam after April 1971, nor was any other late 1971 conscript to the Australian Army deployed in Vietnam, due to the time constraints of basic training, advanced training and deployment. There was no way that Tatchell or anyone else could have been drafted to Vietnam in August 1971 and must have been aware of this after April 1971. Abolishing the draft occurred well after regular ANZAC units were withdrawn from theatre; however it is the end of deployment of regular Australian Army units (which he may have joined), rather than the draft dates and administrative procedure that is the key issue here. Unlike American units Australian units served a unit tour not an individual tour in Vietnam. Guarding stores, route marches and bull in Waga-waga is not fun, but neither can they be described, by any stretch of the imagination, as participating in "a genocidal war".

2. The issue about Ernst Roehm and Crane is simple; what are the limits of Outrage's claim for rights, are they demanding rights for gay Nazis like Ernst and Nikki?

3. The issue here before us is simple: given all the homophobic societies in the world why is Outrage picking on Iran, on the disputed evidence of a LA based web-site, and why do so now?

Bill

And now, the end is near...

10.10.2005 09:12

I'm presuming (and I may be wrong) that you are anti-war and disagree with the oppression of gays. Given the nature of Iran and news from the country you're presumably ready to accept that there is at least some abuse of gays in Iran (even if you doubt the specific incident mentioned by Outrage). You presumably therefore accept that being against the war and being against the abuse of gay people in Iran is perfectly consistent (as its a position you yourself hold). However, while thinking it is perfectly logically consistent to hold these views yourself you believe that people shouldn't openly persuade other people to hold the same views. Since when did the left refuse to stand up and say what it believes in (if, indeed, this section of the left does care about gay rights)?

Reply to your particular points:

1) Given that Tatchell left to avoid being drafted into the Australian army it seems to me that date that the draft was stopped was the crucial date. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing and its easy to say now that he knew he wouldn't be drafted - a touch more difficult when its actually you in the situation. And anyway, surely performing a function in any army (even if only "guarding stores" in Wagga Wagga) as a paid soldier involves complicity at some level with the overall acts of that army at the same time? If you are anti-war (I'm presuming you are), even if British troops were getting removed from Iraq but there was a draft in place, would you have a problem with people trying to avoid the draft (even if they were only likely to end up guarding supplies in Colchester) and saying they did so to avoid the possibility of having anything to do with a "genocidal war"?

2) I suggest you send your query to Outrage. Feel free though to answer my queries in my earlier e-mail about this issue.

3) Well, I don't think that's necessarily the main question (although it is interesting). The main question is why sections in the anti-war movement are so desperate to avoid any issues arising that, according to them, are valid issues (unless you're really saying no gay people are oppressed in Iran) and fit in with left-wing thinking and messages but, despite this, somehow detract from the anti-war message. This very concept is, frankly, appalling and reflects the desire of many in the movement to have a homogenous message that people should be discouraged from diverting from (exactly the same way that Bush tries to make everything a black/white issue regardless of the actual facts). The desire to close down and slander those mentioning these issues is disgraceful in what is meant to be an open and diverse movement. The attempted refusal to allow other people to show solidarity with those who need solidarity is bizarre.

With regards to your particular question, as noted earlier, given the geo-political situation in both Palestine and Iran over the last however many years you tell me when Outrage should be protesting about gay rights in those countries?

Finally, given how easy it is to find someone who disagrees with anything, I'll have to remember to refer to any assertion on the Stop the War website, the Respect website, the Urban 75 website, the Lib-com website or such like as "disputed evidence from a London-based website".

Leam

Reply for Leam

10.10.2005 21:52

Thank you for your reply Leam

1. Yes I am anti-war
2. Yes I am against the oppression of gay people
3. No I do not accept your argument
4. My main disagreement is how gay history distorts historical facts to fit its ideology. Let me cite just three examples from your post.
a. Peter Tatchell does not say he is against the draft, after all men were drafted in WW II and Korea in British and Commonwealth countries, conflicts I assume he did not to disagree with. The issue is what war was Peter being asked to be drafted into, guarding supplies or deployment to Vietnam- one is a pain in the arse the other was "a genocidal war". Hindsight has no place in this discussion, just cold empirical fact. I have demonstrated that Peter Tatchell could never have participated in a genocidal war because as a gay man he would not be drafted due to Australian military law - a fact you have consistently avoided acknowledging. Moreover, the poll tax ceased to be the law along time after the legislation ceased to be effectively enforceable and so it was the case with the draft in Australia. Put it another way did peace in Ireland start with the IRA cease-fire or its de-commissioning of arms?
b. I did not state that this information occurred on a “London” web-site but a LA, that is Los Angeles based web-site. That is Los Angles in California. It is a web-site run by anonymous exiled gay Iranians who just might have their own agenda right now or a big fat cheque from someone with an agenda. Do you know them personally and trust them?
c. No one ever got charged with genocide for guarding the stores, perhaps you can give me one example of any conscript charged with genocide but who never served in the country where the genocide occurred? This claim by Tatchell is hyperbole.
5. Your insistence on Palestinian (population 1 million) gay rights is interesting but there are probably a lot more gay people in Saudi Arabia (population 26 million). Why are you and Outrage not targeting Saudi Arabia if liberation of gay Muslims is the issue rather than beating the drum for war with Iran. This objective view might possibly not be the right tune?
6. Gay histories are full of gentle distortions that colour the overall argument. The problems is, when weighed against an objective rather than subjective stand point, it fails to hold water. 26 million Muslims in Saudi against 1 million Muslims and Christians in Palestine being one example. However, no one wishes to be accused of being homophobic by taking gay histories to task, especially if you are gay.
7. Answer the question, are you or Outrage demanding gay rights for Ernst Roehm and Nikki Crane, you must know your own mind!

Bill

Hyperbolic nonsense

11.10.2005 00:01

(1) You're anti-war? Isn't that "hyperbole"? I mean, surely you suported the Allies in WWII? Or shoudn't we have declared war on Hitler?

(2) Um....

(3) Whatever.

(4)"Gay history" (that's a pretty big field) "distorts facts" (gays do it? really?) to fit "it's ideology" (what ideology is that?) And you accuse everyone else of "hyperbole". Wow!

(a) You're confusing the decisions of a 19 year old just out of school with those of a seasoned activist today. The Tatchell of 1970 is not the same Tatchell of 2005 in terms of knowlwedge, experience or political sophistication. There was a huge antiwar movement in Australia at the time, and protesting against the draft and refusing to serve was part of that campaign. Similarly, under apartheid in South Africa there was a big anti-conscription campaign. Being drafted into an army is suporting that army - even if you're just the cook or a supply clerk. Have you considered that the 19-year old Tatchell may not have been 'out' or even realised he was gay at that time? Of course, for you that makes him a hypocrite, no doubt, as if the world for gay people was the same 35 years ago as it is today.

(b) Most liberation groups are exiled - almost by definition - because they're not allowed to operate in their unliberated countries. They are usually more credibe than the official government sources of repressive governments.

(c) The issue is not one of being personally charged with committing genocide, but of being part of a miliraty-industrial complex engaged in that activity. It is about MORAL responsibility. The Vietnam war was arguably genocidal and there was a huge concientious objector movement, especially in the US, that held that any participation was suporting the war effort. Also, people don't have crystal balls. You can argue that the signs of a pullout from Vietnam were there when Tatchell left. but whose to say that new hostilities couldn't have broken out - we see that all the time: ceasefires, truces, scheduled pullouts that all go wrong. Once you're inducted into the army, its too late.

(5) Outrage has had actions against Saudi Arabia - in fact there was one a couple of months ago. "Arrest King Fahd" I seem to remember being one of the slogans. There was some news about the demo posted on it on Indymedia earlier this year. I have not seen or heard any suggestions from Outrage or any other gay group that war with Iran is the answer. These protests have been in _response_ to actions by Iran - Iran set the timing, not those who responded to the hangings and then the floggings.

(6) No idea what you're on about.

(7) Yes, gay rights are not negotiable based on a person's political ideology. Would sexist and racist abuse of Condaliza Rice be excusable because she works for George Bush? What "gay rights" should Roehm & Crane _not_ have? When you give human rights to people, everybody gets them - the good with the bad. Or perhaps you'd argue that heterosexual fascists should be denied "heterosexual rights". Your point is bizarre.

Qwerty

Cheers

11.10.2005 08:37

Thanks for the reply Qwerty (saved me a lot of hassle). Would agree with what you say, although would point out that Bill used the phrase "anti-war" in response to my use of the phrase so its originally my poor choice of terminology!

One additional point: in reply to Bill I'd just say I was more than aware that you used the phrase "LA based web site" in your e-mail. As I'm sure you understand my use of examples of websites from London was designed as a parallel example to avoid having to desperately dredge up other examples of LA websites that would be relevant to people. Am not sure why this should be problematic at all...

Leam

consistantly avoiding the central issue

11.10.2005 10:55

... the main issue being, I should imagine, the most effective way of supporting and advancing the human rights of oppressed people everywhere.

I do not believe ... and it looks as if this is the main sticking point for some here ... that this action is either effective in supporting, advancing or securing the human rights of gay people in Iran (I have no idea what 'gay rights' are or should be?).

Further, I would say, given the bleeding obvious climate of the moment, that this action is counter productive to the stated aims.

It may be easy to dismiss the providence of the info (from the LA based website), but given that the MIC just love setting up propagander fronts to advance their war agenda, this becomes central to the issue.

Like Karen Eliot suggests, the timing stinks.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions ...

Why Iran? why now? are questions that may yet come back to haunt outrage etc. It would be a deep shame if such was to hinder the other work(?) they attempt on behalf of oppressed [gay] people everywhere else.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com

Blind, left-wing fanatics

26.10.2005 14:54

It's nice to hear various communists, socialists and anarchists on this site, who have historically treated gay people as nothing more than "bourgeois decadence" to be tortured, imprisoned and "re-educated", all of a sudden lecturing us on how we should handle our struggle for equal rights. As an atheist I must ask you to forgive the expression but GO TO HELL!!!

Dave
mail e-mail: maxwellshammer2@aol.com
Homepage: http://www.myspace.com/nowaynoway