UPON THIS ROCK I SHALL BUILD MY CHURCH
The Recent debates here about Peter Tatchell’s politics seem to have, at times, generated more heat than light. Given that this discussion has taken place on an open Internet forum, then obviously there is the usual amount of innocent exaggeration, factual error and misattributing of quotations and opinions, which doesn’t help to clarify genuine political differences.
Nevertheless, there is a clear political divide, and there has been reluctance from Peter Tatchell and his supporters to acknowledge or address the political debate, instead they complain about “lies and smears”, and complain that people are exhibiting “hatred” of Peter, and so on.
The book “Out of Place” published in 2008 contained a chapter Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the ‘War on Terror’ - by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem.
You can read it here, and it is a very serious and generally well argued article. Given the contentious nature of their subject matter, then the authors would have benefitted from firmer editing. In one or two places they make assertions that are both potentially offensive, and without obvious factual foundation. For example, few people will recognise the following statement as being an accurate impression of what actually happened:
“… during the nail bomb attacks by the fascist David Copeland. Many white gays and lesbians seemed almost triumphant when Copeland, after attacking the black area Brixton and the South-Asian Brick Lane, chose gay Soho as his third target”
They are particularly incautious when it comes to tackling Peter Tatchell’s individual politics. This is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the real life Peter Tatchell, exists alongside a media created simulacrum of St Peter who has become almost an emblemic cultural figure personifying the self-satisfaction with which British liberals congratulate themselves about the progress made towards LGBT equality. Tatchell does have a number of admirable qualities, doggedness, bravery and an uncompromising willingness to confront power on behalf of justice. Failure of nuance in addressing this perception of St Peter makes it harder to have a political dialogue with the earthly Peter Tatchell, and those who follow him. Conversely, those who disagree with Peter Tatchell are often relating not to the real man, and his actual politics, but to the impression they have of St Peter.
Secondly, due to their obvious exasperation with Tatchell, Haritaworn et al make a number of misjudgements. For example they say: “The central figure in this process is Peter Tatchell who has successfully claimed the role of the liberator of and expert about Muslim gays and lesbians.”
Now, it might be accurate to say that Tatchell pontificates as if he were a liberator of or expert on Muslim gays and lesbians; it might be true that he is referred to by the news media as such an expert, but it is not a claim he has explicitly made.
This is not the place to go through the chapter line by line, but there are points where they have misattributed motive or intent to Peter Tatchell as a fact, when they are really only speculating, and to a certain degree they have misunderstood his subjective political outlook. They make a further mistake in saying:
“This is in direct contrast to Tatchell’s own willingness to collaborate with the extreme right. On 25 March 2006, Tatchell participated with several racist and fascist groups in the March for free Expression. ”
It is incorrect to say that Tatchell collaborated with the far right, he attended a right wing rally which was also attended by facsists because of overlapping political concerns, but the BNP and other fascist groups were not part of the organisation behind the event. Arguably a more reflective and self-critical man than Peter Tatchell might have taken a reality check when he found himself addressing a rally including several dozen neo-Nazis, but this conjuncture was not a deliberate collaboration.
Nevertheless, as so often with Peter Tatchell, there is disingenuousness about his response to the chapter that verges on silly. For examples, Tatchell says that the following accusation had been made against him.
“Tatchell has described “Muslims as Nazis” and made the equation “Muslim=Nazi” and “Muslim=Evil.” Not true. I have never attacked Muslims in general – only fundamentalists who oppose democracy, equality and human rights.”
But what Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem actually wrote was
To quote one example [from Peter Tatchell’s writing]:
“Resorting to inflammatory language barely distinguishable from the homophobic tirades of the neo-Nazi BNP, the MCB website demonises same-sex relationships as ‘offensive’, ‘immoral’ and ‘repugnant’.” http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/sacranie.htm [accessed 1 September 2006].The comparison with the BNP not only works to discredit the MCB, it also rhetorically equates the subjects and objects of racism by constructing white gays as the most oppressed group, which the Left neglect in favour of their ethnic competitors. This also emerges in the following quote from the same article:
“UAF [Unite Against Fascism] would not invite as a speaker someone who said that black people are immoral, harmful and spread diseases, or who vilified Jewish people as offensive, immoral and repugnant. Why, then, are they giving a platform to a bigot who says these things about gays and lesbians?”
http://www.petertatchell.net/politics/sacranie.htm [accessed 1 September 2006].The comparison between ‘black’ and ‘Jewish people’ on the one hand and ‘gays and lesbians’ on the other hand serves to construct them as non-overlapping groups who are in competition with each other. Gay and liberal Muslims are only mentioned briefly and as generalised groups. Even the person of Sir Iqbal, who is ostentatiously the article’s subject, seems so incidental that his surname appears in three different spellings. The main effect of the article is to create a basic equivalence between ‘Muslim=Nazi’ and ‘Muslim=Evil’, in which specific persons, relationships and events appear ultimately interchangeable.
So what Peter has done here is to claim he was misquoted, when in fact he was quoted completely accurately, but he doesn’t like the way his writing has been interpreted. Despite the fact that the interpretation is in fact quite reasonable, and the political criticism being made of him is a substantive one.
So what is the political critique?
The authors, Jin Haritaworn, with Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem, address the political situation in Britain, in their own words“where ‘Muslim’ and ‘homophobic’ are increasingly treated as interchangeable signifiers”
Now this is undoubtedly true, and we only have to look at the web-site Harry’s Place, where Brett Lock, one of Peter Tatchell’s allies, is a regular contributor. The identity is implicitly made at Harry’s Place, almost every day, that all Muslims are homophobes, and that mainstream Muslim organizations are fascist. (The delicious irony is that the other staple of Harry’s Place is an over-sensitivity where any whiff that someone doesn’t recognize every nuanced legacy of anti-Semitism in Western culture makes then an out an out bigot).
Of course, they protest, they are not racists or Islamophobes, they are not prejudiced against Muslims, only “fundamentalist Muslims”. yet Harry’s Place’s definition of “fundamentalist” seems to include all religiously observant Muslims, and all Muslims who do not repudiate every connection with other Muslims who have less liberal attitidues. Yet the same approach is not taken to Christians, despite the fact that both the current threat in Uganda, and the former threat in Nigeria were led by members of the Anglican communion. What is entirely absent from this is any recognition that there may be diversity and dialogue over these issues between Muslims. Interestingly, when Harry’s Place did recently discuss the anti-gay laws in Uganda, it was only to attack George Galloway, Human Rights Watch, and the left generally!
Haritaworn et al, make the excellent point that “Racism is, further, the vehicle that transports white gays and feminists into the political mainstream. The amnesia at the basis of the sudden assertion of a European ‘tradition’ of anti-homophobic and anti-sexist ‘core values’ is less a reflection of progressive gender relations than of regressive race relations.”
The war on terror, and increasing Islamophobia against Britain’s immigrant communities provide the ideological background to promote LGBT activists, and specifically to celebrate select voices of “exceptional Muslims”, like Irshad Manji, from Canada. Who demonstrate a political narrative that Muslims can only escape homophobia by extracting themselves from their own community, and integrating themselves into superior Western culture; or of course by Western culture being adopted by or imposed upon Muslim lands. Manji is offered extraordinary access to the media, but as I understand it, she is in fact a second generation migrant with tenuous links to the Muslim community, not well qualified to discuss the experience of LGBT people who continue to live within Islamic culture.
Or as Haritaworn et al put it:
“In the current context of Islamophobia, white people are once again able to identify themselves as the global champions of ‘civilisation’, ‘modernity’ and ‘development’. Gay Muslims are the latest symbol of this identity. They are the ideological token victim who must be liberated from its ‘barbaric, backward’ society, by means that include political and military violence. In this, Muslim gays are joining Muslim women, whose ‘liberation’, as postcolonial feminists have long argued, has traditionally provided the justification for imperialism”
This is the background against which many black and Asian people, and Muslims interpret Peter Tatchell when he says: “All peoples possess a culture, but this does not mean all cultures are equally valid and commendable.”
Patriarchy and homophobia have been externalized to a threat from the dark peoples of Muslim lands. As Haritaworn et al describe it:
“The construct of ‘Muslim homophobia’ confers value to ‘Western’ identities. It also confers political capital to some ‘Westerners’ who have traditionally been excluded from it. Its biggest beneficiaries are white women and gay men. This contrasts with women of colour and queers of colour, whose situation has stagnated or even worsened. In the name of protecting Muslim women, white feminists such as Alice Schwarzer in Germany join ranks with the ones who ridiculed them as hysteric man haters, and whom they in turn identified as the centre of patriarchy. ‘The patriarchy’ is now elsewhere, and both parties have made peace by locating and fixing it there. By representing Muslim women, white feminists have for the first time gained entry to the old boys’ club of mainstream politics.”
There is dark humour that in the debate around the discriminatory ‘Muslim Test’ of nationality in Germany in 2006 (which asks questions exclusively to applicants whose prior nationality was with a country considered ‘Muslim’) it was proposed to ask applicants what they think of locking up one’s daughter. But this was aimed at Turks, not Austrians.
Haritaworn et al are correct to acknowledge that “Tatchell’s success in alternative scenes relies partly on his rhetorical citation of the languages of solidarity, internationalism and anti-fascism.”
But it is not only rhetorical. Tatchell is indeed an active opponent of racism and fascism, and part of the problem with this debate is the incredulity with which he, and his supporters, have reacted to criticism. He is also an active participant in solidarity. His words have content, and he genuinely is an anti-war, anti-discrimination progressive.
However, the political model of opposing racism and fascism is weakened by a polarization that inadvertently privileges white people as the interpreters of non-white experience. This particularly excludes the idea that Muslim and gay, for example could be overlapping categories, or that Muslims communities have their own dialogue opposing homophobia. The Gay Imperialism articles contains the interesting observation:
“during the debate around the homophobic statements by Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain. This debate corresponded, both temporally and rhetorically, with the German one around the ‘Muslim Test’ of nationality. In the course of the following months, Tamsila Tauqir received numerous requests, not only by the Pink Gay.com and Gay Times, but also by mainstream publications such as the Times. Throughout the journalists wanted me to respond to the ‘difficulties’ of being gay and Muslim, as well as to the homophobia of Muslim communities in Britain and abroad. I often suggested shifting the focus to the considerable work being done within liberal and progressive Islam. Journalists reacted with silence when I asked them to report on progressive Imams who have conducted Nikahs (Muslim marriage contracts) for same-sex couples, or on parents who had supported their gay children.
The same lack of interest in the real agency of gay Muslims characterized the treatment of an article in Gay.com by Adnan Ali, the founder of Al Fatiha UK (Mirza 2006). Ali’s article was severely edited without his permission and converted into a question-answer piece. This way he appeared as an alien whose experiences required the interpretation of experts, rather than an author and activist who is capable of representing his own critical voice”
The filtering of authentic Muslim and black LGBT voices carries with it the danger of white gay experience being regarded as normative. As Haritaworn et al say:
Rather than help, politics such as Tatchell’s have worsened the situation for the majority of queer Muslims. It has become increasingly difficult for groups such as the Safra Project, who are forced into the frontline of the artificially constructed gay v. Muslim divide, to contest sexual oppression in Muslim communities. The more homophobia is constructed as belonging to Islam, the more anti-homophobic talk will be viewed as a white, even racist, phenomenon, and the harder it will be to increase tolerance and understanding among straight Muslims. The dialogue which Safra and other queer Muslim groups have long sought over this is more often than not ignored or disregarded, and white gay activists such as Tatchell have proved indifferent to the fact that the mud which they sling onto Muslim communities lands on queer Muslims themselves.
In contrast with Tatchell’s approach, it has been interesting to follow the debate in Christian circles, concerning the Church Of Uganda’s role in the proposed homophobic legislation in that country, for example on the Evangelical christian Forum, Fulcrum. 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 currently proposed legislation in Uganda was laid by a homophobic conference by evangelicals in march 2009 in Nairobi. And the debate among Christians has considerable sway in Ugandan society.
Nevertheless, they mainly exhibit considerable sensitivity of how Western intervention will be interpreted in Africa. One commenter on Fulcrum makes the following point:
“Polite conversations with our brothers and sisters in Uganda will have them telling us how homosexuality is not part of their culture. But it is. It always has been. Homosexuality is no more a European import than being human. It may take a social shape that is influenced by the West, but that is all. A good number of African cultures have had clear and definite places for homosexual activity and even homosexual people as a part of their social systems (blacksmiths among the Dogon for instance). So how about some polite conversations with LGBT Anglicans in Uganda? (Yet again, [let’s avoid the trap of] the Christians/LGBT people dichotomy – many LGBT people are Christians and don’t need to be missionised – they are alongside us in ministry and mission).”
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 Brighton 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.
There is also a very real problem here, that those activists who present the particular experience of Western LGBT people as normative, and who polarise 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 marginalized within their own communities because they become identified with a white European outside experience, and also one that is hostile to the dominant values of their society; but also the specific experience of LGBT people as a native and domestic strand that has always existed in Muslim communities and in Africa is overwritten by a strident image of a specifically Western LGBT identity and experience.
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, who 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.)”
The problem is that while Peter Tatchell is a very committed opponent of discrimination, the model of political activism excludes recognition of the complex and overlapping multiple identities that individuals have, and does not include dialogue and negotiation between the overlapping interests; nor recognition that there are competing liberal and conservative interpretations of Islam. Tatchell’s opposition to the mainstream Muslim organization, the Muslim Council of Britain, speaking at the UAF conference shows no recognition of actual power relations. It is not true that Muslims organizations are the oppressors and white gays the victims. Yet frequently we hear language that suggest Jews, blacks or Asian people are privileged:
UAF [Unite Against Fascism] would not invite as a speaker someone who said that black people are immoral, harmful and spread diseases, or who vilified Jewish people as offensive, immoral and repugnant. Why, then, are they giving a platform to a bigot who says these things about gays and lesbians?”
It is perhaps relevant that Peter Tatchell pursues his political career through the Green Party, which although undoubtedly progressive and anti-racist, is also an organization that has very little appeal to, or involvement with BME communities; and as a purely electoral organization it has largely not structurally engaged with mainstream anti-racist campaigners or organizations. Black and Asian people, and Muslims, have very little voice in the Green Party: nor, as far as I can see, has an active and inclusive equalities agenda been pursued to overcome the party’s lack of racial diversity. Of course this doesn’t make the Green Party racist, but it does mean that white, liberal assumptions about racial and religious minorities can prosper unchallenged.
This is an important debate, about how progressives can oppose both Islamaphobia, and homophobia, and it needs to be engaged in without accusations of bad faith, and with some willingness to learn and be self-critical on all sides. The over-reaction to any criticism to Peter Tatchell is counterproductive.
Strikes me we’ve already had this discussion.
Comment by jock mctrousers — 9 November, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
“Resorting to inflammatory language barely distinguishable from the homophobic tirades of the neo-Nazi BNP, the MCB website demonises same-sex relationships as ‘offensive’, ‘immoral’ and ‘repugnant’.”
The MCB’s press release re the repeal of Section 28 is still on their web site :
http://www.mcb.org.uk/media/archive/news260100.html
“The Muslim Council of Britain is completely opposed to the Government’s plans to repeal Clause 28 of the local government act which will allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
These plans represent a significant departure from the liberal wish to openly accommodate a small section of society to a policy of thrusting and imposing lifestyles and values on others which they find repugnant. This amounts to a violation of rights.
Moreover, the Government does not seem to have thought through the social and economic implications of its policy of allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools. This policy is in serious conflict with the Government’s own ‘pro-family’ proclamations and its concern for law and order. The Government should not be surprised if people regard it as lacking in consistency and good sense.Moreover, the Government does not seem to have thought through the social and economic implications of its policy of allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools. This policy is in serious conflict with the Government’s own ‘pro-family’ proclamations and its concern for law and order. The Government should not be surprised if people regard it as lacking in consistency and good sense.
We do believe that the repeal of Section 28 will expose our young children, even from a very tender age, to immoral values and practices. It will also undermine the institution of the family and damage the fabric of our society. Any teaching in schools which presents homosexual practices as equivalent to marriage or in a morally neutral way is profoundly offensive and totally unacceptable.
We do not want the values of the home and family undermined in schools and by our elected representatives.
The MCB is calling upon all Muslims individually and all mosques and institutions in the country to convey their outrage to their local MPs and to raise public awareness of the dangers of the Government’s plans to repeal Clause 28. It also urges them to join with other faith groups who recognise that homosexual practices are morally wrong. It is not without reason that both the Bible and the Qur’an, for example, strongly condemn homosexuality as a grave transgression.”
What do you think gay people should do when presented with opposition in such language ?
You may say that this press release was from 2000 OK, but is there any evidence that the MCB have changed their views since then ?
And do you really think that it is correct to analyse opposing the MCB’s views on this as equivalent to saying “Muslims=Nazis” ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
MoreMedianonsense.
That press release from the MCB could have been agreed to by a majority of the House of Lords, and the Conservative Party.
The Amglican Church of Uganda issued an equally homophobic statement only in the last couple of days.
So one issue is, why the fuss about Muslims specifically?
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Andy as you well know Peter Tatchell has opposed the C of E on this vociferously as well. Don’t you remember when he got in the pulpit in Canterbury Cathedral ?
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/easter%20sunday.htm
“On Easter Sunday, 12th. April 1998, Peter Tatchell and six other members of the queer rights group OutRage! interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter sermon in Canterbury Cathedral to protest against Dr. Carey’s support for anti-gay discrimination. The OutRage! activists walked into the pulpit, holding up placards. Tatchell spoke to the congregation, criticising Dr. Carey’s opposition to gay and lesbian human rights. ”
What is your problem with him also strongly opposing the MCB on this ? I just don’t understand your reasoning here at all.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
So one issue is, why the fuss about Muslims specifically?
Because you wrote an article entitled “the intersections between homophobia and islamophobia” which has been the trigger for this. Had you written an article entitled “Tories, Peers and Muslims: they’re all the same when it comes to homosexulity”, Muslims would not be singled out.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
“And do you really think that it is correct to analyse opposing the MCB’s views on this as equivalent to saying ‘Muslims=Nazis’?”
The point is that Tatchell does assert that Muslims who hold these views are equivalent to the BNP and, further, that the left should not form an alliance with such Muslims in opposing fascism. That is precisely what he argued in 2006 when denouncing UAF for giving a platform to the MCB.
Tatchell stated that the MCB’s views on homosexuality were “barely distinguishable from the homophobic tirades of the neo-Nazi BNP” and “echo the prejudice and discrimination of the BNP”.
As Kirsten Hearn argued in opposition to Tatchell at the time (”Discord cannot deal defeats to fascism”, Tribune 31 March 2006):
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
#5
“Because you wrote an article entitled “the intersections between homophobia and islamophobia” which has been the trigger for this. Had you written an article entitled “Tories, Peers and Muslims: they’re all the same when it comes to homosexulity”, Muslims would not be singled out.
First of all, that is simply untrue. I have never written an article called ““the intersections between homophobia and islamophobia” ” in my life.
Secondly, it simply isn’t true that there is the same presumption about Conservatives or Anglicans, as there is against Muslims.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
“And do you really think that it is correct to analyse opposing the MCB’s views on this as equivalent to saying “Muslims=Nazis” ?”
The statement by the MCB could have been released by any number of religious organisations. Christian and Jewish organisations have made similar statements in the past yet I don’t hear you or Tatchell comparing them to Nazis. The statement doesn’t call for the murder of LGBT’s unlike the Nazis. It sets out their religious objections to the repeal of Clause 28. I may not agree with this and describe it as homophobic but how can anyone claim that this is in any way like Nazi BNP attacks on LGBT’s?
I’m against homophobia as it effects me as a gay man directly but I’m also opposed to singling out Muslims and demonising them. This is racist and it only serves the aims of the right and especially the Nazi BNP who want to drive a wedge between different sections of the working class.
Gay liberationists didn’t characterise Christians as Nazis. They protested against homophobia but also opened up a dialogue with them without first demanding that they reject their religion. In the UK that has led to much more liberal views about LGBT’s among Christians. We need the same strategy regarding homophobia among Muslims and that should be led by Muslim LGBT’s not by a bunch of pro-war white male liberals and their apologists like Tatchell who uses Islamophobia in his campaigns.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
#4
“What is your problem with him also strongly opposing the MCB on this ? I just don’t understand your reasoning here at all.”
Becaaue of actual power relations. It is simply not true that the mainstream Muslim organisations represent a substantive threat to gays in the UK, racist and Islamophobic misconceptions do however represent a real problem for all Muslims, including LGBT Muslims.
What is more, the fact that the effect that such grandatsanding has on casuing further marginalisation and exclusions for Muslim gays and lesbians within their own community is totally disregarded - reinforcing the idea that gays, and Mlsims are two mutuallly exclusive and non-overlapping categories.
This view means the acceptance that any gain for Muslims can be freared as a defeat for gays, and vice versa.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
#8
“Gay liberationists didn’t characterise Christians as Nazis. They protested against homophobia but also opened up a dialogue with them without first demanding that they reject their religion. In the UK that has led to much more liberal views about LGBT’s among Christians. We need the same strategy regarding homophobia among Muslims and that should be led by Muslim LGBT’s not by a bunch of pro-war white male liberals”
EXACTLY!
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Just to add that, to be fair, Tatchell does not think that all Muslims are equivalent to Nazis, only those Muslims who think homosexuality is a sin.
However, given that the overwhelming majority of Muslims think that homosexuality is sinful - a Gallup poll of British Muslims published last May found that none of the 500 respondents believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable - the number of Muslims that Tatchell thinks are not comparable to the BNP is clearly very small.
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
“Because of actual power relations. It is simply not true that the mainstream Muslim organisations represent a substantive threat to gays in the UK, racist and Islamophobic misconceptions do however represent a real problem for all Muslims, including LGBT Muslims.”
So the MCB gets a free pass while the C of E should not because its the state church ? What about the Catholic church then ? Or are you arguing no religious groups should be opposed re their negative views of homosexuality because its their genuine belief ?
You also seem to be saying that we should not attack the MCB for whatever reactionary views they come out with because that leads to negative views of all Muslims. Amazing stuff.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
Anon - if the majority of Muslims think homosexuality is a sin and their orientation is “repugnant” then that is a big issue for gays surely, just as are similar attitudes amongst Christian and Jews. Putting pressure on the MCB not to come out with statements such as the above might help to change attitudes amongst Muslims though, what is wrong with Tatchell trying to do that via strong criticism of the MCB ?
Do you really think criticising the MCB is equivalent to attacking all Muslims ? This seems to what this whole argument is coming down to.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
Orthodox Judaism has a position on homosexuality which is indistinguishable from the quoted statements by the MCB.
An article on the website of the Chief Rabbi entitled “Judaism and Homosexuality”, states that “we must help the homosexual avoid the pitfalls of promiscuity, despair and the various ailments to which he may be more vulnerable”.
So gay men require help because they are prone to depression and disease as a result of their promiscuous homosexual lifestyle.
The article also says: “our advocacy of tolerance and patience for the homosexual refers to the individual. It does not apply to organisations that promote homosexuality as a cause celebre or even as an equally acceptable ‘alternative lifestyle’.”
So Orthodox Judaism specifically excludes tolerance for organisations like OutRage, or indeed Stonewall for that matter.
The article explains why Orthodox Judaism is opposed to lesbian and gay couples adopting children: “marriage and procreation are supreme values in Judaism. It is antithetical to the spirit of Judaism to initiate a procedure whereby children will be conceived, born and bred outside the normative family nucleus.”
When civil partnerships were introduced, a spokesman for the Chief Rabbi stated: “There is no prospect of the mainstream Orthodox community permitting same-sex commitment or marriage ceremonies. Orthodox Jews are bound by biblical and rabbinic law, which only condones sexual relationships between a man and a woman who are married.”
In fact Orthodox Judaism has a worse position on gay and lesbian rights than the MCB, who actually took quite a good line on SORs, issuing a statement supporting a ban on discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation. The office of the Chief Rabbi issued no such statement.
Yet the last time that Peter Tachell criticised the homophobia of the Chief Rabbi was back in 1993! In the intervening period, Tatchell’s attacks on Muslim homophobia have been countless.
One can only conclude that Tatchell has a particular problem with homophobia in the Muslim community, or perhaps more generally with homophobia among people who have brown or black skin.
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
#12 “You also seem to be saying that we should not attack the MCB for whatever reactionary views they come out with because that leads to negative views of all Muslims. “
How does attacking the MCB help?
Does it strengthen or weaken the hand of LGBT Muslims, when their faith community is seen to be under attack by white, middle class British gay men?
Does it make the MCB more or less open to a constructive dialogue if you describe them as equivelent to nazis?
It is very effective in promoting self-publicity for professional gay white rights activists. But is it actually effective in reducing homphobia?
The Muslim community live in multi-cultural Britain, where there is increasing toleration for different sexual orientations. They are all affected by that expereiince, and the natural course of things would see the same debate, differentiation and diversity within their faith community as has happened among Anglicans, catholics and Jews. Putting them all in the same box, and ticking the “homophobe” option simply reinforces the divide.
And what is your solution. You rule out dialogue, you disempower LGBT Muslims from have a voice, unless they renounce their faith. So following your logic the only answer is to eradicate Islam, or to restrict the rightss of all Muslims and regard them with suspicion.
Every time you talk about Muslims it is as an existential “other”, you seem to have no grasp that among Muslims there is a very wide spread of experience, opinion and viewpoint over all sorts of issues; and that they can be trusted to debate among their own coommunity to adapt to the liberal consensus of our society.
However, your approach helps to convince Muslims that our society is not in fact liberal and tolerant, but is actually bigoted and illiberal towards them - and this undermines the arguments of those Muslims arguing for tolerance and understanding over issues of sexual orientation.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Andy
OK I’ll correct what I said
“Because you published an article entitled “the intersections between homophobia and islamophobia” which has been the trigger for this. Had you written an article entitled “Tories, Peers and Muslims: they’re all the same when it comes to homosexulity”, Muslims would not be singled out.”
The logic still stands. This is why this is being discussed, and you know it.
“Secondly, it simply isn’t true that there is the same presumption about Conservatives or Anglicans, as there is against Muslims.”
There is very good reason for this. I can go to any of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence and find many clerics who believe that homosexuality is a crime that should be punished by death.
I can not do the same in the conservative party or with the C of E in England. You can in some parts of Africa, and it has caused a schism.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
There are also many Muslims who do not beleive that there should be death for gays, and that is the predominant view around the world, why base your views on the most extreme? In a sense, as there are many liberal Ismamic theorists who totaly repudiate such attitudes there is a “schism” there to, but this is less obvious becasue of the decentralised nature of authority in Islam. And also because you are blind to the existance of LGBT Mmuslaims, and some white male gay activists effectively help to marginalise them.
The schism in the C of E is indeed not caused by the homophobes in Africa, Dr Williams has not condemnded the Church of Uganda, the schism is caused by the more liberal episcolpalians in North American moving faster towards an equality agenda than the Anglian mainstream is ready for.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
“Gay liberationists didn’t characterise Christians as Nazis.”
Really, so what was Tatchell doing when he said The Bible to gays is like Mein Kampf is to Jews?
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/genocide.htm
Comment by Brett — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Andy - what you are basically saying is that the leaderships of faith communities should not be criticised by people from outside for their reactionary views as it might upset some members of their flock.
Your excuses for the most unenlightened and reactionary forms of religion are getting daily more extreme. Still its interesting to see where the Respect project has led, at least you are being logical in your progressions however bizarre it looks to the rest of us.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
“I can go to any of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence and find many clerics who believe that homosexuality is a crime that should be punished by death.”
And if you turn to Leviticus 20:13 you will find the following: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.”
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
‘Really, so what was Tatchell doing when he said The Bible to gays is like Mein Kampf is to Jews?’
Being incredibly offensive towards Christians?
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
“And if you turn to Leviticus 20:13 you will find the following: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.””
Agreed - a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible re homosexuality is deeply repugnant and reactionary. A fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran re homosexuality is also deeply repugnant and reactionary. Do you agree ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
The identity is explicitly made at Harry’s Place, almost every day, that all Muslims are homophobes, and that mainstream Muslim organizations are fascist.
Andy, can you point to even one post at Harry’s Place that makes these assertions– as opposed to citing specific instances?
Comment by Gene — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
#19 ‘Andy - what you are basically saying is that the leaderships of faith communities should not be criticised by people from outside for their reactionary views as it might upset some members of their flock.’
Depends what your end goal is. If it is to make yourself feel better about yourself, by all means go ahead and get stuck in.
If it is to help eradicate homophobia then listening to the demands and working with the LGBT members of religious communities is the logical place to begin.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
“A fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran re homosexuality is also deeply repugnant and reactionary.”
Actually, unlike the Torah, the Qur’an doesn’t contain any calls for gay men to be put to death.
And if the two cases are equivalent, how come Tatchell spends such a disproportionate amount of time attacking Muslims rather than Jews?
If the situation were reversed, and he spent a similarly disproportionate amount of time attacking Jews rather than Muslims, how would you characterise that?
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
TFL :
There are LGBT religious groups that support Tatchell see here :
http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/easter%20sunday.htm
“In mitigation, Mr. Guthrie read a letter from the Rev. Richard Kirker, secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, in support of Tatchell, and made a plea for a conditional discharge.”
Are you really saying that no one can criticise the views of a religious community from outside unless they have supporters on the inside ? Sounds very strange.
Anon - if Tatchell put out a press release criticising the Chief Rabbi every time he criticised the MCB there would be no problem ? Sounds good to me actually, I’ve no problem with that.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Andy, Interesting that you post this concurrent with Splintered Sunrise on hate speech and the Left. Here is the link its worth a read.
http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/the-jabbing-finger/
I think what your trying to do here is long overdue and worthy of support. For some of posters here its going to be a big leap to get beyond ‘me and/or my group’ and onto how to engage with the big political currents. Good luck with it.
Comment by Christy — 9 November, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
More awful news both in terms of those attacked and what it portends about where we are heading: and sadly very relevent to this thread:
http://www.fosis.org.uk/media/press-releases/624-fosis-statement-regarding-attacks-on-muslim-students-at-city-university
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
So blacksmiths among the Dogon of West Africa are homosexual?
Does this mean that homosexuals are obliged to apprentice as blacksmiths or that blacksmiths are obliged to embrace homosexuality?
This sounds a promising approach to a pressing social question: if, say, hairdressing, male modelling and window-dressing were exclusively queer and traffic wardens’ jobs and prison wardresses’ jobs were reserved for lesbians, society would probably be a lot happier.
Or would it?
Comment by Lenny — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
johng - there have also been several high profile homophobic attacks on gays eg the fatal one in Trafalgar Sq. What have these regrettable attacks in Islington on Muslims to do with this thread and Peter Tatchell ? Its quite likely most of these attacks are by violently disaffected teenagers who are against anyone not the same as them, gay, muslim or green activist cyclists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/03/boris-johnson-saves-franny-armstrong).
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
“Anon - if Tatchell put out a press release criticising the Chief Rabbi every time he criticised the MCB there would be no problem? Sounds good to me actually, I’ve no problem with that.”
But Tatchell doesn’t do that does he? Do you not think it’s worth asking why?
In any case, I think it’s counterproductive for people outside a minority community to publicly attack backward aspects of the culture of that community, because:
(1) this plays into the hands of the racist Right who want to present minority communities as a threat to “our” culture and therefore makes things worse for all members of the minority community, gay and straight;
(2) the community, particularly if it is already under a sustained general attack, tends to close ranks defensively and is less receptive to arguments for change, and progressive forces within the minority community therefore find it more difficult to get a hearing;
(3) particularly so if they are identified in the minds of the community with those who are attacking it from outside (does it help the case of gay Muslims to have the struggle for gay rights associated with Peter Tatchell who most Muslims not unreasonably see as an enemy of their community?).
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
“In any case, I think it’s counterproductive for people outside a minority community to publicly attack backward aspects of the culture of that community”
And you wonder why the BNP has grown in support. Such nonsensical relativistic attitudes towards minorities have been one of the reasons the far Left has declined to the pathetic rump it is today.
Have you ever thought through the logical consequences of what you’re saying ? You are basically positing that universal standards should not be applied to minorities, in which case should FGM be tolerated amongst a minority culture where it is a norm ? What about owning slaves or treating family servants like slaves ? Would you stay silent on abuses like that ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Anon (31) “In any case, I think it’s counterproductive for people outside a minority community to publicly attack backward aspects of the culture of that community”
Rubbish!
It’s perfectly legitimate to criticise and attack reactionary anti-gay bigots whatever “community” they come from.
It’s right to attack and criticise religious bigots in Ireland even if we don’t come from the Irish “community.”
It’s right to attack the racism of BNP voters even if we’re not part of the “community” where they have been elected.
It’s right to criticise the faith-based anti-gay bigotry of members of any religious sect - christian, judea, islamic, paganist, buddist, hindu - even if we don’t belong to that particular religious “community.”
It shows that anti-gay predudice - like racial predudice, religious sectarianism and sex discrimination - is unacceptable.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Actually more media nonsense, I and others, have stressed time and time again that there is a rising tide of attacks on BOTH Muslims AND Lesbian and Gay people, and that BOTH these things need to be addressed. There is clearly a rising tide of bigotry in this country from which all minorities are suffering and likely to suffer. And we need to start thinking about how to address it rather then endlessly attacking each other.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
..and gangs of up to fifty youths hunting and attacking muslims around a university campus is not a few disaffected youths. Its a serious threat to us all. You can be in denial if you want to but the rest of us can’t afford to be.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
fair enough Johng
Comment by Derek Wall — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
“The identity is explicitly made at Harry’s Place, almost every day, that all Muslims are homophobes, and that mainstream Muslim organizations are fascist.”
Almost every day, eh? Then I guess it will be quite easy to find a single example, Andy. Perhaps you could point to one?
Comment by John Meredith — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Anyone care to look at the way LGBT built solidarity with the miners strike and by being in solidarity first, instead of using “Thatcher stop attacking miners, miners stop being homophobic”. Seems that this method did some considerable good in breaking down some barriers amongst a minority of miners.
Perhaps that is the strategy to look at.
Comment by passerby — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Karl Stewart #33
Sure, but it depends on your relationship to the community. If you attack from the ‘outside’ and you are seen as supporting the oppression of the community, then your efforts are likely to be seen as an attack on the community, and hence counter-productive.
A good example is Harry’s Place, where issues of womens and gay rights are used as stick with which to beat the Palestinians and support war.
Comment by Calvin — 9 November, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
#37
John: “Then I guess it will be quite easy to find a single example, Andy. Perhaps you could point to one?”
I think it is self evident, especially if you take the general tenor of the comments.
However, I am a wily enough fox to avoid taking this poisoned bait, which would derail discussion onto your terrain.
Generaly you delegitimise both the MAB and MCB, which are the two mainstream Musim advocacy organisations in Britain.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
#38- Absolutely correct.
Comment by Armchair — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
” think it is self evident, especially if you take the general tenor of the comments. However, I am a wily enough fox to avoid taking this poisoned bait”
Hang on , you made a strong factual claim which you now say you cannot back up even though the evidence is, according to you, published ‘almost daily’ on a website?
“Generaly you delegitimise both the MAB and MCB, which are the two mainstream Musim advocacy organisations in Britain.”
I don’t know who the ‘you’ is here but nobody is in a position to deligitimise these organisations. Some of us criticise their reactionary views on some subjects, that is all. We call ourselves ’socialists’ very often.
Comment by John Meredith — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
““Gay liberationists didn’t characterise Christians as Nazis.”
Really, so what was Tatchell doing when he said The Bible to gays is like Mein Kampf is to Jews?”
Tatchell compares the bible to Mein Kampf in a sensationalist, ignorant and ahistorical sound byte and you accuse religion of being irrational. Have you no insight?
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
On a more positive note re the MCB and gays Inayat Bunglawala’s (MCB vice chair of Media Committee) had a good personal piece here (note he mentions a discussion forum he was on with Peter Tatchell !!) :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/gay-muslims-support
“Some religious communities are not reciprocating the tolerance and respect they insist on from others when it comes to gay rights, particularly in Muslim and some Christian communities. That seemed to be the bleak message at the heart of To Be Straight With You, which was performed at the O’Reilly Theatre in Dublin last week following a sell-out three-week run at the National Theatre in London.
I had been invited to Dublin for a public discussion on issues surrounding religious freedom and sexuality alongside the production’s director, Lloyd Newson, human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, Dr Katherine Zappone and Father Michael Collins.
In Muslim communities the issue of homosexuality is very rarely discussed in a candid manner and is all too often wished away as if it is an affliction that involves other groups, not them. Not far from the surface, however, are reports of gay Muslim men being pressurised into rushed marriages by parents desperate to avoid any social stigma. The woman’s family is never told the truth about her husband’s sexuality, of course, with the result that another soul has to endure unhappiness due to the initial failure to face up to the issue. It is a highly dishonest and unethical approach.
Islamic scholars and imams should ideally be performing a much-needed pastoral role by helping in these situations and providing guidance. At the very least they should insist that any intimidation or discrimination against gay Muslims is unacceptable.”
Also :
“Would it not be another positive step if the MCB – as a broad-based umbrella organisation – were to include a gay Muslim support group as an affiliate? There does not appear to be anything in the MCB’s constitution that would seem to preclude such groups from joining and indeed the following clause from the declaration of intent section of the MCB constitution is particularly relevant:
“[The MCB] is a broad-based, representative organisation of Muslims in Britain, accommodating and reflecting the variety of social and cultural backgrounds and outlook of the community.”
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.”
All good stuff but I don’t think the MCB has responded. Does anyone know any more ?
I’m sure we would all agree it would be good if Salma Yaqoob of Respect could support Inayat on this.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
“Hang on , you made a strong factual claim which you now say you cannot back up even though the evidence is, according to you, published ‘almost daily’ on a website?”
Andy is pointing out, quite correctly, that it’s folly to demonstrate what is self evident. HP is notorious for attacking Muslims. Everyone who blogs politically is aware of this. That’s why it attracts the Islamophobes and Zionists. The whole issue of proving that HP is Islamophobic is redundant. It’s like proving that Lenins Tomb takes a revolutionary socialist line sympathetic to the SWP. John Meredith please don’t waste our time trying to obscure the obvious.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
#44 ‘I’m sure we would all agree it would be good if Salma Yaqoob of Respect could support Inayat on this.’
Stop taking the piss, Salma is leader of a party with a stated and public position condemning all homophobia and Respect’s small role in British society is clearly with gay people and all democrats against homophobes, bigots and racists.
So stop trying to divert the debate we are having with your boring, trite and unsubstantiated allegations.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 9 November, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
Respect have a strong line against homophobia and were attacked because of this during a recent by-election.
Comment by Derek Wall — 9 November, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
What exactly am I “alleging” Mr “Friendly Lefty” (that’s a good one) ? You are being completely OTT and needlessly abusive. I thought Inayat’s contribution was exactly what is needed and that Ms Yaqoob if she wants to do something positive re this issue she should support Inayat. What on earth is wrong with that ?
The only person diverting this debate is you with pointless insults.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Yes well no doubt Inayat Bunglawala is also getting abuse for his new welcome position, it is not easy when you are trying to change reactionary religious attitudes. Good for him though, he is showing real and effective leadership in the right direction.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
My argument is a purely pragmatic one. If it could be shown that a member of the majority white community publicly attacking the backward cultural features of a minority community from outside the community had a positive effect, then I would be in favour of that. But a moment’s consideration would indicate that it is very unlikely to have such an effect.
Plus of course there is the testimony of LGBT organisations themselves - Imaan or the Safra Project within the Muslim community - who have repeatedly argued that Tatchell’s self-promoting antics make their job more difficult, and that he refuses to consult them or listen to their criticisms:
Here’s a quote from Farzana Fiaz of Imaan that appeared in Gay Times:
Andy has already quoted this passage from the “Gay imperialism” article:
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Anon - would you take the same pragmatic approach to eg Afrikaner Dutch Reformed Church zealots who wanted to enslave blacks or militant Christian anti-abortionists who wanted to blow up abortion clinics ? I doubt it, the Left has not historically called for restraint while reactionary groups reform themselves its been out on the street calling for universal human rights for all however much that offended reactionary religous sensibilities.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
What possible parrallel is there been the religion of a minority community in Britain and the official church of Aparthied Republic of South Africa. Its here that people see to take leave of reality.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
Andy
“There are also many Muslims who do not beleive that there should be death for gays, and that is the predominant view around the world, why base your views on the most extreme? In a sense, as there are many liberal Ismamic theorists who totaly repudiate such attitudes there is a “schism” there to, but this is less obvious becasue of the decentralised nature of authority in Islam. And also because you are blind to the existance of LGBT Mmuslaims, and some white male gay activists effectively help to marginalise them.”
why base your views on the most extreme?
If I want to know the attitude of the Catholic church towards contraception and abortion, I go to the official statements on the matter. They are clear and unequivocal. If I want to know the official line on Islamic issues, I check the four major schools of Sunni and the two Shia schools. The only disagreement between them is the method of execution.
With Catholicism, I know many Catholics who use contraception and a few who have had abortions. I would be insane to think that this means Catholicism says abortion and contraception are OK. Within Islam, I know some who are gay, but this does not alter the doctrine.
Inayat’s piece is remarkable. All the more so from the perspective of the fact that execution for homosexuals is a Hudud penalty. Tariq Ramadan’s call for a moratorium on these penalties is also to be applauded, even if it would only be a temporary halt.
My biggest issue is your belief that the official line could change with time. Since the end of the Mutazillah, there has been little change within Islam and in many ways, their demise was the beginning of the end of Islamic dominance. The penalties now are the same as in the 8th century. The only chink of light in the homosexuality interpretation is that the verb used to describe homosexual behaviour carries with it the implication of also involving an act which is public. This, and that the severity of the punishment comes primarily from the hadiths does leave a bit of wiggle room, but not a Lott of wiggle room.
And moremedianonsense..
Leviticus is in the Old Testament, and was written about 1440 BC. About 1468 years later, a carpenter came along and changed most of the rules. All he had to say about sexual morality was “sin no more.” No stones, no tall buildings, no sacks.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
johng - so the mere fact a religious community is a current minority in a country means its reactionary teachings are OK ? That would mean Islam teaching homosexuality is a sin is OK in the UK but not in Saudi Arabia.
Everyone knows the SWP/Respect line on this is logically indefensible but if you want to go on flogging the same old relativistic absurdities fine by me. Just don’t then complain about the dead end state of the far Left in the UK.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Moremedianonsense
Sorry, misattributed a quote to you. Apologies.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
When I was at college in 1990/91 at North East London Poly which has now become University of East London the anti-abortion bigots in the form of SPUC were attempting to grow in the UK. SPUC were invited to speak at a meeting organised by the college Islamic group and we (SWSS and other groups that supported the right to abortion at the college) organised a campaign against SPUC attending our college.
SPUC didn’t arrive and the Islamic group invited us to attend their meeting to debate the issue of abortion. I have to say that despite my antipathy at the time to anti-abortion rhetoric the meeting was extremely fraternal. A number of us were allowed to put our views across and the debate was chaired in a very fair manner. Whether we convinced anyone of our argument for abortion rights is another matter but some of the women attending the meeting were questioning the prevailing anti-abortion stance of the group.
The point I’m making is that the very religious Muslims at this meeting were more than willing to debate this issue. They were fraternal and welcoming even though we did not see eye to eye. This was in 1990/91 when society was a lot less liberal about LGBT’s and abortion than it is now. It was also around the same time as the first Gulf War. In the three years I attended college not once did any other religious organisation invite us to debate any issues at all.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
How many people has Peter Tatchell killed or beaten up or threatened with violence?
Answer: none.
All he’s done is dedicated his life to campaigning, using non-violent direct action, for gay rights.
Thanks to this type of militant, energetic, innovative and unapologetic protesting, being openly gay in the UK is a hell of a lot less terrifying than it used to be.
In my opinion, it’s absolutely fantastic that Tatchell’s loud and proud, “in-your-face” protests offend and upset reactionary religious bigots from whatever sect.
Of course there are non-bigoted individuals among these sects.
High-profile gay rights campaigns can and should be aimed at encouraging these individuals to take up the fight for equality within their own religious sect.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
#57
“High-profile gay rights campaigns can and should be aimed at encouraging these individuals to take up the fight for equality within their own religious sect.”
Well that is the debate Karl, some of us are arguing that tatchell’s approach undermines that.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Well said Karl, to treat Muslim bigots any different to Christian and Jewish bigots is rather patronising.
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
“…so the mere fact a religious community is a current minority in a country means its reactionary teachings are OK ? That would mean Islam teaching homosexuality is a sin is OK in the UK but not in Saudi Arabia.”
Your argument is facetious because you compare Saudi Arabia with Muslims in the UK. Even a cursory glance at the evidence exposes the vast gulf (excuse the pun) between the position and influence of Muslims in Saudi Arabia and the UK.
It’s akin to attacking Jews in the UK for the oppression of Palestinians by Israel. By making negative generalisations about a minority you are copying what the bigots do to attack LGBT’s when they generalise about us. A completely bogus argument that just provides tinder for the BNP.
You repeatedly generalise about Muslims and make accusations about them being a threat to LGBT’s yet they are not the ones attacking and murdering us in the UK. The racist bigots who attacked the Muslim students at City University are potentially the ones most likely to attack LGBT’s.
“Everyone knows the SWP/Respect line on this is logically indefensible but if you want to go on flogging the same old relativistic absurdities fine by me. Just don’t then complain about the dead end state of the far Left in the UK.”
Only you are defending the Islamophobia of Tatchell and the majority of us are disagreeing with you so drop the delusions of grandeur. Who do you claim to speak for except yourself? In summary, I’d rather be part of the left (dead end or otherwise) than a racist like you.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
“Well said Karl, to treat Muslim bigots any different to Christian and Jewish bigots is rather patronising.”
So you agree that it’s wrong of Tatchell and Outrage! to single out Muslims and generalise about them. If he were treating Muslims like every other religion then we wouldn’t be criticising him.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Yeah Moremedianonsenses arguments are just illogical nonsense. To go back to Barry Kades initial argument: Voltaire and his associates were faced with a church-backed establishment which represented the orthodoxy of the day. We are here discussing in Britain the religion of a discriminated against and oppressed minority. Its not ‘cultural relativism’ to recognise the difference. Its materialism.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
And again, its astonishing to me that people are just passing over what is a horrifying portent. The weekend of attacks on Muslim students in the heart of London which ended in stabbings, carried out by a mob of up to fifty attackers.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
“making negative generalisations about a minority” … “you repeatedly generalise about Muslims and make accusations about them being a threat to LGBT’s” … “a racist like you.”
What negative generalisations ? By condemning the MCB for its reactionary press release ? Your kind of dishonest lying misrepresentation of others views is another thing that is destroying the British Left.
“the Islamophobia of Tatchell” - do you really have any idea how idiotic such statements make your minute segment of the Left look ?
I hope Derek Wall is getting an education here about some of the people the “Green Left” is getting involved with.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
“We are here discussing in Britain the religion of a discriminated against and oppressed minority.”
Even if a religion is oppressed and discriminated against it does not mean its reactionary beliefs which are antithetical to the rights of another minority should be ignored or not challenged. To think otherwise gives a carte blanche to any reactionary or illegal practice within any minority group.
I presume you disagree ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
#65 you where as virulent in your denunciation of Irish Catholicism and the Republican movement then, yes ?
Comment by Eddie Truman — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
#66 - Yes, of course, Irish Republicanism of the De Valera/Fianna Fail model is reactionary in the extreme to the well known disgraceful extent of remaining neutral against the Nazis to spite the UK. I expect you know this so what are you trying to say ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Eddie Truman
Could you explain that Eddie.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
I’m surprised no one has picked up on the suggestion of using the Miners support committees that LGBT folks set up.
I’m pretty dismayed at the lack of understanding around this question and the problems with some -emphasis on some - of Tatchells and his supporters outlooks on this. It seems clear to me that in the current climate one of the front lines of attack is on Muslim, and by default immigrants of colour (remember that in the aftermath of 9-11 attacks on Sikhs and Hindus were common as anyone who wasn’t white or christian faced racist abuse and assaults). The right will use whatever they can to whip a sentiment that Muslims are “backwards”, uncivilised, a threat to “western values”.
In this context to re-inforce this notion as part of your focus is to play into the hands of the right, who as we’ve seen are more than happy to use the rights of women as a cover to bomb the shit out of women in Afghanistan. Furthermore it hinders the ability to build solidarity and open up doors inside those communities. By working with various communities and involving them in struggle the anti-war movement opened doors to have bigger political discussions and created space for progressives in various communities to have a hearing where those form outside wouldn’t get a hearing.
Don’t you think it challenges many who have, for religious or cultural reasons a negative view of homophobia, to realise that the majority of their allies in the fight against war and racism also support the fight against homophobia. But you can’t create that dynamic if your starting point is that your solidarity has conditions.
If you don’t think its probelmatic to say we’ll support palestinians provided they support us then you are missing the boat.
Look at the problems when some ( a small but vocal minority) blamed the defeat of gay marriage in California on african americans who turned out in droves to vote for Obama and therefore were assumed to also have voted against same sex marriage. Fortunately many clearer headed people jumped into the breach and put clearer analysis on the table.
Tatchells supporters on this thread and others can’t see beyond their own righteousness, they are blinded to the reality that some of their actions and descriptions and polemics play into the demonisation of muslims, which further strengthens both the right and more conservative forces in the Muslim community who use these attacks to show how hostile non-muslims are and why the community should work with non-muslims or the left.
Comment by passerby — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
“#65 you where as virulent in your denunciation of Irish Catholicism and the Republican movement then, yes ?”
Very good point Eddie. Would MMN stand aside as religious Jews in Nazi Germany were shipped off to Auschwitz because some of them were homophobic? I don’t remember Magnus Hirschfeld and LGBT’s in Germany, who were destroyed by the Nazis, blaming the Jewish community for their oppression. Scapegoating the Jews was the policy of the fascists. Let history not repeat itself as farce.
When poor black, white and Hispanic gay men rioted at Stonewall in ‘69 I doubt they imagined that white middle class gay men would end up dictating strategy to Muslim LGBT’s in 2009. I’d rather celebrate and support the diversity and agency of the poor oppressed patrons of the Stonewall Inn than the Western imperialist hegemony of the Islamophobes. I assume that MMN would have rejected support and solidarity from the Black Panthers for LGBT rights at the time because some of them were homophobic. Perhaps MMN would have called for a boycott of Huey Newton’s meeting where he called for gay rights. Would MMN have generalised about all black people based on the homophobia of some as he does about Muslims in the UK?
If MMN had been around at the beginning of gay liberation s/he would have been hopeless in a world where the majority accepted homophobia and gay activists had to seek support and form alliances with many individuals and organisations that held reactionary ideas about homosexuality but nonetheless understood that oppression was wrong. The whole point about activism is to engage with others and challenge reactionary views. I think some activists have grown lazy and want equality presented to them on a plate.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
“#66 - Yes, of course, Irish Republicanism of the De Valera/Fianna Fail model is reactionary in the extreme to the well known disgraceful extent of remaining neutral against the Nazis to spite the UK. I expect you know this so what are you trying to say ?”
You deliberately ignore Bloody Sunday and the vicious and violent oppression of Catholics in N Ireland. You have no solidarity with the oppressed. I think you’re a racist who is using the oppression of LGBT’s in a deeply dishonest manner.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
Who (anywhere?) has stated that reactionary beliefs of a minority community ’should not be challenged’. What should not be done is to parade bigotry as progressive critique (essentially the function of Harry’s Place). Islam is a religion like any other, and yet the bigots strategy is to argue that the ‘truth’ about Islam is expressed in the statements of the most extreme fundementalists. This becomes a respectable tactic on the basis of ruling class attempts to explain away the violence and war in the middle east as the product of some fatal flaw in a world religion rather then part of the history of the development of capitalism in those parts of the world. Its in this context that ideologies as virulently racist as those found in anti-semitism at the beginning of the 20th century are treated as somehow understandable responses to terrorism. There is no problem with criticising reactionary beliefs in Islam from socialists. There IS a problem with singling out Islam as some sort of ‘devil religion’, the main cause of bigotry and lack of progress in the world etc. Today with domestic bigotry against both Muslims and Gays (expressed in rising physical attacks, the latest horrific one carried out around a university in London) its about time for the whole left to understand that whilst you might get state patronage and a bit of easy free publicity by hanging your complaints on a moral panic about Muslims, these things have consequences. For all of us.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
#64
“I hope Derek Wall is getting an education here about some of the people the “Green Left” is getting involved with.”
????
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
II/Ray,
You need to calm down a bit, you’re becoming hysterical.
No-one’s saying we shouldn’t vigorously oppose anti-muslim discrimination - no-one here has said that, it’s a figment of your fevered imagination.
What we’re saying is that anti-gay predudice is wrong and must be vigorously opposed no matter where it comes from.
Yes, anti-muslim predudice is also wrong and must also be vigorously opposed no matter where it comes from.
Just as LGBT campaigners would be wrong to invite a gay racist to address its meetings, so labour and progressive movement events must not invite anti-gay religious bigots onto their platforms - even if they are anti-war or pro-Palestinian.
Quite how II/Ray gets from this argument to accusations of collaboration with nazi Germany is utterly beyond me.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
Johng
“yet the bigots strategy is to argue that the ‘truth’ about Islam is expressed in the statements of the most extreme fundementalists. ”
This is utter nonsense John.
The truth about Islam is expressed by the schools of jurisprudence; Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and the Hanbali. The Shia are Jafiri and Zaidi. If you want to know the official line, you read their output. With respect to homosexuality these schools are quite clear; they only differ in the means of execution. Some say collapse a wall on homosexuals, some say stone them, some tie them in a sack and throw them off a cliff and then stone them.
What you have just said is the equivalent of saying because some Catholics use contraception, the Pope is an extreme fundamentalist and there is no consensus in Catholicism regarding contraception.
This is clearly shite.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
MMN has the habit of presuming s/he has “everyone”, “the Green Left” and “LGBT’s” on side. It’s reminiscent of the rhetoric used at HP.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
“The war on terror, and increasing Islamophobia against Britain’s immigrant communities provide the ideological background to promote LGBT activists, and specifically to celebrate select voices of “exceptional Muslims”, like Irshad Manji, from Canada. Who demonstrate a political narrative that Muslims can only escape homophobia by extracting themselves from their own community, and integrating themselves into superior Western culture; or of course by Western culture being adopted by or imposed upon Muslim lands. Manji is offered extraordinary access to the media, but as I understand it, she is in fact a second generation migrant with tenuous links to the Muslim community, not well qualified to discuss the experience of LGBT people who continue to live within Islamic culture.”
To provide some additional information, Irshad Manji is merely a liberal apologist for imperialism and zionism. Or to put it differently she seems to have arrived at the ultimate contradiction of being an islamophobic Muslim!
Any mumber of critiques have been written about her politics but I think the best one is at
http://psreview.org/content/view/26/72/
Comment by Patrick Scott — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Patrick.
I really do despair.
You have just declared a Muslim an Apostate. This is the one of the worst crimes in Islam. Only Allah can see inside someone’s heart, and only He can judge. You really need to understand something of this subject before you speak.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Karl
Ray is not ll.
“Just as LGBT campaigners would be wrong to invite a gay racist to address its meetings, so labour and progressive movement events must not invite anti-gay religious bigots onto their platforms - even if they are anti-war or pro-Palestinian.”
This just doesn’t do. Religion is much more complex than that, because religious leaders have very multi-faceted views, and might be progressive on some issues and reactionary on others.
Look at the exmaple of Rick Warren, argueably the most influential evangelican Christian on the planet. Warren is a traditionall conservative on abortion, gay rights etc; but is a social progressive over issues of equality, exapanding educational provision for the disadvantaged, fighting poverty, and critically is a firm advocate of government action to stop climate change.
Given that most evangelical Christians in the USA are climate change sceptics, and also opposed to any progressive redistributive politics on equality, then Rick Warren is someone that the liberal left have to work with on some issues and oppose on others. Over the issue of environmental sustainability he is potentially a key ally, and someone I hop that the Green party would collaborate tiwth where possible, while distancing themselves from him over other issues.
That is why Obama actually achieved quote a coup by getting Warren to give the invocation at the Presidential inauguration. Obama handled this exactly right, by making it clear that he disagreed with Warren on abortion and LGBT issues, but still respected him, and felt there was a need for dialogue over contentious issues.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
“II/Ray,
You need to calm down a bit, you’re becoming hysterical.”
It’s not very clever to accuse a gay man of being hysterical. Is your feeble attempt to associate me with II meant to undermine my argument?
When you decide to have a political debate rather than resort to personal attacks let me know. I’m surprised that you are using this tone because you’ve made some cogent arguments in the past.
Comment by Ray — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
‘Yes, of course, Irish Republicanism of the De Valera/Fianna Fail model is reactionary in the extreme to the well known disgraceful extent of remaining neutral against the Nazis to spite the UK.’
Interesting. You should consider that the Irish Government at the time contained many who had fought the UK in order to achieve indepedence. They had then seen a British sponsored Civil War and the annexation by force of 6 Counties of nine county Ulster. They feared and loathed the British ruling class and many expected to fight the UK again. They did not know much about the Nazi Party but it is hard to believe that at the time they thought Nazi’s would prove worse than the British. Hindsight affords a different view.
In operation Irish neutrality favoured the British.
BTW and on topic Michael Macleamhor a very prominent Irish Gay thespian was accorded full observence by the State at his funeral with his life partner Hilton being openly comforted by the members of the Urish Governmemt who attended. So not as reactioniry as might have been thought. You might say this was a legacy of Gay Republican Socialist Oscar Wilde.
Comment by Christy — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
johng - “There is no problem with criticising reactionary beliefs in Islam from socialists. There IS a problem with singling out Islam as some sort of ‘devil religion’, the main cause of bigotry and lack of progress in the world etc.”
So do you think Peter Tatchell “singles out Islam as a devil religion” or is an Islamophobe as some here seem to be saying ?
Andy - Derek had an article on here strongly supporting Tatchell, you are now coming out with an opposing view. But no doubt he can speak for himself.
passerby - your contribution is measured and well argued and is appreciated amongst some of the name calling and ranting here. I disagree however, hope to come back to it later.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
#79
Incidently, further to my point at #79.
At the US Presidential inauguration, the most prominent religious homophobe in the world, Rick Warren, read the innvocation for the most powerful man in the world.
Did Harry’s place flag this up? They didn’t write a fucking thing.
Did Peter tatchell falg this up? He didn’t write a fucking thing.
And remember Warren is not just someone who incidently happens to have homophobic views, he evangelisies his anti-gay views, and is probably the most infleintial Christian in the USA.
But let an obscure Muslim figure be invited to a minor meeting in some dusty provinical university, and harry’s place is all over it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
“The truth about Islam is expressed by the schools of jurisprudence; Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and the Hanbali. The Shia are Jafiri and Zaidi. If you want to know the official line, you read their output. With respect to homosexuality these schools are quite clear; they only differ in the means of execution. Some say collapse a wall on homosexuals, some say stone them, some tie them in a sack and throw them off a cliff and then stone them.”
Under Sharia law homosexuality is treated as a subsection of adultery and the same penalties apply.
The legal rulings on adultery were developed in a backward tribal society in which “honour” killings were rife, and adulterers really were killed on a regular basis. Islamic jurists were trying to find a way to stop that happening.
The way they got round it was to rule that it was not adultery (and by extension homosexuality) that was a crime but the sexual act itself and, further, that four independent witnesses to the sexual act were required for a conviction.
The draconian punishments were retained in theory, in order to signify extreme social disapproval, but the evidential requirements were raised so high that it was in practice impossible to convict anyone of the crime that carried those punishments.
So when RMS quotes the various schools of sharia law on the appropriate barbaric punishments for gay sex, he’s in fact quoting Islamic rulings that were intended to prevent those punishments, by reducing them to a purely symbolic status.
Comment by Anon — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
#82
“Andy - Derek had an article on here strongly supporting Tatchell, you are now coming out with an opposing view. But no doubt he can speak for himself.”
But my opposing view makes it cllear that where tatchell was misrepresented that was wrong. Ii thought Derek’s complaint was that academics had “smeared and lied” about Tatchell?
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
On the question of Irish neutrality during WW2 - when Britain and France declared war on Germany, every other country in western Europe wished to remain neutral. Some - Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Spain - succeeded in doing so. Others - Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway did not but this was because they were invaded by the Nazis, not because they lost their desire to remain neutral. Why on earth the Irish Free State should be singled out for sharing the same desire as every equivalent western European country, to stay out of the conflict, is a mystery to me.
Comment by lone nut — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Anon
I have heard that many times, but have been unable to find the reference. Can you please let me know where I can find the source.
Thanks
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
Andy you smeared me as an Islamphobe as a member of Green Left which you described as Islamaphobic.
Frankly as I have a life and am finishing a book manuscript I find it difficult to keep up with what you may or may not be saying about me.
My impression is for reasons you alone know you want to undermine the progress made by Green Left in encouraging the Green Party not to stand against Salma Yaqoob.
Comment by Derek Wall — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
Andy - as you can see from Derek at #88 these arguments are pretty important. And recklessly calling people Islamophobes and racists can have very bad consequences.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
This is a well argued piece.
The issue that is addressed in this essay - the assumed political-cultural superiority of the British liberal white middle class - is not specific to the Black and Muslim Gay rights movement. It is encountered everywhere. There is an insistence that the world must be seen through white middle class eyes and his eyes alone. In the anti-war movement, Palestine Solidarity, Latin American Solidarity - there he is defining the agenda. For example, how many people are prepared to talk about how Britian laid the foundations of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine or how bombing Iraq served British interests and had nothing to do with Blair being a poodle….
Comment by Adam — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
#75 Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows that there is no equivalent of the Pope’s “ex cathedra” pronouncements. There is the consensus of scholars and jurisprudentialists, but no “official line”. Islam does not work in the same rigidly authoritarian way as Catholicism.
Comment by Daphne — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Andy is rather behind the times about how the Green Party is changing and the increasing amount of non-white activists. For example Councillors Maya de Souza, Samir Jeraj and Sushila Dhal plus activists like Payam Torabi, Farid Bakht, Sasha Khan and Samir Chatterjee.
(Thats just from the top of my head.)
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Derek, WTF?
You’ve gone right off the deep end lately. Claiming that what people said about Tatchell was the equivalent of what happpened in Bermondsey in 1983 (which is grossly outrageous and you should be posting a big apology for); claiming that Tatchell - and now you - are being smeared without actually putting any actual arguments.
If, as you say, you don’t have time to keep up with what is being said, you’d probably be better off not commenting on it until you’ve actually read it all, because in just about everything you’ve said recently you’ve made gross errors of fact. That’s fine if you’re busy, but you in turn are now smearing Andy Newman by claiming that he somehow wants to undermine Green/Respect co-operation, which is so smack-me-in-the-face absurd, i wonder if this is someone else posting pretending to be Derek.
Comment by external bulletin — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Daphne
When the vast majority of scholars agree on an interpretation, it becomes the orthodox. The methodology may be different; Cardinals, Fuqaha the result is pretty similar. In this case, all six schools agree. You know this. But then again, you could tell me which scholars disagree with the rulings on homosexuality.
Comment by RMS — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
More stuff on those attacks.
http://kavakeb.blogspot.com/2009/11/three-muslim-students-stabbed-at-city.html
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
No moremediarubbish, but i do think there is a problem with a political stance which inadvertantly leads to providing comfort to those who do. As stated at the beginning of this argument its a tactical disagreement.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
Ray, at (70), you seemed to be arguing in II’s hysterical style, that’s why I made the comparison.
You compared your opponent in this debate MMN with those who supported the holocaust and nazi Germany.
I’ve never met you and I have no idea whether you are a gay man or not as you say at post (80) . Your sexuality is none of my business, nothing to do with this debate and nothing to do with my describing your post at (70) as “hysterical.”
I can’t see any possible connection.
And I’m still baffled, as I’m sure many are, as to why you and Andy are so hostile to Peter Tatchell.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
There is a lot of concern, rightly, for the bigotry that our Muslim communities face. However, is there any evidence that pointing out the reactionary, illiberal, views of some parts of the community really contributes to this issue? I would imagine that the majority of shit that your average Muslim takes comes from people (like the EDL, or the scum who attacked the students last Thursday) for whom gay rights etc isn’t a particularly big issue. I doubt your average bigot who abuses a Muslim has much sympathy for the views of Peter Tatchell.
I suppose you could argue that there’s a general culture of hostility that may build up, but I’d be surprised if pointed remarks regarding Islam’s stance on LGBT’s is, relatively speaking, a big contributor to this issue.
Comment by SteveF — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
passerby - your main argument is another variant on the idea that if you criticise the reactionary views of a minority it will cause the group to pull together more and be counter productive. This is just a recipe for inaction and historically is totally out of sync with the methods of the previous struggles against religous and other reactionary groups for womens and gay rights.
Also you again like others here wilfully miss the point that Tatchell is criticising the MCB and other reactionary Islamic preachers not all Muslims. What is so difficult about that for you to understand ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
At least Andy actually bothered to read the orginal article, unlike most people here.
If Tatchell is all for “free expression”, why did he try to gag Haritaworn, Tauqir and Erdem?
Comment by Sympathetic Ink — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
Isn’t it about time the far left concentrated on instilling class consciousness among the working class? The left is in a mess and probably always will be while single issue politics and postmodernism rule the roost.
Comment by Miloronic — 9 November, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
MoreMediaNonsense – Peter Tatchell has gone much further than criticising a few “reactionary Islamic preachers” He claims that “All peoples possess a culture, but this does not mean all cultures are equally valid and commendable.” Now tell me MoreMediaNonsense which culture do you think his is referring?
Comment by Richard Farnos — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Andy - in the course of correcting one myth you have invented another: “Arguably a more reflective and self-critical man than Peter Tatchell might have taken a reality check when he found himself addressing a rally including several hundred neo-Nazis, but this conjuncture was not a deliberate collaboration.”
There were a few BNP scum at the free speech rally but they formed only a small percentage of the crowd and there was more like a dozen of them than ’several hundred neo-Nazis’.
Your account is a grotesque misrepresentation and deeply unfair to Peter. You really should either substantiate it or correct it.
Comment by Socialist — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
#100 Err maybe because eg the authors claim that Tatchells attack on a deeply reactionary and offensive MCB press release calling homosexuality “repugnant” is equivalent to saying “Muslims=Nazis” ?
Do you really want to defend such garbage or do you think its OK now on the Left to smear respected activists as the vilest of Islamophobes because they respond angrily to grossly offensive MCB statements ?
(I suggest you read post #2 for full details of that offensive press release in case you missed it).
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
“I doubt your average bigot who abuses a Muslim has much sympathy for the views of Peter Tatchell”
But that is the whole point. And you are quite wrong if you think the propaganda against Muslims does’nt revolve around the idea that their religion is uniquely backward and this makes them unfit to live in the UK (which is of course so marvelously progressive).
And I must say I’m completely baffled about how anyone can continue to pretend that this issue is to do with people being “hostile to Peter Tatchell”.
Comment by johng — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
#94 “When the vast majority of scholars agree on an interpretation, it becomes the orthodox. “
But Islam is an inherently devolved faith, whch multiple facets of segmentation.
In the hypothetical case that a view took majority agreemnt, it would still not be binding upon the minorityy, and often in Islamic history the variegation has been geographically based. So it would be quite probable that a different consensus could take hold in Western Europe, where social conditions are different, as opposed to the Mahgreb.
Incidently, although islam is a religion of the book, there is also further difefrentitaion, for example within the Sunni between scholars and sufis (although a sufi may be a scholar, and a scholar a sufi) and in the Shi’ia variant between the administratively minded scholar and the more mystical street savvy mullah. The role of the book tends to be of final arbiter, and actual social customs show considerable variation.
There has been a phenomenon of Islamic scholasticism, but this is culturally delimited, as it required literacy as a precondition, but also required that the literate class were not jaded into urban skepticism. if you wanted too create a laboratory experiment for how to create angry young scholastically minded peopple who referred to the word of the book as absolute truth, you could try having an urban educated Muslim population, that become anathemitised by mainstream society, and who are alienated by the government going to war against Muslim countries on the basis of lies and deciet, and double standards. Iin such circumstances you may find a minority become insulated from the skepticism of our society, and turn to the word of the book as a reaffirmation of identity.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
Andy
You state about the accusation that ‘the effect’ of Tatchell’s Sacranie article is to ‘create a basic equivalence between “Muslim=Nazi” and “Muslim=Evil”…’ that it is a ‘quite reasonable’ interpretation.
It is nothing of the sort for the following reasons:
1. Haritaworn et al simply assert an ‘effect’ - they provide no evidence *at all* for their claim that there is such an effect. In other words, they make it up - something that one would hope wouldn’t be good enough for an academic publication (but which unfortunately it isn’t in the least bit surprising that it is good enough).
2. Tatchell’s article contains the following statements: ‘The invitation to Sir Iqbal is a sad betrayal of liberal, non-homophobic Muslims’; ‘We support an alliance with the Muslim community’; ‘We urge an alliance with liberal and left Muslims’; ‘We urge you to withdraw your invitation to Sir Iqbal and the MCB, and instead invite a progressive Muslim speaker, such as Ziauddin Sardar, Sheikh Dr Muhammad Yusuf or Munira Mirza’; ‘We stand in solidarity with the Muslim community, against anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination.’ These statements render the claim that the effect of the article is to ‘create a basic equivalence between “Muslim=Nazi” and “Muslim=Evil”…’ ridiculous. Even if there’s some tortured postmodern justification for the claim (which would be empty - and yes, I’ve read the whole chapter), you don’t simply assert that the effect of a piece of writing is to create a basic equivalence between ‘Muslim=Nazi’, etc., without offering up your justification. Otherwise it’s mouthing off - and Haritaworn et al are lucky that Peter isn’t seeking legal redress.
3. That whole first section you cite seems like an argument, but actually it is not. It is a series of non sequiturs masquerading as a reasonable construction. For example: ‘The comparison with the BNP not only works to discredit the MCB, it also rhetorically equates the subjects and objects of racism by constructing white gays as the most oppressed group’. This is just grandstanding. There is no argument offered for the claim that Tatchell’s statement about the MCB ‘constructs white gays as the most oppressed group’. I can do this kind of stuff. Look: ‘Andy Newman’s utilisation of religious iconography in his criticism of Peter Tatchell’s politics functions to construct the alterity of alternative sexualities.’ It’s bollox.
I realise that there are serious political issues here. But there are two points: (a) nobody beyond a tiny cabal of slightly deranged ‘revolutionaries’ and wannabe ‘Respect’ councillors is going to take you guys seriously if you throw the Islamophobic insult around with such abandon that it becomes a parody of itself (which actually is pretty much the case already); (b) Peter Tatchell has been done a huge injustice by this essay: that is the case regardless of the substantive arguments about his politics, tactics, etc.
Comment by Jeremy Stangroom — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
Above at #88 Derek Wall made the following utterly ridiculous claim:
Yesterday, or the day before Derek posted this:
“Don’t suppose that Andy will admit that I am not an islamaphobe, though.”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4857#comment-163103
So let us look at the sum total of what I have written that Derek could possible be referring to:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4845#comment-162296
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4845#comment-162371
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4857#comment-163200
So I have never in any way implied that Derek is Islamophobic.
I did not say that the Green Left list was islamophobic, ,or that the Green Lleft is Islamophobic. I merely quoted a member of the Green Left (Barry Kade) saying that he had experienced Islamophobic comments ON the Green Left list, from a few individuals.
Now it is my genuinely held view, based upon my own experience, that the Green Party (although it may be improving) is structurally resistant to interaction with BME communities. So although it is an anti-racist party, in many areas it is a white middle class party, and as such liable to perpetuate liberal misconceptions about BME communities, and minority faiths.
That is not a criticism that is particularly hostile to the Green Party, it is a fraternal criticism among friends.
Yet not only has Derek misinterpreted my remarks as if Ii had accused him and the Green Left of Islamophobia, but also I have had Joe Heally, convenor o the Green Left, writing me off line making an official complaint, and asking me to stop “attacking” the Green Left. !!!
Where does this cycle stop? Do you think I should write formally to Socialist Resistance after Duncan Chappel accused those of us here critical of Tatchell of being homophobic?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4845#comment-162600
No, obviously the best thing to do is let it go, and realise that it is entirely legitimate fr comrades ot have difference sof opinion. And they should be debated without trying to suppress the discussion by tendentious accusation of “lies and smears”
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
For the record, I do not think that Derek Wall is Islamophobic, or that the Green Left is Islamophobic. In fact, they have both been on the right side on key issues such as support for the Palestinians, (and also other questions of imperialism, such as in Latin America).
I’m not sure who has actually called Derek islamophobic - but thats what he has interpreted someone as saying, and that matters.
There is also probably a difference between not recognizing islamophobia in some situations, and actively promoting it for a racist agenda.
And a definition of Islamophobia would also help! The term ‘homophobia’ from which it derives is also not that clear, as critics have usefully pointed out on this blog. ‘Homophobia’ reduces the heterosexist structures of contemporary capitalist society into a mere ‘phobia’ in individual heads.
‘Islamophobia’ combines this sort of imprecision with another layer of complexity. This is that are necessary criticisms of some aspects of the practice of Islam that must be made from the left. Islam is one of the worlds major patriachal religions, which have oppressive assumptions around gender and sexuality. Islam, like all religions, can be used to obscure the class struggle between labour and capital, and thus be used as a weapon of the rulers.
But western capitalism is now defining itself against a newly dehumanised Islamic ‘other’. We are therefore seeing the construction of a new ruling ideology that seeks to cement labour and capital in opposition to a new, terrifying and essentialised ‘enemy’. For want of a better word, we call this ‘islamophobia’. This is on both an international and domestic level. This also sees a shift in racist discourses beyond ‘race’ to ‘culture’. Thus EDL and BNP leaders will claim that ‘Islam is not a race’ to further claim their campaigns against Muslims cannot be racist. But we know the power relations at work, and that the targets will be Britain’s poorest working class communities, those from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds, who for long decades have done the hardest jobs for lowest pay, suffered the worst unemployment and housing, and a persistent rain of racist abuse and humiliation.
Both an imperialist offensive for oil and power in the middle east, against Iraq, Afghanistan and others, and a recession leading to a new scapegoating of ethnic minority groups in Europe are combining, and finding ideological justification through their construction of the ‘Islamic other’. This also attempts to appropriate our achievements on the left, our languages of secularism, and of sexual and gender equality, and deploy them against the new ‘other’ to be dehumanised.
How do we describe this? As ‘Islamophobia’? As racism? Of course the left will be confused as it develops its response to the new situation. Some will make the mistake of romanticisng Islam, and aligning themselves (intentionally or otherwise) with reactionary forces. Others will make the mistake of (intentionally or otherwise) aligning themselves with the imperialist warmongers, or racist Euro-chauvinists, in their imagined defence of common enlightenment values.
We must always try to see through the ideologies at work. The professional muslim-baiting industry is putting it about that ‘Islam is a religion of war of conquest’. I’m sure they can find scriptural basis for this in the Koran. But being a secular child of the enlightenment, I’m more into the evidence of my own eyes and experience than I am in interpreting scriptures or theology. With my own eyes, I can see that is the west, including Britain, that has brutally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, not the other way around! And the west has an official ideology of enlightenment secular rationalism, or the Christian gospels that include the ’sermon on the mount’! Yet still, with these pretty words, it drowns whole lands in blood! A historical materialist looks beyond the ideological descriptions, to what is really happening.
.
Comment by Barry Kade — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
#107
Jeremy, you say:
>”Haritaworn et al simply assert an ‘effect’ - they provide no evidence *at all* for their claim that there is such an effect. “
They offer it as their interpretation, i.e it is their sincrere opinion., they don’t offer it as anything other than an opinion, and therefore “assertion” is appropriate. Perhaps you mean that they should have provided argument to support that opinion, well the entire article is argument to that effect.
It is perhaps worth clarifying that in standard English saying that something has a meaning “in effect”, does not mean that it has a material outcome “an effect”, but that the interpretation offered is the substantive meaning “in effect”.
Tatchell said: “‘We urge you to withdraw your invitation to Sir Iqbal and the MCB, and instead invite a progressive Muslim speaker, such as Ziauddin Sardar, Sheikh Dr Muhammad Yusuf or Munira Mirza’;”
Well there is some irony here because a key theme of Ziauddin Sardar is that people have multiple identities, and that commnities should be allowed to speak for themselves. As such I am sure that Sardar would be uncomfortable at being proposed as an alterntaivice to a representative of the most mainstream Muslim advocacy organisation in the UK, the MCB. The MCB speak for many more Muslims that Sardar does, notwithstandinig that Tatchell has identified an Islamic scholar acceptable to the Guardian readinig middle classes.
Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for Sardar.
I am not familiar with Sheikh Dr Muhammad Yusuf, but wikipedia tells me he lives in Uzbekistan, so he wouldn’t be an obvious choice to speak for British Muslims.
Munira Murza is not, as far as I know, an observing Muslim, she is a former member of the revolutionary Communit Party, and a supporter of Spiked on-line. As such she fits in with the model of the rescued Muslim woman, who has escaped into mainstream “superior” Western society
You say: “There is no argument offered for the claim that Tatchell’s statement about the MCB ‘constructs white gays as the most oppressed group’. “
But there is. the argument raised, and you read this on comments at Herry’s Palce al the time, is that Muslims are allowed to say things about gays, that people would not be allowed to say about blacks. thius creates the impression of mutual exclusing oppressed groups, in which multi-culturalism is priveleging Muslims. Its political correctness gone mad!
Notwisthstanding you brave effort, what OUtrage! did was select a list of putative Muslim alternatives, and therefore to lay preconditions to Muslims about who could speak for them. That is not how diversity works. The implication is that the mainstream choice of the MCB is beyond the pale, and only these special Muslims are OK.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Andy
How many political parties in the recent Euro’s had ‘SAY NO TO RACISM’ on the actual ballot papers - Oh shit just 1 - The Green Party!
Comment by Roy — 9 November, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
#111
And you point is?
I agree that the Green party is an anti-racist party.
I don’t think it is very structurally well adjusted to interact with BME communities and minority faiths.
Am I so far wrong? How come time and again in areas where there is a majority BME population the green Party stand white, male candidates? That doesn’t mean the Greens are racist, just that they are not very good at overcoming their limitations in diversity, for a number of reasons.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:01 am
#112 A big sweeping statement - which implies another is?
And how about working class communities in general? Few working class people are members of political parties of any discription!
Comment by Roy — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:12 am
By the way my point is that at least we clearly stated what we stood for! It may have cost us a few reactionary votes but then again we gained a few as well.
Comment by Roy — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:15 am
#112
“which implies another is?”
Well yeah, I can think of several parties that in my expereince are better at structural engagement with BME communites than the Green Party: in England, ,Labour, the Lib Dems, the Tories, and Respect, spring to mind.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Could you explain what you mean by ’structural engagement with BME’? Or is it something called tokenism in another guise?
Comment by Roy — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:20 am
I mean talking to community and faith leaders, enagaging with religious and BME voluntary sector organisations, encouraging dialogue. Inviting speakers to events, encouraging participation in think tanks, etc etc.
Expecting your activists to participate in BME and religious social calendar
Asking yourself how you can encourage more BME and faith oriented activists and candidates to join and share your values.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:24 am
OK - about the old open UK Green Left List (not the new membership list).
Some people have been upset that I have referred to a debate on this list in my postings on this blog. Sorry to cause any offence. I deliberately did not give anybodies names or alias’s, or make direct quotations - and this is how it should remain. But we can give our general impressions of a list discussion which folowed the suggestion that the greens should approach Salma Yaqoob in the aftermath of the Respect split.
It is legitimate to report that there was a ‘discussion thread’ of some 30-40 messages long conducted under the ’subject heading’ of ‘Salam Yaqoob’. Under this subject heading of one particular woman’s name a discussion was held which wondered far and wide over Islam’s faults, even mentioning ‘forced marriages’ and female genital mutilation. Allegations were made that Salma Yaqoob was in favour of enforcing the veil, contrary to her real politics.
I am happy to report that there were many socked responses to this ignorant discussion, and many Green Left participants welcomed the proposal to approach Salma. Many also expressed shock at what seemed like an online witch hunt on this list, singling out a Muslim woman for such scrutiny that is not applied to other green allies or members.
Was this ‘Islamophobia’? Well, its a difficult term, as i have mentioned above. But I did experience it as a crude and insensitive episode, which involved the stigmatization and sterotyping of a respected left wing Muslim woman activist. I thought it showed the limits of the kind of shrill and militant atheism or secularism that prioritises the struggle against religion above all else. I think it represented a current on the left which obstructs alliance with Britians black and ethnic minority populations.
But I want to stress that this did not represent the majority response on the Green left list. And it was only individuals writing on an e-list! Not official policy statements.
The correct response should be to say: We recognize the kind of abstract militant secularism on the left, which deployed in some contexts can collaborate with the rights agenda of demonization and dehumanisation of Muslims. Some advance this militant secularism without awareness of the contexts of class, race and imperial power, in a way which damages the left. All sections of the left, including the green left and the gay left need to have this discussion, without unfairly calling comrades either ‘homophobes’ or ‘islamophobes’.
And of course, now both the Green Left and the Green Party has accepted the truth about Salma Yaqoobs real and progressive politics. Now I hope we can all look forward to building the kind of alliances between all sections of the exploited and oppressed that we need to confront capitalism’s combined ecological and economic crisis.
Comment by Barry Kade — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:26 am
Are you then saying that the New Labour, Tories and Lib Dems while voting for racist law are not being tokenistic? Seems that they are to me.
What is positive about Salma Yaqoob call for action over postal vote rigging is precisely a recognition that their are some that like to take it on themselves to ‘represent’ communities when it all about execising political control over, in particular women.
Socialist should be faith aware and insure their organisations are inclusive of all parts of the community - Unity is Strength!
Comment by Roy — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:43 am
Jeremy Stangroom thinks that accusations of Islamophobia are in some sense a bit of a joke. He provides no evidence for this beyond his own rather tedious prejudices about the left who do not think the subject a joke. He also throws around accusations of ‘post-modernism’ and the like, which also boil down to little more then conventionally wise attitudes of the day, togeather with a lot of faux ‘disapointment’ in the decline of academic standards (exactly what standards are being invoked beyond his commonplace cliches and stereotypes is unclear). Its on this basis that he thinks its wrong for anyone to have a serious discussion about the limitations of the strand of liberal thought he has come to represent. It also allows him not to engage at all with a single argument any of the people he criticises make. His entire argument boils down to saying that anyone who disagrees with him is talking ‘bollox’. And thats it.
Comment by johng — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:45 am
oh an on another note, many of us might feel that this or that article (particularly ones critical of what we say) do us a disservice. The usual proceedure is to write a reply. Not to try and get such material removed from the public domain. Especially not if we have held up an absolute principle of free speech. And again this is not an argument that expresses any ‘hatred’ of Peter Tatchell at all. Its what used to be called a fair point.
Comment by johng — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:48 am
This is a problem that has been growing since the defeats of the working class and the idea of socialism since the 1980’s. In the spaces left by the retreat of working class solidarity grew all sorts of ‘identity’ politics, as the working class and the left began to fragment. One result was signified by the emergence of the group ‘Outrage’ amongst the LGBT movement. Other movements saw their own equivalent. Amongst the racially oppressed, Islamic identities grew at the expense of secular national liberation movements abroad and black and asian youth movements at home.
In the miners strike we had a powerful and effective campaign - “Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners”. http://lesbiansandgayssupporttheminers.org/
During that year of strike, whole villages pulled together,lives were transformed, miners welfare halls becoming like communes, cooking collectively for all, as the needs of solidarity created support networks wider than the nuclear family. Collectives of village women began to picket as well as cook, and lead the strike. Lesbian and Gay strike support groups were welcomed. The outcome of this sort of intervention, and countless others, transformed the Labour and Trades Union movement in Britain, and won it over as a great ally in fighting discrimination and for LGBT rights. Homophobic oppression had long been a feature within mining communities, along with the wider working class and indeed the organised trades union and labour movement. But with these tactics we struck hammer blows against that oppression, and forced it into a retreat. In the miners strike, we did not demand that mining communities abandon their homophobia before we would deliver our vanloads of solidarity. Our support was unconditional - as it should always be with oppressed and exploited people fighting back. As someone has pointed out, we did not go onto miners demonstrations with the placard: “Thatcher, stop attacking Miners - Miners stop attacking Queers’, in the way ‘Outrage’ did with the issue of Palestinian rights! So we have an example of the superiority of unified class politics in overcoming oppression, when compared to identity politics. However, the miners lost, and this defeat, along with that of other groups of workers fragmented the left and the workers movement. If we did not retreat into private life altogether, we retreated into socialist sects, or into a myriad of other ‘identities’ and single issue social movements.
At the end of the 1980’s, the LGBT movements ranks had been swelled by the massive wave of protest against the Tories Section 28, but as this tide ebbed, two LGBT activist organizations began to take shape - ‘Stonewall’ and ‘Outrage’. Despite taking its name from the Stonewall riots, the former was a conventional ‘reformist’ lobbying group. “Outrage” promised a radical alternative. But really it consisted of two things. A continuation of the shrill agitational tactics of the 1960’s campus activists, but in new conditions. This is imposed on all relatively small groups who have to act on their own, without mobilising wider forces - in all sorts of social movements. A routine of media stunts and sensations, of press releases, pickets and placard waving, interventions to cause ideological provocation, and the odd token direct action - from Greenpeace, to Tatchell to Anjem Choudary, to Ian Bones Class War - many of us have played this game!
Combined with this standard repertoire of ‘radical’ tactics was a focused message. “Outrage” remained a single issue campaign, tightly focused on a series of winnable demands for LGBT rights. It was obviously a world away from the sprawling revolutionary agendas of the Gay Liberation Fronts of the late 60′ and 1970’s, with their rambling proclamations of solidarity with other oppressed groups and practice of confronting multiple oppressions. In a way, “Outrage” had the same agenda as its reformist twin Stonewall, but choose more radical media tactics to push for this. Most importantly, ‘Outrage’ stood as a militant form of identity politics, celebrating and consolidating a (predominantly gay male?) identity in the face of homophobic oppression and the singular struggle against it.
“Outrage” became hated by the establishment, both Gay and Straight, when Tatchell and others directly confronted the homophobia of the Church of England, with a series of high profile stunts by daring individuals. But he became a national treasure as soon as he turned those tactics on others, on those oppressors who were also out of favour with the UK ruling class agenda. Robert Mugabe, Islamicists, Afro-Caribbean musicians with homophobic lyrics have all rightly been attacked. But one thing hasnt changed - and thats the shrill tactics of small groups of single issue activists. But when deployed without attention to the intersections of race, class, sexuality, gender and imperialism, they can have mixed consequences.
At the same time, oppressed black and asian people have retreaded into the church and the mosque. We are surrounded by the clamour of single identity politics, each with their own leaderships, provocatuers and ideologues.
Od course the real answer is a resurgence of CLASS BASED politics. Then we get out of this morass of cultural relativism caused by single issue identity politics. Only on the basis of uniting the working class, and raising its struggles into a unified challenge to capital can we unite the different oppressed groups. From the standpoint of uniting the global working class, we challenge all forms of racism, sexism, homophobia and all ethno-religious discrimination.
In retrospect, a LGBT mobilization and few more placards placards with more simple and direct slogans like ‘Lesbians and Gays Against the War’ or “Lesbians and Gays Support the Palestinians” would have been of use in the past decade of mass activity stirred by imperialism in the middle east.
as the great but temporary ri
Comment by Barry Kade — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:49 am
#119
“Are you then saying that the New Labour, Tories and Lib Dems while voting for racist law are not being tokenistic? Seems that they are to me.”
They are mass parties, who have contradictory approaches to immigration, it is also a big assumtption on your part that racist laws don’t have support from BME communities.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:53 am
#124 So glad my party is anti racist then!
Comment by Roy — 10 November, 2009 @ 12:56 am
I did this in another thread, but I want to recommend Scott Long’s interesting article from Contemporary Politics. It offers an extended and documented critique of the truthfulness of Outrage!s claims about Iran, in the context of how LGBT politics has dealt with Islam and immigration in the UK; using Nancy Fraser’s distinction between politics of redistribution and “recognition” as an analytical frame. It can be downloaded (I think this is the right link) at
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?nwemjmornyy
Here’s one point from the article:
‘the incessant insistence that Muslim communities accede to the political agendas of LGBT identities actually forecloses politics altogether. It fences off the arena of shared interests and temporary junctures that a “redistributive” politics, attentive to specific gains rather than discursive generalities, might open. Absolute demands replace dialogues. And the demands neglect disparities of power.
‘Lesbians and gays in Britain have accumulated cultural capital and political influence. They confront—increasingly explicitly—British Muslim communities that, since 9/11 and 7/7, feel steadily more besieged, not only by daily prejudice but by anti-immigrant hysteria and a security state (Pierce, 2008). If white gay men in Britain should remember anything from the last forty years of their history, it is the fear of arrest or harassment because they look or dress differently. This should be the basis of a qualified common ground, in which LGBT activists can actually cooperate with embattled Muslims against police misconduct and policies of repression. After all, a dress code that can be used against a women in niqab can target a drag queen next. Failing to recognize such potential understanding is not only a lapse of imagination, it is a collapse of politics—a failure to be political, to think beyond identity into possibility. And curiously, the LGBT isolationism of groups like Outrage! could profit a great deal from advocates in the Middle East—in Egypt, say, where secularists, including the very few ‘gay’ activists, have cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood on the shared ground of opposing the state’s control over the body, and a regime of torture.”
Comment by CraigA — 10 November, 2009 @ 1:49 am
I would also just like to inquire if Peter Tatchell and his supporters would be willing to respond on this level of debate, which is also represented by the postings here, rather than by screaming in response to every criticism that he is being “smeared.”
Comment by CraigA — 10 November, 2009 @ 1:50 am
I have a lot of sympathy with Barry’s analysis. Outrage! for all its radical oeuvre was essentially a reformist organisation fighting for traditional civil rights agenda. As I pointed out earlier on, one of the first major political fights fort inside Outrage! early on was over the very issue of solidarity action – with the Tatchell and friends wining the vote to limit Outrages campaigning activities to gay rights.
However I must disagree Barry’s characterisation of the early Gay Liberationist as having a “rambling proclamations of solidarity with other oppressed groups and practice of confronting multiple oppressions.” Gay Liberations had a clear idea why they supported other oppressed groups, arguing that they were all interlinked (although these explanations tended to be ideological rather than material). Indeed the solidarity work of Lesbian and Gay Support the Miners can draw back it pedigree to the GLF.
Nor I would like to see a return to classical class politics. It had the tendency to be as one dimensional as “identity” politics and was often as blind to issues around gender, race and sexuality. Rather I would like to see a renaissance to more sophisticated materialist explanation such Marxist-Feminism. Marxist-Feminists see all form of oppression and discrimination as materially produced, with all classes and identities have as subtle deferent relationship with the production of surplus value.
On thing I certainly agree with Barry however, and that is the need for an organised LGBT left. Indeed it strucks me that the this issue would lend itself to an alliance of LGBT socialist from varied groups and none. It also may help facilitate wider left unity.
Comment by Richard Farnos — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:08 am
“Ray, at (70), you seemed to be arguing in II’s hysterical style, that’s why I made the comparison.
You compared your opponent in this debate MMN with those who supported the holocaust and nazi Germany.”
I didn’t accuse MMN of supporting the Nazis. I used a historical example to demonstrate that refusing to have solidarity with another oppressed minority because some of its members are homophobic might lead ultimately to their extermination by oppressors that both minorities share in common. I’m extending Tatchells refusal to debate with or unite with the MCB against the Nazi BNP and MMN’s support of this to its logical conclusion.
“I’ve never met you and I have no idea whether you are a gay man or not as you say at post (80) . Your sexuality is none of my business, nothing to do with this debate and nothing to do with my describing your post at (70) as “hysterical.”
I can’t see any possible connection.”
Quite honestly, I was surprised at your response because even in disagreement I’ve always thought you didn’t dismiss others using insults. The reason I don’t think that calling anyone “hysterical” is constructive is that the word has a very negative history associated with medicalising and marginalising the opinions of women. It’s used against gay men for a similar reason. I avoid using it for those reasons and even though you weren’t aware of my sexual orientation or the words connotations it’s not helpful to a political debate to describe someone as hysterical or use other insults.
Comment by Ray — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:04 am
It’s ironic that you criticise me because you assumed I was calling MMN a Nazi when MMN agrees with Tatchell’s comparison of the MCB, the largest representative Muslim organisation in the UK, with the BNP.
Comment by Ray — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:31 am
Ray,
It’s a pity that you feel offended, but I think my use of the word “hysterical” was appropriate in the circumstances.
To draw analogies with nazi Germany when we are debating among comrades on the left is so. utterly inaccurate that the word “hysterical” is, I think, a fair description.
I wonder if there’s a wider political context to this debate?
Do the attacks on the Green Party - of which Tatchell is a member - and the Green Left, signal that the Respect Party is not now seeking an alliance with them?
Is this what the “get Tatchell” stuff is really all about?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 10 November, 2009 @ 6:05 am
Andy at #110 - “Notwisthstanding you brave effort, what OUtrage! did was select a list of putative Muslim alternatives, and therefore to lay preconditions to Muslims about who could speak for them. That is not how diversity works. The implication is that the mainstream choice of the MCB is beyond the pale, and only these special Muslims are OK.”
So now we have it, the MCB should only be allowed to speak for Muslims, asking for other voices to be heard is bad. And if the MCB makes grossly offensive and reactionary press releases about homosexuality as at #2 it should not be strongly criticised.
Its a good thing Andy’s bizarre views on how to approach reaction in religious leadership were not around in the past, I guess the fight for gay and women’s rights might have taken a bit longer.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 8:58 am
‘Do the attacks on the Green Party - of which Tatchell is a member - and the Green Left, signal that the Respect Party is not now seeking an alliance with them?’
No it shows Andy making it more difficult for the Green Party and Respect to work together, I have worked very hard to promote greater cooperation btw the GPEW and Respect, its a great shame that Andy is making this more difficult.
Comment by Derek Wall — 10 November, 2009 @ 8:59 am
‘Do the attacks on the Green Party - of which Tatchell is a member - and the Green Left, signal that the Respect Party is not now seeking an alliance with them?’
No Karl, it does not. Your imagination is getting the better of you. There is no wider political agenda playing itself out here. Our commitment to do what we can to help the election of left candidates, including Green party candidates, remains as firm as ever.
Comment by Ger Francis — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:00 am
It’s becoming clear that some people are trying to stir trouble between the Greens and Respect. It’s obvious why they might want to do so, but Derek, you are so completely, utterly wrong in how you’re both reading and interpreting what Andy has said.
Comment by external bulletin — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:16 am
“Its a good thing Andy’s bizarre views on how to approach reaction in religious leadership were not around in the past, I guess the fight for gay and women’s rights might have taken a bit longer.”
If unambiguous support for “gay and women’s rights” as defined by you had been made a precondition for solidarity with oppressed groupings the struggles for civil rights in the United States and the overthrow of apartheid in South Africa might have taken a bit longer.
Comment by lone nut — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:39 am
“So now we have it, the MCB should only be allowed to speak for Muslims,”
Only you have said that, no one else here. The MCB is the largest organisation representing Muslims in the UK. Muslims are being scapegoated by the Nazi BNP. Therefore it’s absurd to exclude them from anti-nazi work.
“…asking for other voices to be heard is bad.”
That’s exactly what we’re calling for which makes it all the more incredible that Tatchell is ignoring the input of LGBT Muslims.
“And if the MCB makes grossly offensive and reactionary press releases about homosexuality as at #2 it should not be strongly criticised.”
Comparing the MCB to the Nazi BNP is not criticism it is dishonest scaremongering and Islamophobic. It is the worst kind of sensationalist propaganda that does nothing to challenge homophobia and just adds to the scapegoating of the majority of Muslims whether they are homophobic or not. Tatchell may believe he is representing LGBT’s but he doesn’t speak for me, nor LGBT Muslims and nor probably thousands of other LGBT’s in the UK. You claim that it’s Tatchells right to attack the MCB in such a dishonest manner but then accuse his critics on this blog of trying to silence him. So which is it, freedom of speech or censorship that you are advocating? You can’t have it both ways.
Didn’t Tatchell join a march to defend our right to criticise him and the MCB’s right to criticise homosexuality? If he believes it’s ok to print racist cartoons then why has a critical chapter in a book put his nose out of joint? There appear to be double standards in operation here.
Comment by Ray — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:48 am
I think Jeremy Stangroom and Moremedianonsense have done a fine job of exposing the (at best) inconsistencies and confusions and (at worst) the dishonesty, smears and homophobia that underlie these attacks on Peter Tatchell, but I didn’t want to let this pass:
“oh an on another note, many of us might feel that this or that article (particularly ones critical of what we say) do us a disservice. The usual proceedure is to write a reply. Not to try and get such material removed from the public domain. ”
Just to reiterate: Tatchell did respond to the article in the manner suggested here, pointing out the ways in which the article was wrong and dishonest. He did not threaten a legal suit and is not pursuing one. He did not cause the publication to go out of print. In fact, his response was so persuasive that the publishers voluntarily and without coercion published an apology distancing themselves from the chapter in question. I think they behaved very honourably and probaly saved their prfessional reputation by so doing. Both Peter T and the publishers have been quite clear on these facts. Johng knows this and so his comment can be nothing more than just another attempt to smear Peter T. It is very ugly to watch.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:50 am
“Didn’t Tatchell join a march to defend our right to criticise him and the MCB’s right to criticise homosexuality? If he believes it’s ok to print racist cartoons then why has a critical chapter in a book put his nose out of joint? There appear to be double standards in operation here.”
See above.
By the way, the cartoons that I saw were not raacist. Most ofn them were supportive of Islam in various ways. One paralleled Mohammad with Christ, for example, and another simply represented ‘Mohammad’ as a beaming teenage boy in a classroom. I wish people would check these things before mouthing off.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:52 am
“if unambiguous support for “gay and women’s rights” as defined by you had been made a precondition for solidarity with oppressed groupings”
Even you can presumeably see a difference between calling for “unambiguous support” and calling for the avoidance of the kind of openly offensive attacks on homosexuality seen in the MCB press release at #2.
Which is the whole point - the MCB has openly in the past campaigned against gay rights, what on earth is wrong with Tatchell responding strongly to such attacks ?
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:53 am
External Bulletin and Ger Francis, the only attacks on the Green Party and on Green Left on this thread have come from the Respect Party.
It’s not my imagination, read through the comments yourselves.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 10 November, 2009 @ 9:56 am
MMN, if you believe that somebody stating that they believe homosexuality as “morally wrong” amounts to an “openly offensive attack on homosexuality” you most certainly are calling for unambigous support - you are insisting that they believe in homosexuality being morally right. And if you try and prevent people from participating in broad campaighs against racism and fascism because they believe homosexuality to be morally wrong there definitely is something wrong with your response.
Comment by lone nut — 10 November, 2009 @ 10:26 am
“MMN, if you believe that somebody stating that they believe homosexuality as “morally wrong” amounts to an “openly offensive attack on homosexuality” you most certainly are calling for unambigous support - you are insisting that they believe in homosexuality being morally right. ”
No, you are simply asking people not to make statements making such offensive claims about homosexuality. If they do make such appalling statements, you are reserving your right to protest about them. Would you form a political alliance with an organisation that had issued a statement saying that Islam was ‘morally wrong’? You see where that leads, don’t you?
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 10:31 am
#141 - Have you read the press release at #2 ?
“These plans represent a significant departure from the liberal wish to openly accommodate a small section of society to a policy of thrusting and imposing lifestyles and values on others which they find repugnant. ”
“Any teaching in schools which presents homosexual practices as equivalent to marriage or in a morally neutral way is profoundly offensive and totally unacceptable.”
Its one thing to reiterate a Muslims right to personally believe homosexual practices are immoral, its quite another to hinder gays trying to obtain their rights by openly opposing them.
Comment by MoreMediaNonsense — 10 November, 2009 @ 10:38 am
“No, you are simply asking people not to make statements making such offensive claims about homosexuality.”
In other words, you are demanding that they do not express their viewpoint on sexual morality, while of course placing no such berufsverbot on yourself or your organisation. And I don’t particularly see why a religious person saying that they find homosexuality or anything else morally wrong is deemed to be “appalling”. It is rather what I would expect. And I would have no objection to forming a joint campaign against racism or fascism with people who had an ethical, moral or theological critique of Islam - why on earth would I?
Comment by lone nut — 10 November, 2009 @ 10:43 am
“And I don’t particularly see why a religious person saying that they find homosexuality or anything else morally wrong is deemed to be “appalling”.”
Which is probably why you find it difficult to understand the progressive position on this. If being gay is deemed ‘immoral’ that has serious consequences for gay people. Nobody is ‘demanding’ that anybody keeps their views, offensive or otherwise, to themselves. We are simply reserving the right to criticise forcefully organisations that promote reactionary policies or positions on sexuality or any other issues.
And you got very twisty in the final part of your post, but I think you are saying that you would not have any objection in principle to a political alliance with an organisation that considers Islam to be immoral (actually, to make the analogy work we should really say that they find promotion of Islam ‘profoundly offensive and totally unacceptable’). There is such a political organisation in the UK. You know the one.
Comment by John Meredith — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:05 am
UPON THIS ROCK I SHALL BUILD MY CHURCH
Thanks for sharing
Comment by cheao plumbing and heating materials — 10 November, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Socialist- If you are the same “Socialist” who contributed to the previous thread on this issue, any chance you could answer my question regarding your attack on myself and others being “deceitful”?
Comment by Armchair — 10 November, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
“Would you form a political alliance with an organisation that had issued a statement saying that Islam was ‘morally wrong’?”
Well, there’s plenty of stuff on the National Secular Society website that comes close to saying that. A few years back the NSS issued a financial appeal on the basis that Britain was “under sustained threat from a resurgent Islam”.
Terry Sanderson posted a link the other day to a press report about an unrepresentative Islamist extremist applauding the Fort Hood killings, under the heading “America discovers it has a Muslim problem after all”.
Or take GALHA, whose secretary George Broadhead has expressed his annoyance at the phrase “moderate Muslims”, demanding “what does a moderate Muslim do, other than excuse the real nutters by adhering to this barmy doctrine?”
However, if a rightwing government launched an attack on LGBT rights - by proposing to reinstate Section 28, for example - and a campaign was formed to resist that, I don’t think anyone would propose that people like Sanderson and Broadhead should be excluded from the campaign because of their disgraceful and offensive views on Muslims.
Comment by Anon — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
What gets to me about this debate is that after all the fireworks are over, the hard left will continue to be surprised that ordinary people have no time for them. Why would anyone want to back people whose main activities seem to be infighting, attacking human rights activists and sophistry? Especially when they have done sod all to help the workers, the poor, even the minorities you latch onto are left in the cold as you cosy up to rich businessmen and reactionary clerics.
Why don’t you all just sod off and let “the people” organise for themselves? We couldn’t do much worse than you, and as Tatchell’s activism has proved we can do a lot better.
Comment by badnewswade — 10 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
“Would you form a political alliance with an organisation that had issued a statement saying that Islam was ‘morally wrong’?”
I can also imagine any number of black Christian organisation saying exactly that, but this would be no reason to exclude them from a movement against racism.
Comment by lone nut — 10 November, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
we can all take this or that individual action or piece of writing by Tatchell and praise it as progressive or supportive of Palestinian rights but he does often, and to my mind on balance, bring succour and support to zionists and the war party and he drifts into barely concealed racism. His Comment is free pieces titled Islamists betray Palestine back in Oct 2007 and Dreams of solidarity in Nov 2006 were particularly arrogant and patronising with Tatchell supporting a Gay Pride march in Jerusalem and taking it upon himself to speak for all of the lesbian and gay Arab world thus:
It has had the immensely positive effect of promoting an unprecedented public debate about gay issues in Israel and its Middle Eastern neighbours; giving comfort and hope to isolated, downcast queers throughout the Arab world
A gay pride march in zionist occupied territory where ethnic cleansing continues apace? Where did he get that idea? Consultation across the middle east?
His dismissiveness towards various islamists is also reductionist and downright wrong sharing as it does a space with Engage and Harrys Place in hooking gay rights onto an islamophobic and imperialist agenda.
Comment by levi9909 — 11 November, 2009 @ 11:43 am
#127 - *On thing I certainly agree with Barry however, and that is the need for an organised LGBT left. Indeed it strucks me that the this issue would lend itself to an alliance of LGBT socialist from varied groups and none. It also may help facilitate wider left unity.*
Anybody interested or got any suggestions ?
Comment by Queer Leftie — 13 November, 2009 @ 10:21 am