THE INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN HOMOPHOBIA AND ISLAMOPHOBIA
by Barry Kade
I would like to see a reasoned debate about the complex intersections between homophobia and islamophobia, and the challenges these pose for the left. I think the previous thread about Peter Tatchell shows how theoretically impoverished we on the left are, which makes us unable to deal with this complexity. Thus all we get is a ‘for’ or ‘against’ gossip column about the merits and demerits of a certain celebrity activist under discussion.
I have attempted to lay the ground for a more nuanced discussion in a comment on that thread, which has now been reproduced below. It would be nice if people took the time to read this, and post their responses below in an intelligent and comradely style….
I think there is an important issue at stake here that is not properly recognised. However, before I go ahead, to get a hearing it seems necessary to first say this: Peter Tatchell is a courageous fighter against homophobia, and is also a comrade on the green left who fights for human rights against capitalism, ecocide, racism and imperialism. However, I have significant tactical disagreements with him, and his co-thinkers. Hopefully these can be discussed in a calm and comradely way.
In the comments box of the Peter Tatchell thread, I referred to a discussion on the original Green Left open email list, I think it was in 2008 or 2007. This had a long thread under the heading ‘Salma Yaqoob’, which had started with the helpful suggestion that someone should approach Salma and ask whether she might like to join the Green Party, in the aftermath of the Respect split. This was met with a hostile response from two or three persistent posters - over dozens of emails. These emails were from white gay secular humanist comrades. (I also am gay and an atheist, but as you will see, take an opposite view).
The central thrust of these emails were that we should not work with Salma Yaqoob, as she was an ‘Islamicist’ and a homophobe. The accusations became more wild, making accusations of “Islamo-fascism’, and equating all Muslims with reactionary views. There was very little in the way of refutation from others on the list. Peter always restricted himself to only posting his formal press releases about his general human rights work on that Green Left list, rather than taking part in the discussion. I can’t remember Derek responding at the time. Obviously the ‘anti-Salma’ posters had no knowledge of Salma’s actual politics. I pointed out that Salma was not an ‘Islamicist’, but a left-progressive Muslim woman, with progressive views on women’s liberation etc. Fortunately, this has now been understood by the Green Party and the Green Left, and we have a new basis for cooperation between the Greens and Respect in Birmingham. But this was not always the case. The posters against Salma on the Green left list in 2008 were defamatory, ignorant and often abusive.
I was particularly interested in this discussion, being involved in both the fight against homophobia and Islamophobia. This is a central but highly difficult twin task, but none the less essential if we are to unite the working class against the coming capitalist attacks, and build a new left progressive counter-hegemonic alliance of all the different sections of the exploited and oppressed.
At the heart of this ‘debate’ was a view prevalent amongst many gay rights and secular humanist activists. This view may be described as simple enlightenment secular humanism. It takes the standpoint epitomised by Voltaire’s polemics against the eighteenth century religious establishment, but then deploys them against the racially oppressed migrant workers of Europe of Muslim heritage.
Voltaire and his comrades were resisting the most powerful force in European society - the church, which stood as a central bastion of feudal power. The overthrow of this power was a central task of the rising enlightenment bourgeoisie. However, today we have many wannabe petite-Voltaire’s whose central task is not to attack the most powerful, but the most powerless. This is epitomised by the publication of the ‘Prophet-Cartoons’ by the right wing Danish newspaper the Jyllands-Posten. Framed in the enlightenment language of free expression against religious obscurantism, these cartoons were about degrading and denigrating the belief systems of Muslim people, who are racially oppressed in Europe.
And this is the heart of the issue. Since the end of the cold war against ‘communism’, the west has had to invent another enemy. Orwell in 1984, had parodied this continual construction of enemies to keep the population docile and in control, with the seamless shift between enemies and allies, Oceania and Eurasia - or in our time, between ‘communism’ and an essentialised ‘global Islam’. This involves not only a series of imperialist wars and occupations to subjugate countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan - but also an increased oppression of Europe’s already oppressed racial minorities of migrant workers and their descendants, with an additional layer of Islamophobia. Thus ‘Islamophobia’ is now an official of western power, uniting capitalists and workers, in both foreign wars and domestic racism. It is also the most serious contemporary threat to the socialist project of creating a united working class resistance of all races and religions.
Yet this racism is veiled in the language of enlightenment liberalism and secularism. The rightwing thugs of the English Defence League can claim that ‘Islam is not a race’ and that they are not being racist, they are merely standing up for secular humanism. This claim was also made on the Green Left discussion list by my fellow gay rights activists. However, this ignores the dangers of the persecution of religious minorities. Ethno-religious persecution has an ugly history, from the persecution of Jews and Catholics, and other ethnic and religious minorities. With Europes Muslims this is combined with race. In Britain, workers of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ancestry have long been on the bottom rung of our society, at the receiving end of the lowest pay, worst housing and also the worst street violence and racial oppression. Now the new ideology of Islamophobia is added on, in a dangerous and volatile mix.
Gender and sexuality have become frontlines in this new battle. Our previous hard fought battles against sexism and homophobia by the women’s and gay liberation movements are now being appropriated by the establishment and other oppressive forces. Thus the war in Afghanistan is sometimes justified with reference to fighting sexism and homophobia. And the BNP and the EDL in the UK, and Dutch right wingers such as Geert Wilders sometimes try to hijack our struggles against sexism and homophobia to promote their racist and Islamophobic agenda.
Leading figures in the feminist and gay liberation movements need to speak out against this hijacking and appropriation of our struggles by the far right and the warmongers. Yet all too often they collaborate with it, attending ‘freedom of expression’ events, etc.
And just because the right try to appropriate gay liberation and feminism in their Islamophobic crusade, this does not mean that they are not also homophobic and sexist. I’ve just witnessed first hand the rising anti-gay bigotry in the USA, around an orchestrated backlash against gay marriage proposals. The thugs of the EDL might try to use us as cover for their Islamophobic racism, but this all male group of football hooligans are just as capable as going queer bashing as embarking on an Islamophobic pogrom.
It is also just as important to challenge homophobia amongst the Muslim working class. Racially and religiously oppressed minorities will not be able to defend or liberate themselves if they remain in thrall to backward and reactionary prejudices. But this will not be done by aligning ourselves with the racist right wing, and using homophobia as a stick to beat Muslims with. People retreat into their religion as a form of comfort, as a defence against a hostile, racist and exploitative world. As Marx said:
“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions”. Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.
Thus Marx’s atheism was the opposite of Voltairian secularism or bourgeois enlightenment atheism. Marx did not believe religion would disappear in a cloud of scientific logic, but that it has material roots in social relations of alienation and oppression. If religion is a painkiller, then bourgeois atheists ridicule the oppressed for needing painkillers, while Marxist atheists seek to help the oppressed remove the cause of the pain.
And if homophobia amongst Muslims is to be challenged, then we must first unite with Muslims in common struggles against war and racism, and build alliances with progressive Muslims. That this can be done is shown by the recent courageous statements by Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council f Britain who recently spoke up for Muslim support for gay rights, saying:
“At its best, Islamic civilisation was more than willing to learn from other surrounding countries and cultures and adopt the best aspects as its own. Actively working to ensure that people are able to live free of discrimination based on one’s ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is a worthy goal and should be viewed as an Islamic goal”.
I seem to have written a long and hasty post. I will rework this further in my own blog soon. I will also repost the ‘Gay Imperialism’ article from ‘out of place’ or at least sections of it and a full exegesis and commentary.
However, given the tone of this blog thread here, I expect to be quoted out of context and denounced by our influx of petite-voltaires and uncritical inheritors of the bourgoise enlightenment secularism. Enjoy!
This is a fantastic post! Nice to see a calm, reasoned article on SU which doesn’t deliberative seek to provoke.
Comment by Jon (the other one) — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:30 am
This is an excellent contribution to a very important debate. I think you have set out in a clear and accessible way why the left who ally with the right on this question are wrong. I hope you don’t mind but I will link to this on my blog.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:33 am
thirded.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:38 am
fourthed (if that’s a word)…before the vitriolic denunciations begin flying to-and-thro, I’d like to say thatr this is like a breath of fresh air.
Comment by dennis — 6 November, 2009 @ 2:25 am
Just would like to add my own appreciation - brilliant post.
Comment by christian h. — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:09 am
[Barry Kade posted this comment to the other thread]:
ghostly traces seem remain forever on the internet…. censorship does not prevail ….
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:8WlOwhhrlhUJ:scholar.google.com/
here is the article in question that no one commenting here seems to have read….”Gay Imperialism:Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ by Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem”
read it for yourselves… !!! for all its flaws, it makes some valuable points…. perhaps it is a bigger issue than the defence of our Peter’s reputation (important though that obviously is) it should uncover our silences, and the complicity of our western gay politics with the new dominant ideology of the western world…
Comment by Barry Kade — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:11 am
I see all the SWP party-liners are rowing in behind Barry’s post, which should have been titled ‘I hate capitalism more than I respect myself’
I also think Barry’s contribution is unintentionally racist. Why give Arabs a free pass on their homophobia in a way you’d never do for white working class English people?
Comment by Yan — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:27 am
And as for that Salma Yacoob is progressive on gay rights, pull the other one. OK, she doesn’t want to punish gays like many of her fellow Islamists, but she doesn’t support full LGBT equality either. Gay marriage? Gay adoption rights? Out gay teachers in Muslim faith schools?
Nope, she won’t be supporting any of these on the stump in Brum.
Comment by Yan — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:33 am
He’s also wrong about religion. Marxists (traditionally) have not abstained from fighting its irrationalism. Lenin demanded the reproduction of the anti-religious writings of the bourgeois enlightenment for exactly that reason.
Comment by bill j — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:56 am
YAN just hasn’t got it has s/he?
Inverted racism is just fine:
“Honour killings? Vendettas? Clitoral excisions?
Those brown-skinned people can’t be expected to know any better, can they, the poor dears?”
Comment by warren — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Here is a piece on Western feminism and places like Afghanistan:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2535/
My own favourite - not here, alas - was the writing of a New York feminist who compared Female Genital Mutilation in places like Somalia to the $5,000 prettification labiaplasty which fashion-conscious Manhattanites simply MUST have done!
Comment by Pender — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Incidently, there has been an interesting discussion of the related topic of how Westerners interact with African politics on the Evangelical christian Forum, Fulcrum: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/forum/thread.cfm?page=3&thread=13570&sort=creatdesc
Their debate is particularly important given the strong links between the Ugandan Church, (which supports the new harsh laws against gays, but not the death penalty), and the Church of England, in the Uk and USA. The foundation for the currerently proposed legislation in Uganda was laid by a homphobic conference by evangelicals in march 2009 in nairobi. And thr debate among Christians has considerable sway in Ugandan society.
One commenter on Fulcrum makes the following point:
This question of the “social shape” that same gender sexual attraction takes is an important distinction.
We should not lose sight of the fact that while homosexual sexual attraction and activity is as old as humanity, the specific form of conscious identity of *being* a gay man or a lesbian is a relatively recent one even in the West; and the forms of social interaction between gays and lesbians is different in Manchester or Brightion than it is in Nairobi or Lagos.
Africans are particularly sensitive to the idea of Western values and lifestyles being imposed upon them, and African human rights defenders have a nuanced understanding of what type of solidarity from the West strengthens their hand; and what is counterproductive.
Outrages!’s notoriously ill considered intervention into the campaign against Nigeria’s anti-homosexuality bill is a case in point. As Scott Long of Human rights watch said at the time:
http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Politics/OutrageandNigeria.html
This resulted in Nigerian, and other African human rights defenders and gay activists issuing a press release urging people not to work with tatchell. Specifically this press release was issued by the very people leading the campign in nigeria: http://www.mask.org.za/attachment.php?attachmentid=10
This is the important point argued by Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem in “Out of Place”
Peter Tatchell and Outrage! assume that the LGBT experience of white Westerners is normative, and unwittingly have created a narrative where Muslims and people of colour are outside that experience, and represent an existential “other”. You can read haryys Place every day to see this narrative in play, with horror story after horror story of alleged islamic homophobia. In this narrative Muslim and black gays need to be rescued, and the only Msulim LGBT voices that are heard are those who locate themselves as having “escaped” to the West.
Authentic LGBT voices from within BME or Muslim communities who wish to talk about a different expereince, of liberal traditions within islam, or different African forms of same gender sexual orientaion are outside the narrative and are ignored.
It is important to note the precise terms of the apology issued by raw Nerve books to tatchell, which recycles more or less the exact words of a 2007 Outrage! press release:
http://www.rawnervebooks.co.uk/Peter_Tatchell.pdf
Exactly!!! tatchel actually concedes here that the Nigerian activists are telling the truth.
The ones making the complaint against him were the ones in Nigeria actually leading the campaign in Nigeria- as acknowledged by human Rights Watch, who had people on the ground and know what they are talking about. By Tatchell’s own admission here, he had no contact with them.
Where the authors of “out of Place” are wrong, and I can see how this has generated controversy, is to incorrectly assume things about peter Tatchell’s motives. To use a legal analogy tatchell has Actus Reus but no Mens rea.
Tatchell is not a racist, but his agenda reinforces racism.
Peter Tatchell and his co-thinkers reinforce the myth that gender equality and toleraton of same gender sexual orientation are established liberal principles in the West, and that Muslim and developing countries are much more backward. As such Western military intervention is by implication justified on behalf of oppressed gays (and women) in Afghanistan and Iran.
In reality the ink is still damp on most of the gay rights in the West - Clause 28 was abolished by tony Blair who had to use the parliement act to force it through the House of Lords.
There is also a very real problem here, that in presenting the particular expereince of Western LGBT people as normative, and in polarising the debate so that Islam (and black people more generally) are seen as implacably hostile to gay rights, then LGBT activists within Muslim societies and non-white European countries are undermined, they are potentially more easily marginalised within their own communities becasue they become identified with a white European outside expereince, and also one that is hostile to the dominant values of their society; but also the specific expereince of LGBT people as a native and domestic strand that has always existed in Muslim communities and in Africa is overwriten by a strident image of a specifically Western LGBT identity and experience.
What is most distressing is that Peter tatchell and his co-thinkers respond to all such criticism in such a defensive way, rather than engaging in any reflection. When LGBT activists of colour tell tatchell that his camapisgn has helped to make them voiceless in mainstream debate, he responded by trying to silence the book making that point!!!
That is not to say that LGBT activists don’t want support from the West. But they want support that actually helps them calibrated to their own political judgement. For example, the blog gayUganda paises the intervention of conservative Amnerican evangelical Christian, Warren Throckmorton, whio had a guest column in the Uganda Independent. Gay Uganda said; “Just saw this article. It speaks for itself, saying what needs to be said, in words that most Ugandans will understand, and using imagery that they will relate too. Well done, Warren. You remind me of what it was like, believing in Christ.) “
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:34 am
It is ironic that while some try smear Respect for a supposed pandering to homophobia, in our heartlands we are attacked for the very opposite reason. In the recent Sparkbrook election a leaflet was distributed with the headline “RESPECT - Acts to ensure Sexual Equality”. It was produced by a Labour supporter and its purpose was to touch homophobic buttons among the electorate by attacking Respect’s support for the right of unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to adopt children, and our support to reduce the age of homosexual consent to 16.
Any discussion about tackling homophobia within the Muslim community must start from an appreciation of the extent to which a Quranic reading that forbids same-sex relationships is very much the predominant one. Within that context many people struggle with an articulation of a basic equality position because they are unconfident about squaring it with their faith.
Salma counteracts such views something like this. Just as Muslim women like herself expect non-Muslims to respect her right to make personal choices they may disapprove of, like the wearing of hijab or niqab, Muslims must reciprocate when it comes to the choices of others that they may personally disapprove of. Not only should Muslims support LBGT rights, it is hypocritical of them not to do so.
Comment by Ger Francis — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:35 am
#9
“He’s also wrong about religion. Marxists (traditionally) have not abstained from fighting its irrationalism. Lenin demanded the reproduction of the anti-religious writings of the bourgeois enlightenment for exactly that reason.”
This silly argument from Bill j here did indeed exist in the Russian Bolsheviks, at the 1920 congress of the Peole’s of the East this sort of decontextualised secularism and atheism was condemdned fothrightly by Karl radek and Gregorii Zinoviev, speaking on behalf of the Politburo, as “Red Colonialism” and “the worst sort of counter revolutionary”.
People arguing Bill’s position were breifly in charge of the tashkent Soviet, IIRC, where they sourded relations wth the local populatuion, and were all expelled in 1920, when the party promoted observing Muslims to lead the CP in the region.
Bill maight want too reflect ion the fact that people argunng his wexact poistion were expelled from the CP for racism. Of course Bil is not a racist, but the decontextualised wuoting of Lenin is extremely dangerous - the anti-religin campaign by lenin was aimed not at islam, but at the Russian Orthodox church. Indeed the very fist day ofLenin’s government saw him sign the law guaranteeing that Muslim communities could make their own laws.
The expereinece of Peter Frunze, the sucessful red army general in the bashmati wars in 1919 and 1920 was to empower Muslims to run their own communities
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:40 am
#12
Well said Andy. Agree completely.
Comment by John — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Bill J present a caricature of the Bolshevik approach. For a proper understanding read Dave Crouch’s article:
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=181
Part of tackling Islamphobia is not appropriating the language of those who promote it. Therefore I would urge caution about using the term ‘Islamist’ except in the most defined manner. As Soumaya Ghannoushi notes:
“Islam is a colourful sociopolitical phenomenon with many strategies and discourses. This enormously diverse movement ranges from liberal to conservative, from modern to traditional, from moderate to radical, from democratic to theocratic, and from peaceful to violent. What these trends have in common is that they derive their source of legitimacy from Islam, just as Latin American armed struggle guerrillas, communists, social democrats and third-way Blairites base theirs on socialism.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/05/religion.uk
Instead of being couched with this kind of nuance though, the term is mostly used in a scattergun but quite deliberate way by Cruise Missile liberals to lump together any Muslim outspoken about foreign policy with those supporting acts like 7/7. It is also often used by secular fundamentalists to reduce all expressions of Islamic identity into an undifferentiated reactionary mass. In both cases the result is to smear.
We are currently experiencing a local version of this. There is another leaflet doing the rounds in the Hall Green constituency. It is being sent in stamp addressed envelopes to non-Muslims on the electoral register and it masquerades as being from Respect. It carries the headline ‘I have a big problem with Britishness’ and photos of British troops marching through Luton being greeted by hostile Muslim anti-war protesters. The leaflet seeks to distort comments by Salma about Brown’s Britishness debate to try depict her as being anti-British and a dangerous Muslim extremist. The intention behind it is explicitly racist.
http://www.thestirrer.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6536
Islamphobia is the most pernicious form of racism today. We need to insulate the left from it and Barry’s article is helpful to that end. And through such work we can more effectively build alliances between the Muslim community and other communities who bear discrimination and intolerance.
Comment by Ger Francis — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:54 am
“When LGBT activists of colour tell tatchell that his camapisgn has helped to make them voiceless in mainstream debate, he responded by trying to silence the book making that point!!!2
This is diishonest on two counts. Firstly, Peter T is supported by many LGBT activists of colour who do not tell him his campaign makes them voiceless but, in fact, the opposite. Some of those who vigorously support Peter were quoted out of context in the book ion questions giving the impression that they opposed him. Secondly, he has not tried to silence any opposition, although he has objected (without threat of the law) to lies. The publisher of the work in question are willing to re-publish if the authors will either correct the lies in their work or provide references for them (showing they are not lies and smears). The authors have refused to do that, effectifvely choosing silence themselves.
Comment by John Meredith — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:19 am
So, the short version of the article and comments can be summed up as:
1 The left is politically weak and stands no chance of election.
2 We can’t beat capitalism, but we might be able to defeat ruling class imperialism.
3 In order to do this, we need to form alliances with the Muslim community here and Muslim societies abroad, especially in the middle east.
4 There is a problem. Islam rejects homosexuality as evil, and all four schools of jurisprudence agree that it should be punishable by death.
5 Although we don’t like this, we hate imperialism and the ruling class so much that we are prepared to tolerate a few dead gays to achieve our aims.
6 In order to do this we need a rationale, so
a. Gay Rights are not universal.
b. Gay Rights are another example of cultural imperialism
c. Rationalize that Islam hates homosexuality because Muslims are poor and oppressed, and once that has been dealt with they will love Gays.
d. Point out how bad Jamaica, Russia etc is on the same subject.
e. Call anyone who disagrees an Islamophobe / fascist/ imperialist.
f. and never admit that the death of any homosexual in Dar ul Islam is anything to do with Islam.
Comment by RMS — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:06 am
What is Islamophobia? Is it (a) hatred of Muslims or (b) making the same demands on Muslims in respect of gay rights as we do of Christians?
If it is (a) then I condemn it utterly if it is (b) then I, and the vast majority of LBGT people of ALL colours must be Islamophobes.
Gay rights are not an optional extra depending on whether or not Leninists regard you as coming from a community/religion/ethnicity that is resisting Capitalism.
Comment by Yan — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Yan, when those who would normally demonise gay people choose to demonise people of whatever religion partly based on that community’s homophobia I am deeply suspicious, especially as three hundred years of enlightenment philosophy in Western Europe hasn’t been able to acheive the end of homophobia.
So when African Caribbean Christians are vilified for their homophobia, it is important to recognise that this is being done to vilify African Caribbeans, not to support gay rights in that community. This is because if you really wanted to do this, you would ally with the progressive sections of that community to tackle racism and in doing so other forms of discrimination and bigotry.
At present, Islam is singled out by the right for being uniquely reactionary on human rights. This is a fallacy. We can challenge that fallacy or go along with it. Imaan, the British group for LGBT Muslims, need no educating from you on the problem of homophobia in the Muslim community. But unlike you they will not give an inch to Islamophobic prejudice that would paint all Muslims as wishing for the deaths of gay people etc, and for that reason they warrant support from all genuine socialists.
Comment by Mikey — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:19 am
It is sad that Barry Kade’s discussion of Homophobia is related to one about atheism secularism in such an incoherent, frankly, pathetic, way.
To begin with atheism, “Thus Marx’s atheism was the opposite of Voltairian secularism or bourgeois enlightenment atheism. Marx did not believe religion would disappear in a cloud of scientific logic, but that it has material roots in social relations of alienation and oppression. If religion is a painkiller, then bourgeois atheists ridicule the oppressed for needing painkillers, while Marxist atheists seek to help the oppressed remove the cause of the pain.”
Marx’s atheism (if we need to rely on an authority figure in the first place) is based on the idea that all forms of religion are false. This is a premise he shared with other forms of atheism, which Kade calls ‘bourgeois’ (though in fact apart from the dodgy stamp of class on a philosophical position going back to antiquity many 18th and 19th century rationalist atheists were artisans, and later, proletarians).
Marx added some speculative views about religion’s social basis, as a ‘transference’ of human social relations onto an world of imagination from Feurbach - another ‘bourgeois’ btw. The idea that religion is simply pain projected is, apart from being contemptuous towards believers, not what Marx had in mind in his much more expansive imagery. This could be seen in ascribing moral laws to God - clearly at issue here.
Ideas about how to change this in Marx are extremely sketchy. Remarks in Capital Vol 1 on the ‘transparance’ of social relations under communism, that would stop the need for religious projections are speculative to say the least. In any case it is patronising to religious worshipers to say that their ideas will be abolished when they are no longer in distress and in need for a ‘heart’ in a ‘heartless world’.
Marx also added some comments elswhere about the role of organised religon as an oppressive and exploitative force. In which case the ‘pain’ is religion itself. Clearly the issue being discussed in religious support for homophobic laws. But, in the case of political Islam, the law that is the centre of their ideology is intrinsically unjust - the Sharia. This (its various schools notwithstanding) is not ‘law’ in the sense in which there is human equality, but law as a set of rules in which one group (those defined as Muslims) have greater rights than others. That is, before we go into the rest of its details.
I can’t help noticing that some very confused stuff about 300 years (do ‘years’ of ‘philosophy’ act?) of the Enlightenment failing is written here without addressing this dilemma: do you or do you not accept that organisations backing the Sharia’s core principles - a structural feature, according to many, of Islam - can be ‘progressive’. This is the point, not whether other religions or political groups have prejudiced or backward looking ideas. Clearly they do. But do they have a mechanism that incarnates inequality as part of their central political-legal doctrine?
Clearly gay activists and secularists, not to mention any democrat, would oppose a political movement which supported Sharia Law. It is a condition of defining what is a ‘progressive’ individual or group from a Muslim background that the reject this central aspect of the Sharia. Some do, including the large number of Msulim supporters of French laicitie. To my knowledge Salma Yaqoob does not have a clear position on the Sharia, though her hysterical opposition to French secularism indicates that she considers that the religious dress codes are more important than secular freedom and equality.
Finally, Barry Kade’s comments that “Since the end of the cold war against ‘communism’, the west has had to invent another enemy.” Please Barry Kade, next time you write remember that something more than a worn-out cliche is needed to win an argument. Maybe you if find proof of this “West” that “had had” to do anything, and how it “invented” an enemy you might get listened to by any one outside your cosy circle of Green corn circle dancers.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
“So when African Caribbean Christians are vilified for their homophobia, it is important to recognise that this is being done to vilify African Caribbeans, not to support gay rights in that community.”
Ah, and here was me thinking Tatchell wanted to defend gay people from rampant, murderous homophobia in Jamaica and Nigeria. Why didn’t I see that he’s just a nasty old racist? Practically BNP in fact.
You prick. Just because some rightists condemn black homophobia (just as they condemn gay racism when it suits them) doesn’t invalidate a universalist demand for dignity and human rights for all black and gay people.
Stick your cynical Leninist strategies up your arse.
Comment by Yan — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
On the sub-theme of the Bolsheviks and the Muslims of the Russian empire, it seems to me that you can be consistently Islamophile, or consistently pro-Bolshevik, but not both.
I hope that some people might find the following memoir pieces by Mustafa Chokay-ogly (Chokaev) of interest:
http://www.korolevperevody.co.uk/korolev/chokaev1917-1.html
http://www.korolevperevody.co.uk/korolev/chokaev1917-2.htm
Comment by Francis King — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
#22 oh dear, Yan. The insults do betray a certain lack of composure, don’t they? You’re upset, that’s all. I can see that.
I do not think Tatchell is a racist. I think he is sometimes manipulated by racists, but these are two very different things.
Do keep up.
Comment by Mikey — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
The criticism that Tatchell does not work with progressive movemenets in, say, Jamaica, is totally unfounded as people like Mikey must well know. So what is the substance of the complaint? I can’t see any so it looks like a smear and nothing else.
It is true that Outrage has unilaterally protested against Jamaican homophobes promoting violence at gay people in London, but that is, er, in London.
Comment by John Meredith — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
John, I never mentioned Peter Tatchell, that was you and Yan. I am responding to criticisms made of Barry Kade’s article, which mentions Peter only briefly and then goes on to discuss far broader and larger social forces than those which Peter represents.
Perhaps you want to comment on the earlier thread about Peter instead.
Comment by Mikey — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
I have commented on both Mikey. I am content if you and other posters on here are agreeing that criticism of Tatchell with regard to racism, Islamophobia and such is at best misapplied and at worst deliberate smear.
The rest of the article struck me as just muddled or mystification, I am afraid. You should all go and look at Kiss of the Spider Woman again: sexual and political freedom are not different things.
Comment by John Meredith — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
#17
“Some of those who vigorously support Peter were quoted out of context in the book ion questions giving the impression that they opposed him. ”
Who was quoted out of context?
You can read the chapter in the book at #6. PLease name any individual cited in that chapter who was quoted out of context.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
“‘Islamophobia’ ….. is also the most serious contemporary threat to the socialist project of creating a united working class resistance of all races and religions.”
This is an absurd statement. Get a grip man.
Most people’s interactions with Muslims are as work colleagues, neighbours and business owners. There is no widespread so called Islamophobia in these spheres. For instance no extremist nutjobs are to be found standing outside Muslim shops of a Saturday handing out leaflets that the store should be boycotted because of something happening in the Middle East. To the extent that people purporting to be acting in their name do not bomb shoot or otherwise attack society, I dare say most people don’t care a fig about Islam one way or another.
Comment by Hugh — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
Oh lored Andy, I am not going to read it again. At least one of the people quoted in the chapter as being apparantly hostile to Tatchell is an enthusiatic supporter of his actions in Africa, though.
Comment by John Meredith — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
“is no widespread so called Islamophobia in these spheres. ”
The problem is with the deliberately ambiguous word ‘Ismaophobia’. There is certainly plenty of anti-Muslim bigotry or hate but the term ‘Isalomphobia’ is preferred because legitimate criticism of Islamic poliitical and social formations can be shoehorned into it. I think this is now back-firing. people who would be sympathetic to an anti-racist campaign against anti-Muslim bigotry hear the word ‘Islamophobia’ and lose confidence in the honsety of the organisers: they do not want to be railroaded into supporting or appearing to support ultra-reactionary relgio-political organisations.
Comment by John Meredith — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Out of interest, John, do you think the word ‘homophobia’ is equally deliberately ambiguous?
Comment by RobM — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Recent critics of multi-culturalism from the camp of what is sometimes called ‘muscular liberalism’ make much play of the ‘mistake’ of treating all ‘cultures’ as ‘equal’. Peter Tatchell recently made a speech along these lines which has just been enthusiatically reproduced on Harry’s Place.
As the comments section on Harry’s Place makes pretty transparent this ‘critique’ involves delininating a hierarchy of cultures, some of which can be assimilated to something called ‘western culture’ and some of which can’t. So a critique which appears to begin by rejecting cultural equality in the name of individual equality, pretty quickly erects essentialist notions of culture (some are essentially worse then others, cannot be vehicles for progressive change, etc), and can be used by the kind of racist idiots who think that fish and chips is a superior kind of supper on the basis of judeo-christian values.
There is also (and ironically given muscular liberal commitments to a kind of methodological individualism) a kind of substantialist theory of culture, above and beyond individuals. Essentially those with different cultures appear to have a duty of ‘assimilation’ to a dominant culture, above and beyond the duties of citizenship (although some want to re-write the rules of citizenship in accordence with a more substantialist view of what it means to be British: confusions about which are thought a ‘problem’).
Whilst I’m sure Peter would not want to draw the conclusions many on the right take from these arguments, people surely have a right to disagree with his views and his critique of multi-culturalism. Its also rather dangerous all this talk of vague entities like ‘cultural values’, especially for those committed to campaigns for LBGT liberation. Essentialist (ie THEIR culture just is one thing: bad, inferior etc) and Substantialist (our culture is a solid object like a chair about which there can be no dispute) views having played a pretty dreadful role in streotyping and acting Gay people in the past, just as they are used today to attack Muslims.
Attacks on Cultural Relativism used to be the stock in trade of those who opposed liberation for those whose sexuality could be portrayed as deviating from the norm. I actually think the deployment of the term “Cultural Relativism” (which usually mistakes universalism for claims about the cultural superiority of the English, the West, etc) is simply a new right slogan, and Peter is therefore mistaken in his politics (mistaken because he is in fact left wing).
As to those attempting to argue that Marx was simply reproducing the themes of Enlightenment rationalism when he critiqued religion, well, perhaps they’re really more concerned with defending the rituals and theology of the French State then analysing what Marx actually had to say on the subject. Its very striking that in the discussion, no-one will actually engage with what Barry actually says. Instead we have a list of accusations about what he and others must REALLY mean.
Its rather strange coming from those who claim to be standing by enlightenment values.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Also having now read the disputed article I am deeply shocked that Peter took the stance he did, rather then engaging in a political argument, an argument for which there is clearly a great need.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Ok John, #30 let us make this easy for you.
You say: ““Some of those who vigorously support Peter were quoted out of context in the book ion questions giving the impression that they opposed him. ””
But only two people are quoted in the book critical of Peter tatchell. the other people critical of him are the authors themselves. The two are
Jasbir Puar
Leslie Feinberg
These criticisms of Pter Tatchell are referenced in the article
Puar, Jasbir (2006) ‘On Terror: Queerness, Secularism, and Affect,’ KeynoteLecture at the Out of Place conference in Lancaster, 24/25 March, 2006.
Puar, Jasbir (2007) Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism In Queer Times,Duke University Press, Durham
Feinberg, Leslie (2006) ‘Anti-Iran protest misdirects LGBT struggle,’ Work-ers World (17 July 2006), http://www.workers.org/2006/us/anti-iran-0720/index.html (accessed 17 October, 2006).
Feinberg’s article is still available on the web, and she was not misquoted.
the authors of the “Out of Place” article provide a lengthy exposition of Paur’s argument, and it is clear that paur is very substantially in agreement with them.
So would it be fair to say that you are not telling the truth when you say that some people quoted in the article as hostile to Tatchell are supportive of him?
This is importnat becuase two issues are central to this debate:
i) thruthfulness in argument - Pter tatchell calims his critics are lying. Where did you get your information from that someone in the chapter was misquoted?Someone is lying about that.
ii) consultation and refernece to LGBT activists of colour — where Jasbir Paur reinforces and agrees with the thrust of the criticism of Peter tatchell.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
What I have learned from this and the previous thread is that the majority of those who are defending Peter Tatchell/ attacking Barry Kade are incapable of having a proper discussion about this issue ,bacause they are the mirror image of what they are attacking- so committed to their own dogmatic world-view that they will use every trick in the book- misrepresentation, slander, bullying and offensive insults in order to fight their corner.
They can dish it out but they can’t take it.
Andy- it’s a shame because this is a potentially interesting discussion, but this thread is inevitably going the way of the previous one that you closed for comment.
Comment by Armchair — 6 November, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
#36
Indeed,
What should cause us some room for refelection is the contrast with the thoughtful and respectful discussion on the Christian websites discussing these issues at the moment
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
#31
This is the exact point in reverse that the African human rights defenders made against Peter tatchell and Outrage!
In the delicate context of their own campaigns, Western gay activists make an insensitive intervention, throwing around the term homophobe, and deter people who might otherwise be allies of the human rights agenda, who do not want to be seen to be supporting or appearing to support Western forms of gay and lesbian identity that are not relevent in the African context.
A very good example of such an ally who might be discouraged is Warren Throckmorton, an American evangelical conservative, who could be described as a homophobe by Outrages!’s standards, but who is a crucial ally for Ugandan LGBT community, who has intervened in the debate against the proposed anti-Homosexuality bill in the Ugandan newspapers, who blogs on this daily, effectivly challenging the position of the Church of Uganda, and who has used his conservative evangelical connections to reveall that the highly influential Rick Warren has distanced himself from the main Ugandan promoters of the bill.
A coalition including conservative church figures is a delicate one, but this breadth may be essential in undermining the proposed bill’s level of support. Any insensitive intervention that jeopardies such a coalition could prove literally fatal for Ugandan gays.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Andrew Coates wrote: Finally, Barry Kade’s comments that “Since the end of the cold war against ‘communism’, the west has had to invent another enemy.” Please Barry Kade, next time you write remember that something more than a worn-out cliche is needed to win an argument. Maybe you if find proof of this “West” that “had had” to do anything, and how it “invented” an enemy you might get listened to by any one outside your cosy circle of Green corn circle dancers.
This post just highlights what is wrong with the tone of this debate. It is nothing but arrogant intellectual bullying, and serves no purpose other than to reveal the smuggness of the author who wrote it. Great point made by Armchair at 36!
Comment by Owen — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
#21
Andrew Coates suffers greatly from not living in France, where his militant secularism is part of the national culture. It never has been in england.
Despite his quoting marx, Coatsie is really an idealist, who looks at religious idea in the abstract. So for him sharia law is judged by its textual content, not its social reality.
In reality there is a debate among the Muslim world about the degree to which sharia law is literally the world of God, and therefore eternal truth, or whether it reflects aspects of the society which created it. Muslims have traditionally be very adaptive, and there is no centralised authority in their religion. So the actual content of “sharia law” is a moveable feast. Also many of the more sexist customs in Muslim communities are not even part of Sharia, but are only national cultural traditions.
some aspects of Sharia law are already embodied in UK law to allow islamic mortgages to be offered by banks.
the mistake Andrew makes is to take the most extreme interpreation of Islam as being the norm, and then campaign against that straw man. Also ignoring the rich breadth of Islamic expereince, including female and liberal voices.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Arrogant and bullying certainly. Intellectual? The responses seem to divide into two. Firstly a kind of high octane moralism which refuses to engage in debate. Secondly, as in the case of Andrew Coates, deep anger against the anti-war left.
These arguments have different roots politically and its important not to reduce the one to the other. But it does make the thread a depressing read for those who hoped that Barry Kade’s excellent little think piece might lead to a more rational debate of issues which are clearly very important.
What I thought was very important was Barry Kade’s flagging of a long history of persecution and oppression of religious minorities, and the historical link between the resulting bigotry and ethnic or national identity, a subject the mini-voltaires run away from. I also thought it very important that he pointed to the way that the forces on the right who make such great play of the liberating essence of western culture would, on the street, be the last people you’d want to run into if you were gay. Just think of Ian Paisley a long-term critic of Catholicism. The other point which I thought was important was rejecting the idea of different oppressed groups being in some sort of competition with each other, where a gain for one is seen as a defeat for the other. Arguments which lead to perspectives like this need to be interogated by socialists.
I also noticed Ger’s intervention about the smear leaflet being put out about Salma, and saw at the stirrer some speculation (unproven) about the involvement of the local Labour Party. I think there is a wider difficulty that some of the debates about ‘community cohesion’ etc, as far as I can work out, a putative critique of multi-culturalism, can be utilized by the right to “other” minorities, creating a climate which sets the scene for smears and scare-stories about minorities.
Its very different from the “open debate” about “multi-culturalism” promised by its critics. But there is no reason why we can’t have one. With rising attacks on LGBT people co-existing with a rising climate of Islamophobia it seems a very neccessary debate. People who suffer oppression in society are often divided from each other. Its not a reason not to try and overcome these divisions.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770
I rather think a few more petits-Voltaires on the left would greatly improve the quality of our discussions.
Comment by Francis King — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
It might also be nice if there were some proper voltaires who actually engaged with what people were arguing. Not much point in defending the right of people to write if you don’t even read what they say. The largest irony of all this is, I’m genuinely sorry to say, the disturbing fact that the mini-voltaires actually try and shut down debate and discussion to the left when they don’t like what it contains. One can debate the slogan ‘no free speech for fascists’. Apparently though the commitment to the absolute value of free speech does not extend to genuine attempts to open up debate about contentious subjects. There is nothing contentious in western countries about declaiming the superiority of the western way of life.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
The Voltaire quote is spurious, incidentally.
Comment by lone nut — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Well despite the negative aspects of the way this debate has been conducted, I have learned a lot from it.
And ironically without Peter tatchell signposting and drawing it to my attention I would never have come across the very interesting article ”Gay Imperialism:Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ by Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem”
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Touché, lone nut. It’s a nice sentiment, though.
Comment by Francis King — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
The “Gay Imperialism” article can be read in its original form here: http://tinyurl.com/ylzgrq7
Comment by Anon — 6 November, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
#46 Without wishing to stray from the matter in hand, while it may seem like a nice sentiment, it can’t be an absolute- I personally wouldn’t pretend to want to give ny life to defend the right of anyone to write anyting (racism, homophobia, advocacy of paedaphilia?)
Comment by Armchair — 6 November, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
Not only does Tatchell agenda reinforce racism, but it is it unable to explain the current rise in assaults on LGBT people. For common with most mainstream gay rights activist Peter Tatchell see oppression of LGBT people as a consequence of individual prejudice. A position given credence by the psychological notion of homophobia which Stonewall defines as: ‘The irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. These prejudicial feelings fuel the myths, stereotypes, discrimination and violence against people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual.’
Indeed one of the early battles inside Outrage! was over this point. Tatchell and friends produced a resolution at a meeting the expressly forbid Outrage! in conducting solidarity work and argued against any link between LGBT discrimination. All this is in stark contrast to the appreciation by the Gay Liberation Front of need to make common cause. In December 1970, the GLF adopted a set of principles in which it saw ‘itself as part of the wider movement aiming to abolish all forms of social oppression.’
This dumbing down of the analysis of LGBT discrimination in the early nineties is linked up with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the so called death of socialism, but also a consequent of the LGBT community coming to terms with section 28. The need for legal equality between LGBT people and heterosexuals in Britain was never so apparent. It became an all exclusive goal for LGBT movement. This pursuit of a rather limited civil rights agenda has led to dumping down of accounts of LGBT discrimination. After all, to argue that everyone should be treated equally before the law does not require an account of sexual and gender relationships under capitalism or, for that matter, any other society. As a consequence such debates have largely become a pursuit of personal interest or academic concern rather than a political imperative. As a consequence all discrimination is simply coined in terms of prejudice rather than political, social or economic relations.
The trouble with the politics of homophobia was neatly summed up by Ann Pellegrini, who working from a Lesbian Feminist perspective wrote:
‘I find unhelpful, at best, any account of homophobia that would consider the root causes of lesbian hating irrational, incomprehensible or otherwise insusceptible or careful, reasoned analysis. Such a claim, however convenient, overlooks the manifold ways in which compulsory heterosexuality functions as an institution. It denies the ways in which sexism and heterosexism are mutually reinforcing. It says that the oppression of gay males and lesbians has nothing in common with the oppression of any other targeted class of individuals. Further, it “naturalizes” the hatred of same-sex love by pronouncing this hatred and fear as a somehow inescapable feature of human psyche. But is it not rather the case that the hatred of lesbians and gay males issues not from the subterranean order of the psyche but from the unexamined premises of the social realm?’
By seeing anti-gay discrimination as a consequent of an irrational phobia, not only are the social economic origins hidden, but the perceived origin can all too easily shifted. When Jody Dobrowski was murdered by two white men on Clapham Common in 2005 for example, Peter Tatchell went on BBC Radio London and talked about the homophobia of Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi!
The irony is that it was the older Gay Liberation tradition that was instrumental in winning legal parity. New Labour haphazard agenda of pro-LGBT was navigated through Whitehall by second wave feminist working in the Women and Equality Unit and under pressure from the trade union movement such the mercurial, if not Machiavellian, Warwick Agreement in 2005 which, won a number concessions from New Labour, including a commitment to introduce lesbian and gay anti-discrimination legislation for goods and services. The commitment of the women’s and trade union movement was won by solidarity work.
However Britain is still a deeply anti-gay society, and this does not simply exist in terms of prejudice. Britain is still organised around the notion of the nuclear family. Now where is this more evident that in the terms of housing, where in many parts of the country it is impossible to get social housing if you don’t have children. Even in the supermarket food is packaged heteornormatively. Try buying two pre-packed pork chops. Invariably there is one big ‘daddy’ chop for ‘the man’ that spoons the ever so girly chop for the ‘little lady’. From such trivia does the normalisation of heterosexual relationships and demonization of same-sex relationships occur.
Comment by Richard Farnos — 6 November, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
For me, the most important issue in fighting homophobia is not allowing that struggle to be hijacked by the right and used to oppress other minorities. Not only does this divide LGBT’s and our struggle for equality but it also gives confidence to every racist to extend their prejudice towards LGBT’s.
Not every racist is a homophobe and not every homophobe is a racist but bigotry is irrational and infectious and if it’s allowed to run rampant like a disease it spreads throughout society and attacks every one who is considered a scapegoat.
Islamophobia emboldens the bigots and that’s why LGBT’s must reject it otherwise we will be the next target of their hate.
Comment by Ray — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
Dear Barry,
I’m sorry to see someone hiding behind a pseudonym to make accusations of others. And for that matter, if my information is correct, I find the comments that seem to be assuming your party affiliation quite amusing - given that you have taken something out of context and disingenuously equated secularism with racism. At least you had the decency not to name myself and the other GL members who you accuse of posting comments that were “defamatory, ignorant and often abusive”.
For the record (and I have one), in the discussion you refer to I raised my concerns regarding Salma’s lack of unequivocal support for gay equality. I would never remain a member of a party that does not unequivocally support gay rights, and would be concerned about any high profile member who may not share that position, particularly one who may become an elected representative. Those concerns are naturally heightened when the person is a follower of ANY religion. If you do not share that view on equality then fine, but at least let us know so those of us who do can avoid ever voting for you.
That said, I fully support GL’s endorsement of Birmingham GP’s decision to stand down their candidate in favour of Salma. She is clearly the best chance of gaining a united left victory, but as I have still yet to see evidence that will allay my concerns I feel it is safer if she remains where she is politically. If that changes, and maybe you can help with that, then I will happily change that opinion and welcome her to the party if she ever wants to join.
Also, your accusation of Islamophobia is inaccurate, not that it is very clearly defined. For myself and many others whom you label with the term, presumably as Respect and others have abused the definition so much that even I now almost equate it to racism, a more appropriate term would be ‘theophobic’(def: ‘a fear of gods or religion’). But that’s not strictly true either. I just don’t like it when ANY religious group uses their beliefs to demand less than equal treatment for others that their god or gods don’t like, or to demand special privileges themselves. I’m certainly not scared of them though.
Finally you state, “These emails were from white gay secular humanist comrades”. For the record, I am a secularist, but I am neither gay nor a humanist. The colour of my skin is no more an issue than the relevance of whether or not you wrote this piece sat in your y-fronts. And I would never accuse you of being ignorant.
Comment by Keith — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Keith, how about responding to Barry’s actual arguments. It would be genuinely interesting to see what you have to say about them.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Andrew Coates: ‘To my knowledge Salma Yaqoob does not have a clear position on the Sharia, though her hysterical opposition to French secularism indicates that she considers that the religious dress codes are more important than secular freedom and equality.’
Talk about being blinded by bigotry and ignorance. Lets take your second point first. Salma has written ad nauseum about Muslim women’s right to choose what they wear, and how nobody, whether parents or the state, has the right to deny them that right. This is the only position which upholds genuine freedom and equality.
But what does it mean to say someone ‘does not have a clear position on the Sharia’? Sharia refers to Islamic guidance for Muslims on all aspects of life from politics and economics to bringing up family, sexuality, hygiene, and much more besides. So, if you ask any Muslim ‘do they believe in Sharia?’, they will reply ‘yes’. The bogey of a Sharia ‘movement’ is a Daily Mail fantasy which serves to scare the bejaysus out of everyone pretty much as the specter of a Commie coup did during the Cold War. It’s useful in another way too. As Andrew Coates demonstrates, using it as a litmus test of whether or not Muslims are ‘progressive’, is designed to set them up to fail.
The use and abuse of the concept is just a further example of the Islamphobes, secular fundamentalists and some on the left can overlap in breeding fear and ignorance about Muslims and Islam.
Comment by Ger Francis — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Intersting Keith. #51
You simply assume that Salma Yaqoob might be homophobic, and think that she needs to prove she isn’t.
Well she is the registered party leader, of an organisation that has as one of its core aims:
“Opposition to all forms of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship. “
you have just assumed that she has to prove she isn’t a homophobe because she is a Muslim. Interesting. making assumptions about someone even when it contradicts the evidence sounds like a phobia to me.
Indeed the idea that Muslims need to pass a special hurdle that others don’t strikes me as a very dangerous one es[eically as nearly all muslims are non-white, but then despite its protestations abouty equalityu, the green party is overwehlmingly a white party, isn’t it? When a left member of the greens opposes Muslims joining, unless they pas aspecial test, is it any wonder your party doesn’t appeal to BME communities?
You say:
“I just don’t like it when ANY religious group uses their beliefs to demand less than equal treatment for others that their god or gods don’t like, or to demand special privileges themselves.”
But this displays staggering ignorance about Islam, and adherents to islam, as if they are all homogenous, an you have also excluded the possibility of someone being a muslim and LGBT. And indeed what makes you think that Muslims “demand less than equal treatment ” for gays?
Who brought in Clause 28? It sure wasn’t Muslims. Who bombed the Admiral Duncan pub? Not a Muslim.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
John - I don’t see an argument, I see a straw man. I did not really want to spend a Friday night on SU but if I must be clear.
I actually basically agree with his analysis of Marx, although after removing the pain I would seek to remove any remaining dependency on the painkiller. But he then loses it by quoting Inyat Bungawala, a case study in ingenuity and straw man building.
My view is very simple. Either you accept that secularism (freedom OF religion as well as freedom from religion) and equal rights are not incompatible with religion or not. It won’t stop me joining you on a demo but I probably won’t be buying you a beer afterwards. I sincerely wish those believers who are challenging their co-religionists the best of luck, but ultimately religion has been more of a cause than a solution.
Comment by Keith — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! OBAMA IS A TERRORIST! THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN AMERICA!
Comment by ERTRTERTERT — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
that was a party political broadcast for the green party
Comment by Anonymous — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Andy - ffs, I personally have met a former President of the Muslim LGBT society within the NUS and I have several secular and ex Muslim friends. I lived in Leicester for 4 years, I know full well there are lots of them. I also know full well that many religious people of ALL persuasions make the demands I claim. What is said by individuals within the committees of Respect is not something I care too much about as I know where I stand politically (for now). But I have my doubts over some of its leading lights as to how much they ascribe fully to their stated aims - and many more over Galloway than Salma for that matter.
I get a tiny bit more concerned when it comes to one of them potentially joining the party I am currently in. Occasionally I might even send e-mails to that effect. I do not appreciate it when those e-mails are referred to, without reference, quotation or context, to make accusations to support the building of a straw man.
I’ve been reading SU for years but never posted until now. Your editorial standards must be slipping.
Comment by Keith — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
“you have just assumed that she has to prove she isn’t a homophobe because she is a Muslim. Interesting. making assumptions about someone even when it contradicts the evidence sounds like a phobia to me.”
Actually, it’s racist but because it’s couched in rhetoric about fighting homophobia Keith thinks he can get away with stereotyping Salma Yaqoob. The only reason Keith is singling her out rather than any other leading member of Respect is because she is a Muslim.
Quite frankly, it’s of no help to LGBT’s and our struggle for liberation to alienate allies such as Salma Yaqoob by making false assumptions and accusation about her and Respect.
As a socialist, I support the right of Muslims to wear symbols of their religion in any environment. To single out Muslim women and to legislate against the way they dress as has happened in France while ignoring the religious paraphernalia of other religions in the secular environment is Islamophobic discrimination and is racist.
It’s also racist to assume or attribute any form of bigotry to a Muslim because of their religion or the way they dress. The left is not in the business of pandering to racist stereotypes and we shouldn’t indulge those who peddle this crap by calling it anything other than it is i.e. RACISM!
Comment by Ray — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
“But he then loses it by quoting Inyat Bungawala, a case study in ingenuity and straw man building”
My understanding was that he quoted him to demonstrate that there is debate amongst Muslims about these issues just as there is debate amongst non-Muslims about these issues (ie we are not talking about monolithic blocs). I don’t understand how this is “losing it” or has anything to do with “strawmen”.
“Either you accept that secularism (freedom OF religion as well as freedom from religion) and equal rights are not incompatible with religion or not”
Don’t understand at all what you are asking here. Are you saying I have to believe that religion is incompatible with secularism or are you saying that I have to believe that religion is compatible with secularism?
As it happens I agree with you that secularism (freedom of religion and freedom from religion) but would note that many who call themselves secularists don’t believe this at all (Andrew Coates for example).
I would say Ger is wrong to suggest that Andrew Coates is simply trying to create a litmus test for whether Muslim’s are progressive or not. The model he is advancing is one which wants a litmus test as to whether Muslims are properly French or British or not. In other words the questions raised by Barry about the long history of the connection between the persecution of religous minorities and different forms of ethnic and national oppression (particularly strong in France).
Thats the opposite of secularism and something which I think should be opposed in the name of secularism.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:31 pm
#59
Ray
I think it is wrong to describe this as racism. It is better to describe it as an insensitivity to the forms of modern racism, which can lead to the themse used by racsist beng echoed no non-racists. I am sure that Keith is a committed anti-racist..
This form of insensitovity also occurs when people are insensitive to the nuanced forms that anti-Semitism manifests itself.
Comment by andy newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
#60
John.
interesting points.
With regard to secularism. As you say the tradition of using religion as a test of nationality and ethnicity has been a very strong tradition in France contributing to oppression(Dreyfuss springs to mind), and the particularly appalling record of the French left, of all persuasions, on questions of religious identity.
Briain has a much more successful record on religious tollerance, and we do not have a secular society.
this leads me to question the relevance of secularism.
And as the new imperialism justifies itself by refenence to its supposed universility in respect for human rights then secularism becomes part of the ideological arsenal of universality.
Paradoxically whereas established Anglicanism was a driving ideological force for Empire, it now is a marker of England’s particularity, and undermines the state’s claim for universality. Because the Church of england is the state church without being the dominant religions, and is therefore forced to address the issues of ecumenism and inter-faith relations; and the divided loyalties of multiople simulataneous identities.
the more we recognise our society is a muddled hotch potch of conflicting value systems, and see that we need to negotiate towards a harmonious consensus through promoting mutual understanding the better.
Secularism is a short cut that elevates an idealised state over the actually existing complex society, and seeks to find easy answers, by claiming universaility for values that are actually arbitrary and context dependent.
i prefer muddle, but that is of course rather typicaly engish of me. Doh!
Comment by andy newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Andy Newman’s post (12.) repeats the false allegations against myself and OutRage! by a group of African LGBTI activists.
Most African LGBTI activists refused to sign the letter denouncing us.
Please read our side of the story (below), which is very different from the allegations against us.
We have always worked in cooperation with, and at the request of, African activists. We did exactly what they asked us to do.
Then, one African LGBTI activist did not like the fact that we also credited and quoted activists from rival LGBTI groups. So, this activist spread lies against us in revenge, and persuaded others to sign the letter denouncing us.
Here is our version:
African Coalition and campaign disagreements
OutRage! responds to false, sectarian smears
London – 20 February 2007
On 30 January 2007, a group of African activists issued a news release headed:
“African LGBTI Human Rights Defenders Warn Public Against Participation in Campaigns Concerning LGBTI Issues in Africa Led by Peter Tatchell and Outrage!”
Here is the response of OutRage! and Peter Tatchell.
Kizza Musinguzi, African Affairs spokesperson for OutRage! and a Ugandan gay rights activist, said:
“These are untrue, sectarian allegations. They are made mostly by people who have never had any contact with Peter Tatchell or OutRage! Since we have not run any campaigns concerning their countries, how can they accuse us of treating them badly?
“They have been fed lies about us by more conservative gay activists in Africa and the US who hate OutRage!’s radicalism and are jealous of our effective campaigns.
“Those who signed the anti-OutRage! statement did so on the basis of allegations that are entirely false. Some signatories signed in good faith, but they were hoodwinked by people who are out to destroy OutRage!
“OutRage! has always acted in response to appeals for help from Nigerian and Ugandan LGBTI groups. We supported their struggles. Most African groups recognise this. Only a small minority signed the letter denouncing us. We continue to work with all the Nigerian gay groups and two of the Ugandan gay groups. We enjoy their confidence and support. If we had done anything wrong, they would not still be working with us. Even some of the people who signed the letter criticising us are now working with us again. They now realise the allegations against us were unfair.
“Nigerian and Ugandan gay groups are divided, with different groups pursuing different agendas and tactics. It is partly a divide between well-funded groups and volunteer grassroots activists, and between reformists and radicals. OutRage! supports them all, but works most closely with the grassroots radicals. The more reformist groups resent this. They don’t like the fact that we work with the radicals, who they see as rivals. They want exclusive control of the gay rights movement in their country. Many do little or no work with progressive / left African political parties and human rights groups, whereas OutRage! and its African allies advocate cooperation between gay rights groups and left parties, trade unions and civil society movements.
“Some of this dispute is also about money. There is competition for funding. Certain organisations see others as competitors. They want to be seen to be doing all the important work, so they can get the lion’s share of the funding.
“According to the mostly conservative African LGBTI groups who condemned us, the proposed new Nigerian anti-gay legislation was dead and there was no need to campaign against it. This lulled everyone into a false sense of security. Acting on warnings from our Nigerian activist allies that the legislation was likely to be revived, OutRage! urged a global campaign against the new law. Some of the conservative groups saw us as challenging their power and authority. That is why they denounced us and tricked others into signing their statement, based on lurid untrue allegations. In fact, OutRage! and our Nigerian allies were proven correct. The legislation was revived and the international LGBTI movement was caught napping,” said Mr Musinguzi.
His views are echoed by Peter Tatchell:
“I have supported every African liberation movement struggle for nearly 40 years – in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Eritrea, Darfur and the Western Sahara,” said Mr Tatchell.
“For two decades, I have worked in solidarity with African gay groups. Indeed, I initiated the first international campaign to support the newly emergent African LGBTI movements in the early 1980s, fund-raising for their cause. Until now, no African LGBTI groups have complained or criticised my work. All have appreciated the support given to their campaigns.
“Contrary to the allegations made against us, our news releases do not contain untrue information, we do not exaggerate homophobic repression, our campaigns have not caused damage and we have never put anyone’s life in danger. These smears are being spread by reformist political opponents in Africa and the US who are trying to discredit OutRage! to advance their own agendas.
“I challenge anyone to show where OutRage! news releases are inaccurate, exaggerated or reckless – or European chauvinist. Such claims are politically-motivated smears.
“Our critics are nearly all paid professional NGO officials. Some are funded by the west. Some are full-time lobbyists who oppose grassroots activism and direct action protests. They say all campaigning should be left to them. Their denunciations look like a bid to maintain their exclusive control over the LGBTI human rights movement in Africa. A number of the signatories resent the fact that OutRage! works with and supports African grassroots groups that they see as rivals.
“A week before these activists denounced us, we halted our Nigerian campaign. We have not campaigned on Uganda for five months. So why did they denounce us?
“This vendetta has nothing to do with gay rights. Certain groups seem more interested in fighting other activists than in fighting homophobia. Their petty jealousies and political sectarianism is undermining the campaign for gay equality in Africa,” said Mr Tatchell.
Ends
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Well I’m not that sure about Britain’s record. The fact of sectarianism in Northern Ireland is better known then the fact that in Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham etc, there was a flourishing culture of the same until relatively recently. I think the kind of critique you are putting foward concerning certain recieved wisdom’s about secularism (and French secularism in particular) are linked to particular paths of capitalist development.
When you outline a model in which secularism hovers in mysterious fashion over actually existing diversity, can it be a co-incidence that the most re-ified version in western europe is the same country that gave us the term ‘bonapartism’? A number of writers on the left in France have linked the close connection of a recieved version of French secularism and national identity, not to the Republican ideals of 1789, but to the ‘monstrous carbuncle’ of the French State after the repression of the Paris commune, being concerned to turn a nation of peasents into Frenchmen.
This tendency is also seen in relationship to the French colonies, were Algeria was actually concieved as being part of France, repression on an overtly racial basis giving way to repression in the name of culture, issuing in a doctrine of assimilation, later carried over onto French soil. This had its counterpart in a British model which tolerated difference whilst mantaining racial hierarchies as the principle of exclusion. Both are worse.
But some of the attachment of the left to this kind of embodiement of secularism seems to me connected to a tradition of state worship. At bottom, I think there is a problem with secularism being attached to forms of nationalism which always contain their own forms of exclusion.
Secularism for me is therefore always an unfinished project under capitalism. But I agree with the idea of negotiation and muddle rather then state enforcement being a regulative ideal, even if I arrive there by a different route.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Andy: “as the new imperialism justifies itself by refenence to its supposed universility in respect for human rights then secularism becomes part of the ideological arsenal of universality.”
No, Andy. Secularism is simply about religion being a private matter, not a state matter. Neither more nor less. It is the basic condition for religious freedom in any society with a multiplicity of religions. It has been one of the basic demands of the socialist movement in Europe since its inception.
The ideologists of liberal imperialism may well try to co-opt secularism, just as they try to co-opt feminism, gay rights, and other things of which socialists generally approve. Does this invalidate secularism, feminism or gay rights? Of course not. If the left abandons every idea that someone else abuses, we shall soon have no ideas of our own left.
Comment by Francis King — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Thats true Francis but I think a) where the right attempts to co-opt these ideas this co-option must be explicitly resisted and b) socialists should have their own version of secularism as against that of the State’s which historically has colluded with repression of religious minorities, defining people as ‘anti-national’ etc. If secularism as a normative value should be defended and debated, there is also some need to look at the limitations of ‘actually existing’ secularism, these limitations not being restricted to being ‘too soft’ on religion.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:48 pm
Its also true that the division between the state and secularism has never been that clear cut. Indeed secularism is identified with the state in a number of places.
Comment by johng — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
johng - I think we agree. How about the phrase “separation of church(es) and state”?
Comment by Francis King — 6 November, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
#65
“Secularism is simply about religion being a private matter, not a state matter.”
But it can’t be private, because social questions of divorce, probate education, variations in incest prohibition (personal to me as my maternal grandparents were first cousins, that woudl be, for example illegal in the USA), contract law, etc, etc, also come from religion.
the state needs to interact with people’s multiple identities.
the difference betwen us is that I think that religions needs to have a “corporate identity” for those negotiations, not leave it up to individuals. I see nothing wrong with the Cathloic Church negotiating with the state, for example, over how conscience opt outs for catholic doctors can be allowed over issues like abortion.
So the state should not be controlled by any particular religion, but religions should have a role, where applicable, in defending their particular interests, rather than assume that the central state represents the univseral intrests of society.
My take on modern secularists is they get in a lather whenever an organissed religion tries to influence state policy, and start shouting about irrationality and bigotry.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
#63
It is of course impossible to debate with Peter tatchell who simply reproduces press releases like a vending machine.
The account by the African human rights defenders critical of tatchell and Outrage! was supported by Human Rights Watch, a highly trusted third party witness.
But specifically, peter tatchell doesn’t engage with the politics of the critique, he simply raises an alternative set of facts,and implies mercenary motives for those who criticise him.
But the politics are important.
What specific outcomes in Nigeria were hoped for through Outrages! activities? Some Nigerian activists were counselling that predominantly white gay protests in London would entrench attitudes in lagoa, and be counter-productive.
This should certainly have raised a presumption towards caution. What factors and arguments led Outrage! to disregard the advice of these activists , in favour of advice from unspecified activists whio Peter tatchell claims asked him for support.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
#65 Francis, the problem is that ’secularism’ has itself been abused as cover for those who want to wage war on people of faith, and when war is being waged against religion in the West it is invariably the religion of the outsiders, the immigrants that is persecuted.
The points made in some of the excellent contributions on this thread about the French ’secular’ state are absolutely right.
Frantz Fanon’s accounts of Muslim women being forcibly unvieled in the public squares of Algeria to cries of ‘vive la republique’ by the French and colon forces in ‘Studies In A Dying Colonialism’ are as relevant today as they were 40 years ago.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:19 pm
# 69 - good example, Andy. Is it acceptable for the Catholic Church to lobby for its adherents in the health services to have the right not to take part in abortion procedures? Yes. Is it acceptable for the Catholic Church to seek to outlaw abortion for everyone (which it tends to, given the chance)? No.
Comment by Francis King — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
“I think it is wrong to describe this as racism. It is better to describe it as an insensitivity to the forms of modern racism, which can lead to the themse used by racsist beng echoed no non-racists. I am sure that Keith is a committed anti-racist..
This form of insensitovity also occurs when people are insensitive to the nuanced forms that anti-Semitism manifests itself.”
I disagree. Perhaps Keith is involved in anti-racist campaigns. Perhaps he doesn’t believe his position is Islamophobic and racist but none the less it is.
There are many examples of those on the left with a good record of fighting racism who have bought into racist ideas. Their past record doesn’t make it any less racist when they do.
I think it doesn’t help win people away from these ideas by splitting hairs. Perhaps I’ve learnt to be sensitive to a very similar set of so-called “nuances” when told, “I’m not homophobic but…” by people who go on to say something homophobic.
Comment by Ray — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
#72
I agree.
That is the balance.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Marx’s contribution to this question in his much misunderstood pamphlet on the Jewish Question revolved precisely on the hall of mirrors in the relationship between public and private matters under capitalism. Incidently this is a much more important question then fighting between rival NGOs about funding, and, in my experiance of the same, there is zero politics involved. Perhaps those of us who want a serious discussion about these issues should borrow a leaf from the disengenuity of liberal capitalism and rigerously seperate political arguments from arguments about NGOs and their rival claims of credibility. And proceed with more important matters. Sorry, but it really is shameful.
Comment by johng — 7 November, 2009 @ 12:41 am
The French left has been notorious for using secularism as a reason to pile in attacking Muslims. It is racism under a liberal banner.
Those on the left anywhere who jump on imperialism’s anti-Muslim bandwagon should be ashamed. Muslims are not being vilified in our media because they deserve it, it’s because they happen to be sitting on most of the world’s oil.
The left’s role is to defend oppressed people, not help stick the knife in.
Comment by little black sister — 7 November, 2009 @ 12:46 am
There is an interesting article by Scott Long on Islamophobia, Iran, and gay rights that also deals with Peter Tatchell. It is in a forthcoming book by Routledge but it doesn’t seem to be on their website, however, it is available on the website of the Indonesian gay organisation, at
http://gn-download.blogspot.com/2009/04/unbearable-witness-how-western.html.
I recommend it. Here is the abstract:
Unbearable witness, how Western activists (mis)recognize sexuality in Iran
Published in: Contemporary Politics, Volume 15, Issue 1 March 2009 , pages 119 - 136.
Download: PDF
Abstract
This contribution proposes a critical analysis of responses in Western gay and lesbian politics to state-defined crimes relating to same-sex sexual behaviour in Iran. It focuses on the Iranian state’s execution of Makwan Mouloudzadeh in 2007, for alleged involvement in a rape committed almost a decade before, as well as on other recent images and allegations about rights abuses inside Iran. Using empirical sources, including news and non-governmental organizations’ statements, the article examines how gay and lesbian activists in the West misinterpreted the context and reduced the scope of rights violations in a search for ‘gay’ identity and for ‘homophobia’. The article questions how the terms of Western gay politics can erase voices and political agency in describing other cultural situations, through a pursuit of sameness and a strategic misrecognition of otherness that enables domestic political action but posits misleading universals.
Comment by CraigA — 7 November, 2009 @ 1:08 am
Thanks CraigA it sounds very interesting. I look forward to reading it. I tried clicking on the link you posted but in my browser Chrome it redirects to an empty page. The link is correct because I found the page eventually and it has the same web address as you posted. Not sure why it won’t redirect from this blog though.
I’ve posted the link again and also the direct download link.
http://gn-download.blogspot.com/2009/04/unbearable-witness-how-western.html
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nwemjmornyy
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 1:53 am
What I think is really good about this debate is that as the stakes have become greater with the BNP taking advantage of Islamophobia and anti-immigration bigotry the debate has become a lot clearer and sharper between those who want to combat growing racism and those who have bought into it.
Islamophobia needs to be challenge on every level including among LGBT’s on the liberal left. It’s evident that in the last year and since the election of the BNP MEP’s homophobic attacks have increased along with racist attacks. Two high profile attacks on Gay men have occurred in the last month. The one in Liverpool occurred after Griffins appearance on Question Time. If ever there is a time for LGBT’s to stand in solidarity with Muslims it is now before it is too late to stop the BNP taking advantage of bigotry against LGBT’s and Muslims.
In response to DavidT and Harry’s Place who try to justify Islamophobia by citing Israel as a place of tolerance for LGBT’s in comparison with Palestine:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8180069.stm
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Everything I have said or written in recent years is on my website:
www.petertatchell.net
So, why don’t my critics read what I’ve said in its full context, instead of selective quotation and instead of recycling the untruths circulated about me by others who are pursuing political vendettas.
Trying to paint me as an imperialist won’t wash.
I am not special and don’t want praise, but since I am being ceaselessly misrepresented as a stooge of imperialism I feel, obliged to point out that I am the only person in the UK who has ever tried to prosecute Henry Kissinger for war crimes in Cambodia (at Bow Street Magistrates Court in 2002, which resulted in him fleeing the UK).
I also am the only person who successfully ambushed Tony Blair and stopped his motorcade in the street in protest at the Iraq War (on 12 March 2003)in Piccadilly.
Are these the actions of an imperialist?
Comment by Peter Tatchell — 7 November, 2009 @ 3:28 am
Nobody disagreeing with you (well not most) are calling you an imperialist Peter. They’re saying your tactically mistaken. And trying to explain why they think so. And are a bit disturbed that you won’t respond politically. But its clearly a much larger argument about how to fight different kinds of oppression, an argument that divides the left, and one that you’ve contributed to (the speech quoted on Harry’s Place were you attack a section of the lefts misguided views on multiculturalism and suggest that this is racism for example). It would be good to have a political argument. It might be worth addressing the wider concerns Barry Kade raised.
Comment by johng — 7 November, 2009 @ 4:42 am
Personally I’m aghast at all the rhetoric about hierarchies of culture and the adoption of a language about ‘cultural relativism’ which has its (at least proximate) origins in the conservative kulturekampf against the gains of the 1960s. I’m fully aware that you are NOT a conservative, and certainly NOT against the gains of the 1960s, but the rhetoric being used is one which those who are are very comfortable with. This should at least provide an occassion for reflection.
Comment by johng — 7 November, 2009 @ 4:48 am
Leaving aside the precise connection between oil in the Middle East and the longstanding interest of the Great Powers in the region (there is a book called The Prize which you might like to read) do you seriously imagine that the region would be a zone of conflict if it were NOT for that fact?
Comment by johng — 7 November, 2009 @ 6:12 am
Look, just say no to irrationalism of all kinds … and in particular say no to the “Islamophobia” meme, which is now being reproduced willy-nilly by many naive people who imagine themselves to be of the historical Left. When you say “I’m of the Left, but” and then add “but I support silencing the critique of religious tradition and authority” you lose all credibility with very large numbers of people.
The idea of “Islamophobia” is used an excuse to suppress rational critique (and the perfectly appropriate satire that goes with it) of an immensely powerful and oppressive complex of institutions and dogmas with hundreds of millions of adherents, immense wealth, and a tendency to enforce its traditional morality by brutal force whenever it obtains sufficient social power (as it has done in much of the world). You should not give a free pass to something like Islam, merely because some of the people who have been socialised into it happen to be from the lower socio-economic strata of Western nations. It’s ever thus with such irrational and authoritarian systems. Like all the others, Islam should be subjected to severe sceptical scrutiny from all viewpoints - scientific, political, philosophical, historical, etc.
Nobody who throws around the word “Islamophobia” will ever obtain support from me. All right, so you may not want my support, since you may consider me an unimportant bourgeois liberal intellectual with little to offer. I don’t own a TV station or lead a political party. But you might want to think pragmatically about this. When you support this idea of “Islamaphobia”, and when you implicitly and explicitly support the suppression of critiques of Islam, you lose potential support not only from me but numerous others.
You do have freedom of speech, by the way. You can say what you want and I’ll oppose any attempt by the state to shut you up. But just don’t expect me to be impressed by the kind of all-too-familiar speech that you’ve uttered in your post. As for debate … don’t be silly. You’re merely enunciating a cliched position, not saying anything substantial or new. Move on or at least get out of the way.
Comment by Russell Blackford — 7 November, 2009 @ 6:25 am
#80 “I am not special and don’t want praise”.
This from the man who presented Raw Nerve Books with the laughably self-aggrandising statement “Peter Tatchell: Apology and Correction”, concerning which Islamophobia Watch commented:
“Those of us who regretfully decided long ago that Tatchell had degenerated into a self-promoting narcissistic parody of his former self can only conclude that our judgement was spot on.”
Comment by Bob — 7 November, 2009 @ 6:49 am
Like many, I find this an excellent, well thought out post that tries to address the issues raised in as rationally a manner possible.
I think however having a focus in this debate on Peter Tatchell’s interventions provides a wrong focus as, much as I disagree with him, the problem is centred around the bigotry in our society on both issues, rather than Peter Tatchell.
I think Islam and homophobia has to be tackled, but before doing so, remember how other world religions operate. I see nothing from Rome, from Judaism, from Canterbury etc that suggests that in essence they have changed.
Andy Newman (#55) is spot on when he reminds us that Clause 28 wasn’t the work of Muslims.
The other mater is how a religion that spans so many countries of the world in Asia, Africa, Middle East, Far East and beyond can be lumped together as one homogenous bloc ith no variation - as if there is neither a progressive nor a reactionary wing.
Which is partly why I feel that Russell #85 confuses criticism of Islam with Islamaphobia. Those of us who are non-believers by implication criticise each and every one of the world’s religions. None of the major religions gets it right on sexuality, gender equality for example. I can make criticism of practices carried out by Orthodox Jews without being anti-semitic. Opposing the doctrines of the pope doesn’t make me anti-catholic.
LGBT groups and the rest of us stating that we disagree with Islam on their anti-gay teachings (or other religions - have you looked at some fundemental Christian sects lately in the Midwest?)
Islamaphobia is something else. It is whipping up hysteria against people because of their cultural beliefs, their history and traditions. No one suggests that Hitler was anti-semitic merely because he disagreed with Jewish dietary laws. in the same way, the BNP and EDL whip up racist hatred against Muslims by scapegoating Muslims for being Muslims and a threat to ‘our Christian culture’.
I think the LGBT objections to religious intolernace are justified objections. The real question is the tactical approach. In my view, apart from dialogue, it is best led by progressives within the community who challenge reaction. The Reform Synagogue, for example has overcome geneder segregation and promotes women as rabbis, Salma herself brought women out of the confines of the home in order to campaign in elections in hijabs - unheard of before. If there is to be an intersection, there has to be a progressive intersection within the particular community as change cannot be enforced from outside.
Comment by Howard T — 7 November, 2009 @ 7:30 am
#35 Andy - just a mention, Leslie Feinberg prefers the use of gender-neutral pronouns to female. (Have you read Stone Butch Blues? It’s fascinating but depressing.)
Comment by Daphne — 7 November, 2009 @ 7:52 am
Mansour - ‘Get your facts straight sis - Canada has more oil than all of the middle east combined.’
Most of the world’s ‘proven reserves’ of oil are in the Middle East. This is fact. Canada’s prover reserves come second by country. But first is Saudi Arabia, third is Iraq, followed by Iran, Kuwait, etc.
Methinks it is you who needs to get his facts straight.
Comment by Anonymous — 7 November, 2009 @ 8:15 am
Well folks Islmaophobia is alive and well in the shape of Mansour. And like all Islamophobes he trots out untruths, half truths, and plain lies in order to support what is nothing more than vile slander.
Peter Tatchell, who thinks that stunts=political activity, displays in his work a chauvinism and paternalism towards the subjects of his activity designed to promote himself rather than offer solidarity with people living at the sharp end of imperialism and occupation.
As Andy rightly stated previously: was it Muslims who introduced clause 28? Was it Muslims who bombed the Admiral Duncan?
Comment by Anonymous — 7 November, 2009 @ 8:22 am
#94
Once again, the only oil statistics germane to any concrete analysis of oil reserves are ‘proven reserves’.
Speculative flights of fancy may help substantiate a subjectivist world view, but I’m afraid this won’t do when it comes to offering a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.
The overhwelming reason for Western intervention in the Middle East since the First World War is OIL. In its latest stage, imperialist intervention in the region has been undertaken with a view to smashing OPEC control over prices and production. Nothing to do with supply to US, as they get the bulk of their from Canada and S America, but everything to do with future supply to China, India, EU in addition to controlling prices.
As for reading Wikipeida, I suggest that you go and read - period.
Comment by Anonymous — 7 November, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Mansour provides a good illustration of Islamphobia and also illustrates the absurdity of a blanket attack on Peter Tatchell as an Islamphobe.
Comment by Derek Wall — 7 November, 2009 @ 9:34 am
#96″…a blanket attack on Peter Tatchell as an Islamphobe.”
Most of the people who have criticised Peter Tatchell on this and the previous thread have been far more precise and measured than his defenders, and some have gone to great lengths to emphasise positive points about his record.
One of the most “blanket” comments I recall was one that likened the current criticism of him with the vile campaign against him in Bermondsey. I may have forgotten who came out with that, can you remind me?
I don’t like the idea of political heroes who are considered immune from criticism by their friends and followers.
Comment by Armchair — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:04 am
To all those who consider that the Britain’s record of protecting religious bigotry (through religiously segeregated education), sponsering a state chruch and giving subsidies for religous groups, expanding the power of religious bodies as ‘community’ organisations, in local government, handing over parts of the welfare state to religious organisations (in dealing with the disabled, unemploeyd and more areas are on the way), I admire your frankness in supporting the bourgeois state. In this context, whatever her other (undoubted) merits - she did stand up to the SWp after all - Salma Yaqoob is a sub-contractor for bourgeois multi-culturalism. That is defending the basic mechanisms of community oppression on religious grounds, politics led by community ‘leaders’.
Peter Tatchell’s response is based on universal human rights, not community special rights. Few of his critics even begin to address this argument except to say that it is somehow contamintated nto for what it says, but who says it.
As aan example of this kind of logic, asserting that soemthing si wrong because of who says it, Johng considers the fact that secualarism is wrong because it is supported by French state laicitie. That the French state, which is far from consistently secular (there are subventions to Catholic education to begin with), is reactionary because of a result of tis origins as a bourgeois imperialist ideology formed by Empire and the crushing of the Paris Commune. Hence secularists are misled because some of them are backers of French-style public laicitie.
His suggestion, glent from a couple of books he has read, is that French secularism stems from the defeat of the Commune. Which was, however, militantly secularist (the corpse of a certain Archbishop is witness). Not just the radical socialists (centre-left) but the original SFIO (Jaures) were secularist, as has been the PCF. Large sections of the radical Left are highly secularist, for example, the radical left Pivertist current in the 1930s (close to the POUM), and the Parti De Gauche today (Melenchon comes from the Lambertist version of hard-line secularism). Perhaps Johng should read a few more original texts (many on the Marxist Internet Archive, or La Battaile Socialiste’s) rather than academic secondary commentaries.
Comment by Andrew Coates — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Wierdly dishonest post from Andrew Coates (claiming that I said ’secularism is wrong’) which again seems mainly an expression of outraged French patriotism. Just odd. And the absolute refusal to engage in any proper open discussion of anything anyone actually says (as opposed to talking a lot of nonsense implying that criticising bigotry is the same thing as suppressing debate about Islam) remains the most striking thing, not of ‘those defending Tatchell’ (most are I suspect leaping on the bandwagon in their own perenial war of civilizations) but of what might be described as the muscular liberals. muscular liberals who avoid honest discussion like the plague, declaim about the freedom of right wing anti-immigrant newspapers (its what its well known for) to hold competitions as to who can mock the religious figure most revered by those migrant workers, but think that Lesbian Muslim Women who are not on side with this should have their articles removed from books.
Its a bloody joke. And its quite in order to say that this is a problem which needs to be thought through. Although its not as if any of those holding this position seem capable of thinking anything through.
Comment by johng — 7 November, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
I would be grateful if Peter Tatchell would explain what he means by “All peoples possess a culture, but this does not mean all cultures are equally valid and commendable. Some values and ideas are better than others. The Enlightenment was better than the Dark Ages. Freedom is better than slavery. Democracy is better than fascism. Scientific knowledge is better than superstition.”
Is he really suggesting that concepts such as the Enlightenment, Democracy or Science are the preserve of some cultures and not others? And what about cultures that has a history of both good things and bad – such as our own (fascism is a very, very European phenomena). And if some cultures are all bad, what should be done with them? And by whom?
If some was to write or say: “All peoples possess an ethnicity, but this does not mean all races are equally valid and commendable. Some values and ideas are better than others. The Enlightenment was better than the Dark Ages. Freedom is better than slavery. Democracy is better than fascism. Scientific knowledge is better than superstition.” They would be called a racist. Does changing ethnicity for culture really change the central thrust? And if so how?
Comment by Richard Farnos — 7 November, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
“If some was to write or say: “All peoples possess an ethnicity, but this does not mean all races are equally valid and commendable. Some values and ideas are better than others. The Enlightenment was better than the Dark Ages. Freedom is better than slavery. Democracy is better than fascism. Scientific knowledge is better than superstition.” They would be called a racist. Does changing ethnicity for culture really change the central thrust? And if so how?”
Exactly, the left shouldn’t tiptoe around Tatchell’s racist comments just because he is gay and has a record of fighting homophobia. That is just patronising and colludes with his rhetoric. It’s always been important to challenge racism but especially now that the BNP are benefiting from Islamophobia and the main parties are all vying to trump them on anti-immigration rhetoric. Tatchell is playing with fire and he needs to be called on it.
After all, when Peter Tatchell was attacked in Bermondsey, the left didn’t prevaricate about defending him. We didn’t turn on him by echoing some of the vile homophobia from his opponents. The racist rhetoric he now uses to attack multi-culturalism was twisted by the right to demonise LGBT’s then. They described homosexuality as a perversion of Western culture and claimed that liberalism was going too far in allowing LGBT’s to take leading positions in politics. The right claimed that LGBT’s were untrustworthy and described our militant activists as fundamentalists and our fight for equal rights as totalitarian.
The right have tried to ban our demonstrations and eradicate any sign of our struggle from public life. Section 28 banned representation of LGBT’s in schools. It was a witch hunt akin to the one now going on in France against Muslims. LGBT’s in employment were hounded by the right akin to how asylum seekers and migrants are now being demonised by BJ4BW. HIV was used by the right to portray gay men as unclean and disease ridden in a similar way to how asylum seekers and migrants are characterised as unhealthy and taking up NHS resources. the right tried to stop social housing being allocated to LGBT’s and we see the same thing happening now to asylum seekers and migrants.
The point I’m making is that all the vile distortions and lies used to attack equal rights for BME’s have been adapted by the right and used against equal rights for LGBT’s. Tatchell should be very careful about colluding with this rhetoric because he is sowing the seeds for it to be used against himself and the rest of us in the future. We cannot remain quiet about the awful mistake he is making.
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
“This fake Islamic Hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam…. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed.”
Tatchell’s comment about the hijab could have come from one of the most right wing opponents of Muslims and the left. Please note how he associates the hijab with Nazism despite his claims that he has never associated Muslims or their culture with the Nazis. This was one of the key issues Tatchell claimed was untrue in the chapter from the book he has censored yet his own words condemn him.
In 2004 he tried to organise a campaign against a leading scholar of Islam from speaking in London. Dr al-Qaradawi is described by the MCB as “the most authoritative Islamic scholar in the world”. Western academic experts on Islam agree with this assessment.
Tatchells claims that he has the support of so-called “moderate” Muslims is also untrue. When he tried to recruit Muslim LGBT’s from the Muslim gay group, Imaan, to his campaign against Dr al-Qaradawi one Imaan member wrote:
“The intensive propaganda campaign against Qaradawi is a red herring used to obscure the fact that Qaradawi came here to defend a woman’s right to wear the hijab – a right that has been attacked. Outrage and the other anti-Muslim groups do not care about these rights…. Outrage’s campaign against Qaradawi is offensive…. As a gay Muslim, Outrage doesn’t speak for me and a host of other people…. If Qaradawi comes to London again and Outrage … form a campaign against him, I will be out there standing against them and I will defend him.”
It is clear that Tatchell has a long past record of fighting homophobia but he also has a long current record of Islamophobia dating back to the period when the pro-war left began counterposing Muslim cultures with Western democracy in order to justify the ‘War on Terror’.
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
The opening comment isn’t Tatchell’s, Ray.
Comment by KrisS — 7 November, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
It doesn’t matter if it is true or not, the more excessive critics of Peter Tatchell argue that he is an Islamphobe, the lie tells the ‘implicit’ truth.
Those of us who point out the lie like Kriss and myself are of course then condemned as Islamaphobic in turn.
As Peter and myself are in the Green Party, the Green Party are thus Islamaphobic and so on…
Comment by Derek Wall — 7 November, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
I’m not sticking up for Tatchell, particularly. I just think we should be careful to get things right.
Comment by KrisS — 7 November, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
It’s important to add to this that socialists are not ‘cultural relativists’ . We are against all scapegoating of LGBT people, and all oppression around gender and sexuality - anywhere on earth, by any class or ethnicity.
But we do not locate this at the level of abstract universal liberal principles that somehow transcend and float freely above all human context. Behind the apparent universalism of the eighteenth century enlightenment lay the class interests of a narrow layer of wealthy gentlemen. Behind their rhetoric of liberty and equality and of science lay the class rule of capital, with the imposition of enclosures and wage slavery, the african-atlantic slave system, and new regimes of gender and sexuality that meant some were going to be excluded from the ‘universal rights of man’.
But if we look beyond the illusions of the bourgeois liberal, of their apparently classless, disembodied universalism, we can still reclaim the enlightenment, but by relocating it and remaking it. In other words just because the bourgeoisie have failed to realise the potential of the enlightenment, does not mean abandoning the task, but transferring the task to the really universal class - the working class.
Thus because capitaist globalisation has spread the working class to every land on the globe, their is definitely a common task in all lands and amongst all peoples and ethnicities - for all class conscious workers, socialists and their allies who want to resist capital. This task entails uniting the working class - and overcoming all the divisions, inequalities and oppressions, based on gender and sexuality and ethnicity, ‘race’ or religion, or multiform other oppressions and divisions. This is because the working class will never be able to properly fight for its interests while it is held back by reactionary and divisive ideas and religious superstitions.
But the working class, socialist and progressive movements in each locality will also have to find their own way of overcoming different forms bigotry, and of uniting the workers and the oppressed. The way the global working class is divided (and thus prevented from acting or thinking as a class, even fully being a class) - is multiple and complex. How can we slice through the gordian knot of multiple oppressions? It seems that single issue identity politics can just pull that knot even tighter.
Comment by Barry Kade — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
‘Sections of the left moan that the rally is being supported [by] the right. Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don’t they organize their own demo in support of free speech? The truth is that some of the left would rarely, if ever, rally to defend freedom of expression because they don’t wholeheartedly believe in it. Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights’.
Another of Tatchell’s attacks on the left and his excuse for marching with the nazi BNP. The more I read his writings the more horrified I become.
Brett Lock, a contributor to the Islamophobic Harry’s Place and a member of Outrage! who campaigned with Tatchell to try to ban the Muslim Council of Britain from a UAF conference (so much for their claim to be defending free speech):
“a BNP success in the local elections would be catastrophic, but frankly, given current indicators, the success of an MCB-aligned candidate could be equally disastrous for gay people”.
The MCB is the largest Muslim organisation representing many different Muslims in the UK. Lock is comparing the MCB with the nazi BNP. Yet more evidence to support the authors allegations against Tatchell and Outrage! in the book Tatchell has censored.
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
“The opening comment isn’t Tatchell’s, Ray.”
According to Ken Livingstone in 2007 it is included in the dossier he drew up against Qaradawi:
“Tatchell claims to speak for moderate Muslims. Yet not a single Muslim group has associated itself with the dossier he has drawn up against Qaradawi’s visit. This is hardly surprising when it includes without comment rants like the following:
“This fake Islamic Hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam…. It is a sign of support for extremists who wish to impose their creed.”"
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2005/2/14/tatchells-islamic-conspiracy-theory.html
I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong as my investigation into his recent politics and activities is quite new and a revelation to me. In the past I have disagreed with Outrage! tactics like outing politicians but I never realised the level of racism and Islamophobia until Yoshie posted the article on Lenin’s blog. I’m sure that other LGBT activists on the left may be unaware, as I was, how far this has gone. But I agree that it is important to get our facts right. If Tatchell didn’t make this comment then who did and why was it included in the dossier he drew up against Qaradawi?
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q
Qadawi thinks Hitler was a devine tool brought to punish Jews.
Some people here would rather attack Tatchell than bigots like him!
Comment by Hmmnnn... — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
It seems to be a fairly nasty Iranian “exile” writer called Amir Taheri in an article repeated here:
http://www.headscarf.net/the%20freedom%20to%20go%20topless.htm
Comment by KrisS — 7 November, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
You’re right Tatchell didn’t say that and I stand corrected. Nonetheless it is tacit agreement to include such statements in a dossier. If I was compiling evidence or opinion (as is the case of the quote from Amir Taheri) against an organisation or individual and I included a quote criticising them then it would be because I agreed with it. In the same way I have quoted Livingstone to support the criticism that Tatchell panders to Islamophobia.
Taheri is an interesting character and certainly one who Tatchell should not be relying on for information about Muslim and in particular, Iranian, culture. If this is one and the same person, according to his Wikipedia entry he has been involved in controversies over the veracity of his reporting. Apparently, he recently invented a story about Jesse Jackson:
“On October 14, 2008, Taheri wrote an article stating that at the first World Policy Forum, Rev Jesse Jackson told participants that Barack Obama would implement fundamental changes in US foreign policy towards Israel. It was later noted that the name of the conference is the World Policy Conference. Additionally, Jesse Jackson was not a speaker at the event, and denounced Taheri for “selectively imposing his own point of view and distorting mine.” Jackson said he “stands forthrightly for the security and stability of Israel, its protection from any form of hostility and a peaceful, nonviolent resolution to coexisting with its Palestinian neighbors”.”
The fact that Tatchell is relying on a dishonest journalist like Taheri, a promoter of Islamophobia, to validate one of his campaigns is disturbing but revealing. No wonder Muslims, and in particular LGBT Muslims, won’t touch him with a barge pole.
Your correction has taught me more about the unsavoury alliances that Outrage! is making.
Comment by Ray — 7 November, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
Well there is criticism of Peter, fair.
And lying about him, unfair.
Which was my point when I posted his remarks a couple of days ago.
Don’t suppose that Andy will admit that I am not an islamaphobe, though.
Comment by Derek Wall — 7 November, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
Derek, posting Tatchells statement doesn’t make you an Islamophobe. Although, I can’t comment on other statements you may have made as my focus has been on discovering Tatchell and Outrage!s involvement in and co-option of Islamophobia.
Stating the correct information is important and that’s why I’ve corrected a quote I wrongly attributed to Tatchell. But if you can’t see anything wrong with Tatchell’s comments and articles about Muslims and multi-culturalism then perhaps Andy has a point (if he indeed did call you an Islamophobe.)
Comment by Ray — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:40 am
But what EXACTLY was the lie that these academics were supposed to have written? This is what I was trying to get at, and the more this discussion has proceeded the more unclear has it become that they ‘lied’ about anything. I can see it might be thought that they put an uncharitable interpretation on facts, but I can’t see any facts that they got wrong. And the Taheri quote is just incredible. Just what the hell is someone on the left doing quoting someone like this? I would occassionally read his columns to remind myself of why it was a good thing the Shah was overthrown despite the reactionary regime that succeded it.
Comment by johng — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:52 am
It is not just a matter of cartoons - any criticism of Islam is effectively unacceptable.
In any case it is no shock Marxists should make common cause with islam - you are both ridiculously Utopian, anti-democracy and free-speech. You veil your shared totalitarianism in concern for an “oppressed” minority, when in fact it is certainly no more oppressed than any other. The only reason people don’t like it is because they treat women like slaves, gays like the devil and plant bombs on busses. It’s not rocket science. So some of the anti-Islamists are racist. How many of your supporters would happily wipe out the “bourgeois” given half the chance, the petit-Pol Pots…
Masking all this as if you give a damn about homosexuals is pathetic. Get a life.
Comment by Dave — 8 November, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Thanks Dave for illustrating what is meant by Islamaphobia, although to be honest you seem quite hostile to humanity in general.
Comment by Derek Wall — 8 November, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
derek
#107
I have never said you were islamophobc. Obvioulsy you are not. I cannot understand where you got the idea from that i did. However, I apologise if I gave the impression that you were. I categorically refure any sgestion that you are islamophobic.
Comment by Andy Newman — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
And the relevence of your post to the discussion above is what exactly? Yes many religious people are bigoted about same-sex relationships. However if you look at the rising level of attacks on LBGT people in Britain today and who perpertrates them I’m willing to bet that most of those who do so are also likely to be Islamophobes.
Comment by johng — 8 November, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Johng
There is no need for me to explain. Andy has deleted the post, which is pretty much exemplifies how the left is … sorry how the lefts are… dealing with this issue. If something exists you don’t like, pretend it is not there, say everyone else is just as bad anyway and call anyone who disagrees with you a racist and an Islamophobe.
Having read much Islamic opinion on the matter, I can say categorically that I am an Islamophobe; to live in fear of a religion that wants to stone me to death is a pretty much the only rational position I can take.
Comment by Boab — 8 November, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Boab if you actually engaged in reasoned argument with what people actually say rather then simply stating over and over again that many religious people are bigoted about same-sex relationships (something we all know) I have no doubt you would not be deleted. But as you refuse any rational argument or debate, its hard to know how people are supposed to respond.
Comment by johng — 8 November, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
“The only reason people don’t like it is because they treat women like slaves, gays like the devil and plant bombs on busses. It’s not rocket science.”
You’re the man #110
I wish the ’socialists’ on here spent half as much time fighting fascism and totalitarianism, as making mealy-mouthed apologies for them.
Comment by Gripper Stebson — 8 November, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
Boab has raised a significant point, though: the term “Islamophobia” is ambiguous. It can refer to 2 quite different things: dislike of Islam as an ideology, and dislike of Muslims and people of Muslim origin as people. It is quite possible to reject the ideology whilst having no problem with its adherents - just as one can reject, say, Jehovah’s Witnessism without any malice towards its believers.
Comment by Francis King — 8 November, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
I’m puzzled by the hostility to Peter Tatchell being expressed by some people here.
Tatchell’s spent his whole life bravely fighting for gay rights against the odds and in the face of oppression, physical assaults and widespread ridicule.
I totally admire him for it.
It’s good that he is campaigning against reactionary religious bigots who want to kill gay people.
Why is that a problem for anyone on the left?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 8 November, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
its not a problem for me Karl, amazed too by the hatred against Peter.
Comment by Derek Wall — 8 November, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Derek who on earth has expressed ‘hatred’ towards Peter? Not me anyway. I’m just worried by some of his arguments and think that his approach to current challenges (which we all face) are flawed. How does this get translated into ‘hatred’? And why is there this refusal to engage in sensible discussion about issues we all have to confront?
Comment by johng — 8 November, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
Francis, Islam is not an ‘ideology’. Its a religion just like any other, and just like any other, means very many different things to millions of people all across the planet.
Comment by johng — 8 November, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
Are we denying that Islam (and other religions) are used in a reactionary, sexist and homophobic way? No!
Are we arguing in favor of excusing homophobia anywhere? No! How disappointing for those here of the dedicated muslim-baiting persuasion. And how confusing for the unwitting appeasers of future pogroms. They will actually have to read the arguments instead, as these don’t fit their ready made conclusions.
Our concern is this: Muslims are being singled out within the ideological systems of ‘western capitalism’ as the primary new ‘enemy’ domestically and globally. 20 years after the fall of the wall, imperialism requires a new enemy to keep us in line, and a new justification for its military adventures.
As part of this, some of the most racially oppressed and materially impoverished ethnic minorities in Britain and Europe are also being demonised for being Muslims. This is leading to a pogrom like atmosphere amongst some equally desperate sections of the white population.
So in a time the tabloids call for a ban on the veil - i also hear that an Asian woman in my northern town is beaten up by drunk white youths, as they rip her veil off her head, along with chunks of her hair.
And a divided working class, riven along ethno-religious lines, will be easy prey to massive recession inspired cutbacks, as we fight amongst ourselves.
Where do we stand on this ethno-religious hatred? Do we ignore it, or even side with it, comforting ourselves with the platitudes that Islam is a reactionary sexist and homophobic religion anyway? Do we acquiesce to it, because we think the veil is a symbol of sexism? Do we stand aside while Asian women are violently abused in the streets by white hoologans for wearing it? Do we ideologically appease the forces singling out Muslims, thinking it is some common fight for womens and gay rights?
What is our response? How do we defend Muslim people from these attacks? How do we unite the working class, and dispel some of the myths and ignorance about the belief systems of ethnic minorities?
And most pertinent to this discussion: How do we defend a religious minority such as Muslims but also defend the right to criticise and challenge all religions and their patriarchal practices of sexual and gender oppression?
This are the real questions we need to seriously address, in a calm, comradely and constructive way.
But how do we deal with those who seem excited to fan the flames of ethnic hatred and wars? Who are gleefully and mischievously attempting to enlist our ideals of sexual liberation and secularism in the service of their hatred and wars? They care nothing for sexual liberation or secularism either - quite the opposite. How does the feminist and gay left respond to these? Serious question.
Comment by Barry Kade — 9 November, 2009 @ 12:40 am
#121 johng - as you like. I tend to regard religions as a peculiar type of ideology, but by all means substitute the word “religion” for “ideology” - the point I was making still stands.
In relation to Barry’s question: “How do we defend a religious minority such as Muslims but also defend the right to criticise and challenge all religions and their patriarchal practices of sexual and gender oppression?” - We need to remember our own roots: the left is a movement for civil, social, political and economic equality. To the extent that groups of Muslims are the victims of discrimination or oppression, the left should defend them. To the extent that (other) groups of Muslims practise discrimination or oppression, the left should oppose them. How you do that in practice can be tricky, but the principle seems pretty clear to me.
Comment by Francis King — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:22 am
“It’s good that he is campaigning against reactionary religious bigots who want to kill gay people.
Why is that a problem for anyone on the left?”
But he isn’t doing that at all. Tatchell is allying himself with pro-war Islamophobes who use homophobia as an excuse to attack all Muslims - not just those who are homophobic.
Tatchell believes that it is acceptable to march with the BNP in defence of a right wing Danish newspaper printing racist cartoons about Muslims. Imagine the outcry if the left defended homophobic cartoons on the basis of so-called “freedom of speech”? Except that is not the reason Tatchell is defending the publication of these racist cartoons. He defends them because they articulate his Islamophobic attitude towards Muslims.
As a member of the left don’t you find it questionable that Tatchell attacks the Muslim Council of Britain for alleged homophobia and even attempts to ban then from speaking at a UAF event but is silent about the involvement of Christian and Jewish supporters of anti-fascism who may also hold homophobic views? Don’t you find Tatchells selective campaigning problematic? Tatchell claims he wants dialogue with Muslims yet he tries to ban the largest group representing Muslims in the UK from engaging in this dialogue. Not only is that tarring every Muslim with the same brush (not just so-called “fundamentalists” as Tatchell claims) but he is deliberately trying to exclude the majority of UK Muslims from this debate. Tatchell claims that he doesn’t have a problem with Muslims but he will only work with those who reject their religion.
It is very clear that Tatchell has no support among Muslim LGBT’s who accuse him of Islamophobia. They are the recipients of homophobia in their communities and I think that their opinions should be taken seriously. Tatchell is completely ignoring them and instead allies himself with dishonest right wing Iranian journalists and marches with right wing bigots. Hardly politics that we on the left should support.
Then there’s his hierarchy of oppression argument that multi-culturalism has gone too far and is discriminating against gays. A completely dishonest, divisive and racist argument that would make the Telegraph blush.
That’s why the left is criticising Tatchell. And it’s about time because he has been gradually integrating Islamophobia into his speeches, articles and campaigns since the “War on Terror” began.
As for the comments about hating him well that isn’t even a political analysis let alone an accurate reflection of the criticism of Tatchell in this thread.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:28 am
“We need to remember our own roots: the left is a movement for civil, social, political and economic equality. To the extent that groups of Muslims are the victims of discrimination or oppression, the left should defend them. To the extent that (other) groups of Muslims practise discrimination or oppression, the left should oppose them. How you do that in practice can be tricky, but the principle seems pretty clear to me.”
But we can only do this when we have the support of the oppressed minorities. In Tatchells case he does not have the support of LGBT Muslims in the UK. We can’t defend Muslims if we are making it conditional on their rejection of homophobia. That’s like asking Jews in Nazi Germany to reject their religion before we defend them.
It’s racist to single out Muslims and then make generalisations about them. Homophobia exists in all areas of society. If we are going to fight it then we must have a united campaign that embraces Muslims not tries to exclude them.
But the worst aspect of this sorry affair is that the right and especially the Nazis feed of the scapegoating of Muslims. The more divisions there are among workers the more the BNP benefits from this. We cannot challenge homophobia by demonising Muslims because LGBT’s will be the next scapegoat of the right who are the only ones to benefit from this tactic.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:49 am
The trouble with you Ray, is that your accusations against Peter Tatchell have been totally denied by others as completely untrue.
It’s been denied that he “marches with the BNP” and it’s also been denied that he compares the veil to “nazism.”
It’s also been denied that he supported the war in Iraq.
Your advancing a personal vendetta against Tatchell purely on the basis of accusations that have been denied.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:32 am
Karl Stewart- the reality about the debate on this thread is that people on both sides in the argument have over-egged the pudding in attacking their opponents and distorting their views.
However, my view is that it is overwhelmingly the defenders of Peter Tatchell who have been responsible for the above behaviour.
People should not engage in a personal vendetta against Peter Tatchell (if indeed they are), but nor should they feel open to being lied about and insulted by other people on the left if they criticise aspects of his political position and activities (as I did).
Comment by Armchair — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:36 am
# 127- just realised that doesnt make sense!
What I meant to say is that it is in the great majority cases it is the defenders of Peter Tatchell who have been responsible for such behaviour.
Comment by Armchair — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Armchair, Ray has several times accused Peter Tatchell of “marching with the BNP” - an accusation that has been totally denied.
Ray has also accused Tatchell of being “pro-war” - which has also been totally denied.
Ray has also accused Tatchell of comparing the hijab headscarf to “nazism” - which has also been denied.
What Tatchell has done, it seems to me, has been to campaign against anti-gay religious bigotry.
Yes, in doing so he has shown complete disregard for the possible hurt feelings of the reactionary bigots themselves - well done Peter Tatchell, keep up the good work.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Below is an appeal for funds for anti-fascist activities in Harrow. I hope you will be able to respond with your customary generosity. The fascists not only exploit racism to divide us, they oppose all the values of trade unionism which is why every major union is affiliated to Unite Against Fascism. As well as donating if your organisation is able to, please publicise the events to your members and encourage them to take part. The last demonstration in Harrow was successful in preventing the fascists from getting anywhere near the Mosque they had hoped to demonstrate against. It was very well supported by trades unionists. We hope to have more trade union banners on the December demonstration than we had in September to show the local people how wide the support is for their community. Please pass on this information and this appeal to anyone else you think might be interested.
Yours in solidarity,
Sarah Cox for Brent & Harrow UAF
APPEAL FOR FUNDS FOR BRENT & HARROW UNITE AGAINST FASCISM
The Islamophobic bigots and the fascist EDL who tried to demonstrate against Harrow’s Central Mosque on Friday September 11th are planning to return to Harrow on Sunday December 13th. On September 11th they were unable to demonstrate because of a mass mobilisation of the local community initiated by Unite Against Fascism supported by local and regional trades unionists and anti-racists.
We will need a similar mobilisation on December 13th. The fascists are threatening to bring 2,000 demonstrators. While we do not believe they are capable of mobilising that number, the numbers taking part in EDL demonstrations up and down the country have been increasing.
To celebrate the spirit that united the community on September 11th we plan to hold an event on Saturday November 21st at 7.00 pm in the Victoria Hall, a Festival of Unity, where there will be refreshments, speakers and entertainers and which will help mobilise for the December 13th demonstration.
All this costs money. We have already spent money on hiring venues for organising meetings and for the event itself. We estimate that the November 21st event will cost about £600. This includes the hire of venues, publicity and incidental expenses such as performers’ and speakers’ travel costs.
For the demonstration on December 11th the likely cost is at least £1600 which includes publicity, placards and hiring a PA system.
Is it possible for your union branch or organisation to make a donation to Brent and Harrow UAF towards the cost of the event on 21st November and/or to make a donation to Unite Against Fascism towards the costs of the demonstration on 13th December.
For donations to Brent & Harrow UAF, cheques should be made out to Brent Trades Council and clearly marked Brent & Harrow UAF on the back. They should be sent to Sarah Cox, Brent & Harrow UAF, 214 Roundwood Rd, LONDON NW10 3UG.
Donations towards the cost of the December 13th demo can be sent to the same address to be passed on, or paid directly to Unite Against Fascism and sent to UAF, PO Box 36871, London WC1X 9XT
Comment by Derek Wall — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:06 am
I am not taking sides in this particular discussion i am a former member of the email list that barry kade refers to in his post. I was not a member of the list at the time that the discusion on salma yaquob took place and have no knowledge of it. But i think that all members of the left should respect each other and keep internal discussion forums spaces lists etc private and confidential. I hope that members of different left organisations in birmingham can get salma yaquob elected as i think that would help people all over the country who are struggling to persuade members of muslim communities not to vote for pro-war and Pro-zionist candidates.
Peace
james?
Comment by James? — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:10 am
#129- Karl, I am not concerned about the hurt feelings of bigots either.
What I am concerned about is the way in which progressive people, including myself, have been subject to vilification for making entirely reasonable criticisms of Peter Tatchell.
The political method that starts from the premise that it is reasonable in arguiing your case to distort and misrepresent the politics of people you disagree with, and to subject them to slandere and insult, is uselsess and bankrupt whoever is doing it.
Comment by Anonymous — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Sorry 132 was me.
Comment by Armchair — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
I think Respect has got their views in the right place but don’t seem to have clearly drawn the line with its members.
I know George Galloway has always been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights but after leading Respect in 2003 - to gain Muslim support - he ‘diplomatically’ abstained on LGBT issue motions in parliament rather than oppose them.
LGBT issues were one of the reasons the socialist ultra left factors and the Muslims in the party split.
There was an issue with Peter Tatchell and Respect’s largest financial donor Dr Mohammed Naseem, chair if the Birmingham Central Mosque. Naseem was said to be part of the Islamic Party of Britain which was said to have believed in the death penalty for gays:
http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/cashforpower.htm
According to the Electoral Commission, with whom all registered political parties are obliged to share financial statements, the single largest donor to the Respect Party’s election war-chest was Dr Naseem. He paid £15,457.00 towards Respect’s Election drive, a whopping 29% of their total budget of ₤53,486.67 and more than 50% more than the next largest single donor – three times what George Galloway contributed.
Dr Naseem is on record, however, stating the ‘party’ was no more than a thinktank he was no longer a part of and that he was not concerned by what people did in their bedrooms. Tatchell claimed the link revealed the ‘rot at the core of Respect’. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/25/uk.gayrights).
Then Tatchell came at loggerheads with Respect party member and Salma Yaqoob ’spin-doctor’ Adam Yosef. BBC writer Yosef wrote a regular column for a national newspaper in which he described Tatchell as ‘vile’ and an ‘Islamophobe’. Tatchell responded by referring to Yosef as a ‘homophobe’ and ‘xenophobe’ etc. Clearly, despite it being within the remit of Yosef’s journalism, it became a party matter with Tatchell demanding Yosef be expelled.
(http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/adamyosef.htm) and (http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2006/1/17/the-witch-hunt-against-adam-yosef.html).
The Green Party got upset but Respect defended Adam Yosef, as did UK Muslim LGBT organisation Iman. Yosef apologised and Tatchell was given a right of reply by the newspaper.
Since Salma Yaqoob has taken the helm of Respect as Leader, there haven’t been any feuds based on LGBT issues and certainly not with Tatchell. Clearly Tatchell has really been the only person to take offence and to be the first to shout “homophobia”. I don’t think Respect in any of these cases has deliberately gone out to attack gay people but rather someone has been trying their best to dig dirt for a few cheap political points.
However, Salma’s renewed Respect has made alliances with the left once again. Salma Yaqoob and Respect backed Green Party candidates Felicity Norman and Peter Cranie in the West Midlands and North West during the 2009 European Elections in June.
http://westmidlands.greenparty.org.uk/region/westmidlands/news/2009-05-14salmayaqoobgogreen.html
The Green Party has since agreed not to stand against Salma Yaqoob in the forthcoming General Elections in Birmingham Hall Green, rather lending her their full support:
http://greenmpforvauxhall.blogspot.com/2009/10/greens-stand-aside-for-salma-yaqoob-in.html
More recently, Respect’s Adam Yosef - who was attacked by Tatchell and vice versa in 2005 - has come out in support of Peter Tatchell’s candidacy in Oxford East as part of the Respect-Green alliance:
http://www.gayuknews.com/Politics/muslim-qhomophobeq-backs-gay-rights-activist.html
The actual contents of his letter to Peter Tatchell don’t seem to have been disclosed.
The way I see it, Respect and Greens are building quite a strong bond and coalition at present. If Tatchell is still attacking Respect, someone needs to take him to one side and remind him of party procedure as he’s doing the party a disservice. This would also apply to youthough Andy, I’m not completely aware if you speak for Respect on this blog or not?
I also think it would be of great benefit if Respect would stop faffing around and come out with their official policy on LGBT rights. It’s clear as day on their website so why cannot Muslim party leader Salma Yaqoob just say it to clear the air and maybe Tatchell should also clarify his position on what he makes of religious Muslims and radical Muslims etc.
Comment by Lisa T — 14 November, 2009 @ 2:28 am
DEFEND HARROW’S DIVERSE & UNITED COMMUNITY
“Stop the Islamisation of Europe” and the
“English Defence League” a group of racist
football hooligans with links to the fascist
BNP are threatening to invade Harrow on
Sunday December 13th to demonstrate
against the Harrow Central Mosque. We
cannot stand by and let these racists attack
any section of our community. An injury
to one is an injury to all.
Islamophobia - bigotry against Muslims - is
as unacceptable as any other form of
racism. Its aim is to divide us by making
scapegoats of one community as the Nazis
did with the Jews in the 1930s. Today they
threaten the mosque, tomorrow it could be a
synagogue, temple or church. Today they
threaten Muslims, tomorrow it could be
Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, blacks, gays, travellers
or any other minority.
Fascists have been beaten before by
people standing united against them: at
Cable Street in the 1930s, Lewisham in the
1970s and in Derbyshire this Summer where
black and white, young and old, Hindu,
Christian, Muslim and Jew, gay and straight
all came together to oppose the BNP’s
fascist rally. In September we made it clear
that these thugs are not welcome in
Harrow. Now we must make Harrow a
No-Go Zone for Nazis.
Please sign the statement of support for Harrow Central Mosque
Join the demonstration on Sunday December 13th
We are black, white, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh and Jew
Assemble 12 noon Sunday December 13th on the wide pavement
outside Harrow Civic Centre opposite the Central Mosque
Called by UAF Brent & Harrow ● uafbrentandharrow@googlemail.com and National UAF:
unite@ucu.org.uk ● www.uaf.org.uk ● PO Box 36871 London WC1X 9XT ● 020 7801 2782 there are many, many
Comment by alf — 28 November, 2009 @ 4:37 pm