1) OutRage! News March 23.
Why has the left gone soft on human rights?

There are no worldwide protests to support the Zimbabwean struggle

By Peter Tatchell

The Independent - London - 22 March 2007

 http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2381043.ece


Large sections of liberal and left opinion have gone soft on their
commitment to universal human rights. They rightly condemn the
excesses of UK and US government policy, but rarely speak out against
oppressors who are non-white or adherents of minority faiths. There
are no mass protests against female genital mutilation, forced
marriages, the stoning of women and gender apartheid in the Middle
East.

A perverse interpretation of multiculturalism has resulted in race and
religion ruling the roost in a tainted hierarchy of oppression. In the
name of "unity" against Islamophobia and racism, much of the left
tolerates misogyny and homophobia in minority communities. It rejects
common standards of rights and responsibilities; demanding that we
"make allowances" and show "sensitivity" with regard to the prejudices
of ethnic and faith communities. This attitude is patronising, even
racist. It judges minority peoples by different standards.

A moral hierarchy has shaped public policy on discrimination.
Legislation against racism is much tougher than legislation against
homophobia. Racial slurs provoke far stronger public condemnation than
sexist ones. Some liberals and left-wingers mute their condemnation of
intolerance when it emanates from non-white people; whereas they would
strenuously denounce similar prejudice if it was being vented by
whites against blacks or by Christians against Muslims. They argue
that we have to "understand" bigots from racial and religious
minorities; yet few of them ever urge the same "understanding" of
white working class bigots.

Some argue that western Christianisation and colonialism are
responsible for prejudice in minority communities. The hate-mongers in
these communities are deemed more or less blameless. They are victims,
not perpetrators, according to this guilt-ridden "anti-racism". Such
nonsense infantilises non-white people; treating them as inferiors who
are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions and of moral
behaviour.

Double standards on human rights influence law enforcement.
Fundamentalist Muslim clerics are permitted to endorse the so-called
"honour" killing of unchaste women; whereas any woman who dared
advocate violent retribution against Islamist misogynists would soon
find herself in court.

We have long experienced the hypocrisy of the political right. In the
name of defending "freedom", many conservatives defended the very
unfree regimes of Franco's Spain and Pinochet's Chile. Alarmingly,
this selective approach to human rights is now echoed by sections of
the left, with their lack of protests against the murderous regimes in
Iran, Zimbabwe and Sudan. President Mugabe has massacred more black
Africans than PW Botha in South Africa. In contrast to the global
anti-apartheid movement, there are no worldwide protests to support
the Zimbabwean struggle for democracy. Why does a black tyrant
murdering black people merit less outrage than a white tyrant
murdering black people?

These double standards have many downsides. Respect for diversity has
sometimes degenerated into the toleration of abuses; as when the
anti-fascist left embraced the Muslim leader Iqbal Sacranie after he
denounced gays as immoral, harmful and diseased. Sadly, the right to
be different has often become a trojan horse for the subversion of
human rights.

It would be a mistake to dump multiculturalism because of its
sometimes oppressive interpretation. But we also need to recognise
that by celebrating difference, multiculturalism can divide people,
especially on racial and religious lines. This has resulted in
conflict - such as the riots between Afro-Caribbean and Asian youths,
and tensions between sections of the Muslim and Jewish communities.

Too much focus on difference can spill over into separateness, which
subverts an appreciation of our common humanity and undermines notions
of universal rights and equal citizenship. It can produce a new form
of tribalism, where societies are fragmented into myriad communities,
each loyal primarily to itself and with little interest in the common
good of society as a whole.

The anti-racist struggle has been weakened by the excesses of the
"diversity agenda". In the 1960s and 1970s, all non-whites united
together as "black people" to fight their common oppression: racism.
Then black divided into Afro-Caribbean, African and Asian. More
recently, part of the Asian community has split off to identify
primarily as Muslim, distancing themselves from other Asians - Hindus,
Sikhs, Buddhists and atheists. This fragmentation has been endorsed by
some on the left, who have colluded with communalism and the division
of the Asian community on religious lines. These left-wingers have a
great deal to say about the oppression of Muslims but little or
nothing to say about the racism and disadvantage experienced by Asians
of other faiths or of no faith at all.

Multiculturalism can thus foster a "Balkanisation" of the humanitarian
agenda, fracturing communities according to their different cultural
identities, values and traditions. When these differences are
prioritised, our common interests get sidelined.

Progressive multiculturalism is about respecting and celebrating
difference, but within a framework of equality and human rights. It is
premised on embracing cultural diversity, providing it does not
involve the oppression of other people. Human rights are universal and
indivisible.

www.petertatchell.net

Ends
----------------------
2) Their Multiculturalism and Ours

By Peter Tatchell

Democratiya 8 - Spring 2007
The journal of radical democratic left debate
 http://www.democratiya.com


Paralysed by the fear of being branded racist, imperialist or
Islamophobic, large sections of liberal and left opinion have, in
effect, gone soft on their commitment to universal human rights. They
readily, and rightly, condemn the excesses of US and UK government
policy, but rarely speak out against oppressors who are non-white or
adherents of minority faiths. Why the double standard? The answer
lies, in part, in a perverse interpretation of multiculturalism that
has sundered the celebration of difference from universal human
rights.

The new hierarchy of oppression
Race and religion now rule the roost in a tainted hierarchy of
oppression. The rights of women and gay people are often deemed
expendable for the sake of ‘the greater good.’ Misogyny and homophobia
are increasingly tolerated in the name of ‘maintaining harmonious
community relations.’ Indeed, the trend among many supposedly
progressive people is to reject common standards of rights and
responsibilities. They demand that we ‘make allowances’ and show
‘cultural sensitivity’ with regard to the prejudices of people within
certain ethnic and faith communities. Isn’t it patronising, even
racist, to judge minority peoples by different standards?

This hierarchy of moral values has shaped public policy on
discrimination. Legislation against racism is much tougher than
legislation against homophobia. Racial slurs provoke far stronger
public condemnation than sexist ones. Some liberals and left-wingers
mute their condemnation of intolerance when it emanates from non-white
people; whereas they would strenuously denounce similar prejudice if
it was being vented by whites against blacks or by Christians against
Muslims. The new vogue for sections of the left is the idea that we
have to ‘understand’ bigots from racial and religious minorities; yet
few of them ever urge the same ‘understanding’ of white working class
bigots.

Some argue that our western history of Christianisation and
colonialism is responsible for ethnic, religious and patriarchal
prejudice in certain quarters of some minority communities. The
hate-mongers in these communities are, allegedly, more or less
blameless. In this guilt-ridden ‘anti-racist’ narrative, we made the
bigots the intolerants they are. We? How can today’s generation of
English people be held responsible for what their forebears did 200
years ago in the days of Empire? Such infantilising nonsense is
increasingly a feature of left-wing discourse.

These double standards on human rights influence even law enforcement.
In Britain and Jamaica, several dancehall singers are free to incite
the murder of ‘b*tty boys’ (queers) without fear of prosecution. As we
all know, no gay person could get away with urging the killing of
‘n*ggers.’ Likewise, certain fundamentalist Muslim clerics are
permitted to endorse the so-called ‘honour’ killing of unchaste women;
whereas any woman who dared advocate violent retribution against
Islamist misogynists would soon find herself in court.

We have long been used to the hypocrisy of the political right. In the
name of defending ‘freedom’, many Conservatives defended the very
unfree regimes of Botha’s South Africa, Franco’s Spain, and Pinochet’s
Chile. What is new is that this selective approach to human rights is
now being echoed by sections of the left, with their inaction against,
and occasional open apologia for, the regimes in Iran, Zimbabwe and
Sudan.

Vive La Difference!
Some critics blame multiculturalism for this political and ethical
mess, arguing that respect for diversity has degenerated into a
free-for-all, where anything goes. The right to difference has become
a trojan horse, subverting human rights, they say. I agree with this
view, up to a point. But I also believe that plurality and diversity
are valid, providing they don’t diminish the rights and freedoms of
others. It would be a big mistake to dump multiculturalism on the
basis of its sometimes oppressive interpretation and application.

The multicultural ethos that has blossomed since the 1960s is an
important advance in social evolution. It is good to recognise,
celebrate and respect diverse cultures and people of different
nations, races, languages, religions, abilities and sexualities. The
embrace of diversity is a welcome respite from the narrow-minded
monocultural uniformity of the 1950s, which was dominated by the
straight, the white and the male. (There is, of course, nothing wrong
per se with straight white maleness. The problem was that straight
white males dominated to the exclusion of everyone else. Their agenda
was the agenda.)

In the bad old days of the monocultural 1950s, prejudice was
tolerated. The voices and interests of minorities were either ignored
or actively suppressed. There was racial segregation and the denial of
voting rights to black people in the Deep South of the United States.
In the UK, male homosexuality was totally illegal and punishable by a
maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Throughout the West, women’s
pay was barely half that of men, while women were excluded from a wide
range of job opportunities. As an antidote to this exclusivist
cultural hegemony, inclusive multicultural diversity was liberating
and uplifting for millions of hitherto marginalised people; especially
women, as well as disabled, black, lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people. The right-to-be-different ethos of
multiculturalism allowed them to claim not just human rights, but also
a dignity, a value and a place in the public sphere.

In contrast to the stifling homogeneity, blandness and conformism of
monocultural societies, multicultural diversity is enriching, creative
and empowering. Out of difference come new insights, which are the
motor of innovation. In these senses, the acceptance of diversity can
be seen as a positive benefit to individuals, communities and society
as a whole........

To read the rest of this article, click here:
 http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=70


To read, Homophobia and Human Rights in Iraq, a speech by Ali Hili of
OutRage! and Iraqi LGBT, on the murder of gay Iraqis by Islamist death
squads, click here:
 http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=69

For more information about Democratiya and a full list of articles,
click here:
 http://www.democratiya.com

ENDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------