While world attention is focused on the Middle East, we shouldn’t forget that in Iran and elsewhere being gay is a capital offense. Via the Daily Beast:
The tragic hanging of two “sodomites” in Iran may seem, in theory, like an obvious cause for U.S. concern and U.S. action. … Yet in practice, those most attentive to LGBT concerns may be the least eager to pick this fight.”
There are some interesting political double shuffles going on as well. The article notes:
When Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them.
But certain liberal bedrocks, fearing the appearance of hawkishness, have kept mum or worse. Some observations (from earlier this year) on the matter, from Legal Insurrection.
Israel, of course, remains the only Middle Eastern state where gays can live their lives freely.
More. And here at home: Sanitizing terror: Has the press distorted Islamic radical’s crusade against gay men? Clearly so.
24 Comments for “More Iranian Horrors”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Israel, of course, remains the only Middle Eastern state where gays can live their lives freely.
The Israeli equivalent of the “religious right” is scandalized, of course. The ultra-Orthodox) are a minority and have little political power in that country, unlike the “religious right” in our country.
However, Israel is far from perfect. Israel does not recognize civil law marriage for Israelis, straight or LGBT, and marriage is controlled by Orthodox religious authorities. Mixed couples, same-sex couples, and anyone who wants a non-religious marriage must, accordingly, marry outside of Israel. Adoption by same-sex couples is limited. But Israel has broad anti-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians, with limited exemptions for religious organizations, and aggressively counters bullying in schools.
When Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them.
I’m surprised that conservative Christian’s heads aren’t exploding with regularity. The folks who applaud Ugandan and Kenyan oppression and think that Putin is a defender of Christian morality, are suddenly concerned about gay rights in Iran? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
But then again, my husband points out that hard-core social conservatives will be safe if there is a zombie apocalypse, zombies being partial to eating brains.
posted by Houndentenor on
The situation for gay people in Israel is more or less what it is for gay people in the US. Some rights and not others and safe to dangerous to be out depending on where you are and who you are with.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think that’s right, Houndentenor.
Yehuda, one of the kids who hung out in our house when the kids were teenagers, is living in Israel now.
I gather that “Gay? Fine by me!” is the prevailing attitude in Tel Aviv and Haifa, in the military and in the secular settlements. Jerusalem, which has a high concentration of ulta-Orthodox, is a mixed bag. A number of the ultra religious settlements can be downright dangerous. Attitudes apparently differ among the various ethnic groups (remember that Israel is a country of immigrants, like our own) but that should settle out in a generation.
Israel, for all its ins and outs, has as good a record as most of Europe and the United States on most issues, and is ahead on others. It led the United States on decriminalization of sodomy (16 years ahead) and open military service (18 years ahead), and has solid anti-discrimination laws without widespread “religious exemption”.
Although gays and lesbians (like mixed-marriage couples and non-religious couples) cannot marry under Israeli law, Israel grants reasonably complete relationship recognition to gays and lesbians who marry outside the country, pretty much on the same basis as it recognizes straight couples who marry outside the country.
Israel is certainly way ahead of most other countries in the region. The best that can be said is that some of the countries in the region (e.g. Jordan and to some extent Lebanon) have decriminalized consensual sodomy. Of course, we have no business looking too far down our noses about that, since it took a Supreme Court decision, reversing a relatively recent decision, to accomplish that, and many states still have sodomy laws on the books.
posted by Houndentenor on
As an American (and a Texan at that) I can’t be too critical of countries and states that are moving in the right direction, even if they aren’t as progressive as I’d like them to be. Israel is pretty good. I have been told by quite a few people that as a gay man Tel Aviv is the place to visit, not Jerusalem. (Besides, those Israeli soldiers are HAWT! sorry, couldn’t help it.) Israel has also allowed openly gay soldiers to serve for decades now, so they were way ahead of us on that one. Maybe Stephen was assuming the conservative strawman that liberals don’t support Israel? Most do. Not all, but most. As for me, I spent more time in temple while I lived in nyc than most of my Jewish friends and for that was dubbed an honorary Jew. I am still friends with my old rabbi (actually he’s not that old) who posts very interesting things about what’s going on over there.
posted by Francis on
As a reader of the Daily Dish, and yes, I’ll confess, a left-leaner on social issues, I take no exception to Israel’s gay rights stance. Merely how Netenyahu’s government is dealing with the Palestinians, especially in Gaza. Not that Hamas isn’t complicit in the whole mess.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Obama includes LGBT rights in foreign policy and Stephen’s cohorts bitch about ‘rainbow interventionism’.
Obama doesn’t bomb Iran for doing what certain GOP folks would applaud and Stephen bitches about liberals.
Par for the course… Instead of instigating a constructive dialogue, just another rock throwing drive-by.
posted by rusty on
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/10/temporary-marriages-can-fix-premarital-sex-epidemic-and-nearly-20-percent-of-iranians-are-gay-says-a-government-study/
posted by Jorge on
“Iran’s cooperation also is seen as essential to managing the chaos in Iraq and the Islamic State. With U.S. airstrikes against the Sunni militants, on-off (now definitely off) support of Iraq’s Shiite (ex-)Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the possible disintegration of Iraq, this cooperation—or at least not overt opposition—is surely of more strategic importance than the latest human rights abuse.”
Even some of the hawks agree with that, albeit mainly out of a stubborn refusal to seek political gain. It doesn’t mean they support regime change in Iran any less, but what are the chances of achieving that during an Obama presidency?
“When Iran persecutes gay people, conservatives in the United States suddenly become enamored of gay rights—and bash the Obama administration for not doing enough to defend them.”
1) I see nothing in the way of an example in this article of anyone either supporting gay rights or bashing the Obama adminsitration for not doing enough to defend gay rights, past or present.
And I know why. The only Republican I am aware of who has ever called out Iran for being against gay rights is Rick Santorum.
2) What this article has done instead is lied. Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is neither at the top of any list of conservatives or someone who “suddenly became enamored of gay rights.” By by now she has a longstanding record of being pro-gay rights within the United States Congress. Ah, yes, she even supports gay marriage. They have tried to smear one of the more moderate Republicans in Congress by trying to suggest she is doing something atypical and fake. The blatentness of the lie causes me some doubt about #1, but I suspect they are trying to hide the real atypical pattern by trying to lie about the consistent pattern.
Digging deeper, this article is pure junk.
I can’t even find the word “sex” in that “zealous opponent of LGBT equality” Robert George’s testimony (link to a link from the Daily Beast’s article), much less anything remotely related to homosexuality, but definitely testimony on executions.
Now what did this Rep. Smith (who a Yahoo search reveals opposed the UN recognizing the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission) have to say to this same group’s representative when it was Rep. Smith’s turn to question the witness panel. Nothing! Mr. Alizadeh from the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission was the only witness he ignored outright.
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen ignored Mr. Alizadeh, too (hmm!). We don’t even know who invited his group.
3) Now that we’ve established the that premise of Republican or conservative outrage over Iran at the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago had nothing to do with gay rights and that the Daily Beast outright lied in suggesting any Republican or conservative even noticed even noticed, I hope every person with a brain realizes that conservatives and hawks are and have long been quite passionate when it comes to international human rights abuses.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I hope every person with a brain realizes that conservatives and hawks are and have long been quite passionate when it comes to international human rights abuses.
I suppose, like Bill Clinton’s infamous “it”, it all depends on how you define “conservatives and hawks”, Jorge. Social conservatives have been anything but “passionate” when it comes to calling out Uganda, Kenya, Belize, Jamaica and Russia over suppression of gays and lesbians.
posted by Jorge on
Bill Clinton’s famous “is”, Tom.
So I have a beef with definitions and I get it turned around on me. I thought I was being as broad yet specific as possible.
Ah, but that’s why you added in “social conservatives”. Well, there are people who are both social conservatives and hawks (ahem), yet not even the hawks have been passionate about any of the countries that have been named. At best, they have agreed to an unspoken alliance with the liberals whom they are friendly with–a dynamic I that I view very pessimistically (I expect more from such partnerships).
posted by Houndentenor on
There is indeed a problem among some in the left in which horrible human rights are dismissed due to “cultural relativism”. I find this appalling since I believe in universal human rights. It is definitely not most liberals much less all. Just a loony fringe.
As for Iran, I have no idea what we do about that. We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran and we certainly aren’t going to go to war with them to free the gay people from tyranny. Imagine how the GOP would respond to that proposal. I can hear the screams about the “gay agenda” already. Iraq is a problem too. Gays are worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. (that’s not an endorsement of SH, by the way, just a comment on how things can go from bad to worse.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Imagine how the GOP would respond to that proposal. I can hear the screams about the “gay agenda” already.
Well, yeah.
posted by Wilberforce on
Thank you. I had the same thought about the fringe. But they seem to be more than just a fringe on this issue. I hope you’re right that that’s all they are.
They also seem to be corrupt on this, using cultural relativism to cover an agenda that I cannot fathom, and which would be too horrible to consider anyway.
Even thinking about the twisted schemes of interest groups can be exhausting.
posted by Houndentenor on
Cultural relativism is far more a problem in Europe than in the US. Outside a few far left enclaves you don’t find it that often in America, at least I don’t. In Europe you have to remember that they get very nervous when the majority starts openly criticizing minority groups. We all know how that worked out in the last century. I think they go too far with that but I do understand that their history is different than ours which creates a very different cultural sensitivity on certain issues.
posted by Jorge on
As for Iran, I have no idea what we do about that.
Encouraging the recognition of an international standard of human rights for sexual minorities in the United Nations and not ignoring their representatives when they testify in Congress would be a great start. I don’t have any problems when Republicans complain their noble heads off about doing things the right way, but I expect them to then get off their butts and start doing things the right way.
We simply shall have to punish the right every time they say anything about international gay rights by telling them the UN is already doing something, and asking them to either join in or step it up. Complaining about the right-wing imperialism would help, too.
This applies to Iraq, too. al-Sistani backed down a little bit to international pressure. Not enough, eh?
posted by Houndentenor on
Well, I’m all for that. I can’t imagine Boehner allowing hearings on gay refugees from Africa and the Middle East, but by all means that is something that should happen. I just don’t think it will. As for the UN, historically the only opposition to including sexual orientation and gender expression to human rights has been the US and the Muslim countries. Now that we have a president who didn’t run on an anti-gay agenda, perhaps it’s time to press for that.
posted by Jorge on
Actually, I think I figured out a few things.
Even if the political right in this country comes to support or declare neutrality toward gay rights in this country, they will not consider the rights of sexual minorities per se to be a part of universal human rights.
My favorite political columnist, Linda Chavez (who is definitely a hawk and almost always approaches social issues from a conservative direction, although she often lands at a moderate or liberal posistion), is currently very active in raising awareness about Iran’s human rights abuses, especially from the perspective of religious and women’s rights. She supports regime change in Iran. To my knowledge, she does not talk about gay rights in Iran, even though she admits to having and respecting gay couples among her family, friends, and colleagues. I believe if she did so, she might reasonably fear jeopardizing her alliance, and breaking what she considers an important neutrality.
She wrote an article (“Homosexuality and the Moral Order”) at the time Bill Clinton was considering repealing the military’s ban on gays in which really threw down the guantlet, using many arguments that are outdated today, but she ultimately came to no position on the issue (her article was more about elite vs. popular opinion). The point I want to make is that she argued that sexual behavior is not a private matter (family, social order, blah, blah, blah), but societies have responded differently to the same recognized taboos. “In our modern, generally tolerant society, few sanctions apply to those who engage in these practices so long as they occur, as we are fond of repeating, between consenting adults.” [emphasis added]
If Iran was a democracy with strong human rights protections, in which there was a free exchange and competition of ideas, perhaps instead of executing gays… the state would be saving them from mobs or firing them. It would still not become a permissive society. The solution would need to come from the Iranians themselves, once they have the freedom to create one. And freedom means the freedom to choose wrong.
Well, for now we have our free exhange and competition of ideas. If you act with integrity, you usually lose. But every so often you can cause an earthquake almost single-handedly. I think competition among gays (Ls, Bs, Ts) has helped the gay rights movement overall. With the rights of gays internationally an issue of concern, we can compete once again for good results.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Well, the main international groups that focus on gay rights in terms of international human rights would probably get pegged as being liberal.
The idea of regime change tends to get promoted by folk who don’t really understand what that actually means and how to go about doing it properly.
The situation for women or gay people in Iran would not automatically improve simply by having free elections. Having elections does not equal a democracy.
Democracy requires lots of other elements and moving a society towards being more democratic requires a deep understanding of the society’s culture, history, etc. AND an understanding of what is likely to work and how much it will cost.
posted by Houndentenor on
There certainly are conservatives who are for gay rights, but they tend to be either of the libertarian sort (Ted Olson, et al.) or people who only came around due to a family member (which does always seem to help).
I have long thought that if promoting human rights had been our main foreign policy agenda, we’d be much better off today. Too often our policy of encouraging and arming people with horrible aims and agendas for our own short term agendas has turned out to be a disaster. (Dozens of examples, the worst of which being Osama bin Laden.) You don’t have to like what other people do with their rights, but you have to understand that if other people can be denied equal rights then one day you will be too.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I agree with Jorge, in part. The Daily Beast article does not accurately reflect the hearings it purports to cover.
I read the transcript of Dr. George’s testimony. The anti-gay academician had NOTHING to say about gay rights, or lack of, in Iran. George constantly criticized the Iranian government for its lack of religious freedom. And chastised the Obama admin for not doing enough to make Iran play nice with its citizens.
There was nothing mentioned re: Iran’s treatment of its lgbt citizens. Nothing.
And including Representative Smith in an article about Republicans supporting gay rights abroad is beyond bizarre. Republican Rep. Chris Smith (NJ) has criticized the Obama admin for pushing gay rights (and abortion) in its foreign policy.
So – Stephen links us to an article which supposedly tells us that Republicans are standing up for gay rights internationally, while Obama fiddles. Or something.
When, actually, the hearing/testimony the article references had nothing to say about gay rights at all. And a Republican on the committee has actually done the exact opposite of standing up for international gay rights. Smith (the Rep) has criticized Obama for injecting gay rights issues into foreign policy.
Does Stephen even bother to read any of his links? He’s starting to remind me of ND30 – making inflammatory statements with linked articles that don’t actually support the initial argument.
posted by Kosh III on
“I hope every person with a brain realizes that conservatives and hawks are and have long been quite passionate when it comes to international human rights abuses.”
Yes indeed. But usually in support of the oppressors: Somoza, Duarte, Pinochet, the Pahlevi Shahs, Saddam Hussein in the 80s, Marcos……
posted by Don on
Actually, I picked up on a different link between this administration and what Iran is up to. The right reflexively opposes anything Obama or Iran does, even if it is something they would normally support wholeheartedly. That’s why rational see people’s heads exploding but social conservatives don’t see a conflict at all.
First and foremost, oppose Obama and Iran. If they try to help starving children, it is a secret plot to indoctrinate the children somehow. No explanation necessary. No discussion of the merits. Cue freakout in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
posted by Jorge on
Cue freakout in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
Uhhh, but Obama should be impeached. He passed Obamacare on the backs of Susan Collins and Rip Van Winkle.
I’ll grant you Iran.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
I think only a handful of Green and left parties in Iran have a modicum of interest in sexual orientation and human rights . All are illegal and often exist in exile. It sort of reminds of the Green party of Saudi Arabia. It supports comprehensive human rights policies, but is an illegal party.
Voters in Iran – even in a truly free electoral system – would probably not support gay rights.