The National LGBTQ Task Force, in response to anti-Israeli activists, has banned a Jewish group from hosting a reception at its upcoming Creating Change conference in Chicago. The reception was to have featured members of Jerusalem Open House (JOH) for Pride and Tolerance, an organization that organizes the annual Jerusalem Pride March, where last year a teenage Israeli girl was murdered by an ultra-orthodox zealot.
The reception with JOH was to be sponsored by A Wider Bridge, a Jewish LGBTQ organization, which issued a statement that recounted:
After being approved as a part of the program well in advance, the organizers of the Creating Change conference in Chicago caved into extremist anti-Israel demands and canceled the A Wider Bridge-sponsored reception that was to be held on Friday, January 22. The reception plans to feature two leaders of Jerusalem Open House, (JOH) Jerusalem’s flagship LGBTQ organization. A Wider Bridge is announcing today that the reception will go on, but at a new location outside of the conference venue.
Writing at The Huffington Post, Dana Beyer, executive director of Gender Rights Maryland, contends:
The growing demand on the left for political purity includes the act of blacklisting and de-platforming — i.e., not allowing people with whom you disagree a platform from which to speak.
This trend is particularly evident at Creating Change, Beyer notes, including most recently, when the Task Force allowed
a group of queer women of color to take the stage to prevent the Denver mayor from speaking, and just last week a fiasco with the invitation/de-invitation of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to participate in the conference. The Task Force is allowing the loudest voices to quash dissent and inhibit dialogue, the kind of dialogue that is necessary for progress.
On the ICE disinvite, the Task Force said:
We know the decision to accept a proposal from ICE for a session at our Creating Change Conference was the wrong decision and that it has caused hurt and pain to communities and individuals we deeply care about. The decision also could have created a situation where the conference would not have felt like a safe space — a vitally important component of what makes the conference special — for undocumented immigrants, immigration activists and allies.
It might also have allowed for dialogue and education—as would the reception with Jerusalem Open House—but that is of little concern at an event that is all about affirming fidelity to a strict line of thought.
I believe the Task Force has an absolute right to invite and even disinvite
whoever it feels is insufficiently ideologically pure, but that doesn’t mean its actions shouldn’t be criticized as deeply offensive, just as the religious right’s Value Voters Summit should be able to exclude LGBT conservatives from having a booth, but should also be castigated strongly for doing so.
Interestingly, the Task Force has many big-name National Corporate Partners (which the Values Voters Summit and its primary organizer, an affiliate of the Family Research Council, don’t have). Shame on these companies, including Hilton Worldwide, Office Depot and Wells Fargo, for supporting such bigotry!
Update: A reversal! The National LGBTQ Task Force has reinstated the joint American-Israeli event at their annual conference, after its cancellation provoked strong protest. That’s good, but sponsors and donors who don’t favor making the anti-Israel boycott and divestiture movement part of the progressive LGBT agenda would be advised to remain vigilant.
Prior to the reinstatement, Rea Carey, the Task Force’s executive director, said in a statement that “while we welcome robust discourse and political action, given the complexity and deep passions on all sides, we concluded the event wouldn’t be productive or meet the stated goals of its organizers. We also have the overarching responsibility to ensure that Creating Change is a safe space for attendees.”
As reported by The Tablet, “A petition calling for the event’s reinstatement gathered over 1,100 signatures, including those of prominent LGBT rabbis and activists—Jewish and not.”
More. Given the support of the academic left for the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement, it’s not surprising that the Task Force leaders would respond to demands to exclude JOH from Creating Change. What is surprising is how Carey misjudged that a wide swath of LGBT progressives, including influential liberal Democrats, remain opposed to the academic left’s demand to boycott Israel (and even Israeli “doves” have found themselves blacklisted from many academic conferences). This has more than a little to do with the fact that Israel is the only Middle East nation where gay people have legal equality.
Furthermore. James Kirchick takes note:
As I write this, ISIS is hunting gay men to toss from the rooftops of Raqaa, and nearly 80 countries proscribe homosexuality. Yet for a 36-hour period earlier this week, the National LGBTQ Task Force chose to ally itself not with the one country in the Middle East that guarantees and protects the human rights of LGBTQ people, but with those who hang them from construction cranes. …
And let there be no confusion: A non-compulsory Shabbat dinner and discussion of the Israeli LGBT experience is “divisive” in the way that the presence of a gay man in a locker room is “divisive.” It only “offends” the sensibilities of bigots.
They thought blacklisting Israel was now the correct position for progressive activists to take.
Couldn’t you guess? Censorship by disruption, by the anti-Israeli LBGTQ left. And, of course, the LGBTQ Task Force caves in, again: “Protesters on Friday forced the cancellation of a reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s annual conference that was to have featured two advocates from Israel.”
Said Arthur Slepian, executive director of A Wider Bridge:
These remarkable LGBT leaders from Israel, who do great work in the very diverse and challenging city of Jerusalem, had spent the last six months helping their community heal and recover from the trauma of a barbaric act of anti-gay violence at last summer’s Jerusalem Pride march. They expected to be supported and embraced by the U.S. LGBT community at Creating Change. Instead, the protestors denied their humanity and silenced their voices, and the conference tragically did little to provide for their safety and security.
From the Windy City Times:
A Jan. 22 statement from Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network summarized the protesters’ objections. “For several years the Israeli government has attempted to use propaganda about the freedoms some LGBTQs in that country have as a cover for their increasingly brutal rule over Palestinians, a process known as ‘pinkwashing,'” the statement said. …
Earlier in the week, Black Lives Matter Chicago voiced its disapproval of AWB’s participation at Creating Change, drawing correlations between the experiences of African Americans and the Palestinians. In a statement, they said, “They/We navigate heavily surveilled and detained realities on tightropes. They/We are expected to be grateful to those that itemize their/our pain to strengthen existing norms. As is routine for too many souls across the globe, They/We must negotiate oppressions as a provision of harm reduction and triage.”
Faith Cheltenham, president of BiNet USA, took part in the protest and said shortly after it ended that she saw it as part of a larger effort to get “our movement back.”
29 Comments for “LGBTQ Task Force Exemplifies Bigotry of the Left”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It might also have allowed for dialogue and education—as would the reception with Jerusalem Open House—but that is of little concern at an event that is all about affirming fidelity to a strict line of thought.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for Jewish voices to be heard amidst the increasingly loud and rancorous clamor between the radical left and radical right on the question. Damn near impossible, in fact, unless the Jewish voices (most don’t) strictly adhere to the script imposed by one side or the other.
Any hint of support for the policies of the State of Israel — an argument that the “right of return” is unacceptable, for example — is too often shouted down by the far left, consumed as it is by sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, while any criticism of the policies of the State of Israel — an argument that a two-state solution is essential, for example — is too often shouted down by the far right, consumed as it is by knee-jerk support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his government’s policies.
posted by Houndentenor on
Agreed. There’s so much nonsense in our current political culture. One false binary after the other. Most Jews don’t even fit neatly into the left/right nonsense in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I see no reason for anyone else to have such extremist (and nonsensical) positions as either the far left or the far right hold. This is true in so many areas of our politics and it’s why it’s impossible to get anything done.
posted by Houndentenor on
Many liberals have been speaking out against the “regressive left” for some time now. Dave Rubin seems to be making a whole career out of it lately. There’s a lot of nonsense on the left and many liberals, like myself, are tired of it. It would be helpful if anyone on the right was calling out their own regressive nonsense. Maybe that will happen soon.
posted by Jorge on
ICE is a bit of a head-scratcher, but on second thought, in light of recent changes in marriage law nationwide (and the “1000s of rights of marriage, including spousal immigration rights”), I can see why they might want to send a representative to meet with the gay community. Especially the progressive gay community.
Many liberals have been speaking out against the “regressive left” for some time now.
This is only the first or second time I’ve heard of it in years. Maybe I should count the conflicts between the feminist and the trans communities, except I wouldn’t know which side is which.
posted by Houndentenor on
I follow a number of freethought and atheist blogs and podcasts that you probably don’t read/hear. Many are concerned that many on the left are quick to defend Muslims even when they are treating women, gays and other religious minorities terribly. That’s been true for some time. I’m glad it’s finally getting some traction in the larger political conversation.
posted by Mike in Houston on
While I’m sure that Stephen & the homocons will take credit, it appears that cooler / saner heads have prevailed…
NATIONAL LGBTQ TASK FORCE REVERSES DECISION TO CANCEL RECEPTION
http://www.thetaskforce.org/national-lgbtq-task-force-reverses-decision-to-cancel-reception/
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen: Interestingly, the Task Force has many big-name National Corporate Partners (which the Values Voters Summit and its primary organizer, an affiliate of the Family Research Council, don’t have). Shame on these companies, including Hilton Worldwide, Office Depot and Wells Fargo, for supporting such bigotry!
I suspect that the corporate partners support the broad goals of the organization, and that their sponsoring role should not be read as an endorsement of a specific (now reversed) position. As to the lack of major corporate sponsorship of the Family Research Council, what else, other than bigotry, is there to endorse? Perhaps that difference explains corporate support for the one but not the other.
NATIONAL LGBTQ TASK FORCE: We are aware that our original decision made it appear we were taking sides in a complex and long-standing conflict, which was not the intention, and that in cancelling the reception we deeply offended many people, and our reversal will offend others.
Indeed.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
First off all, I am not a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. I sure that they do good work or have done in the past (and I have met a fair number of nice NGLTF staff and volunteers at events), but what little time/money/resources I have to give to LGBT rights, generally do so at the local level.
I guess it is theoretically possible that undocumented/illegal immigrants might feel uncomfortable attending an event featuring the ICE. I suppose that was the concern in that particular case. Although their have been quite a few conferences and speakers panelists on immigration issues and several of the ones that I have seen have featured immigrants of various legal statues ….
Jerusalem Open House (JOH) is one of the main resources for the LGBT community that exists in Israel and (to some extent) in Palestine.
My current boyfriend is Jewish, and his comments echo what other people have said here about discussing anything to do with the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their are very loud “pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” voices in the discussion, who tend to monopolize the conversation and do not actually have much interest in resolving the conflict in peacefully and just manner.
posted by Jorge on
While I’m sure that Stephen & the homocons will take credit, it appears that cooler / saner heads have prevailed…
The cutoff point at which they do is always rather distressing.
I thought that you would be referencing the ICE decision, and I see that there is no move to reverse that one. So I say, “Boo! Hiss!” And Tom, they’re still taking sides. Oh, so they gave a “respectable” reason for it, keep things safe for illegal immigrant gays, but the intent in accepting the invitation in the first place–essentially to have activists talk down to ICE–reeks of arrogance. What’s next, cancelling meetings between gay rights organizations and local police agencies because they kill gang members?
I would suggest as a strong possibility that Mr. Miller’s title is exactly right, and that it would not be more accurate to say “LGBTQ Task Force Exemplifies Bigotry of the Far Left”.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree that “far left” would be an accurate description. That element is certainly there on the left. I don’t think it’s the view of the typical liberal.
posted by Jorge on
Um, sir, I’m saying it’s not limited to the far-left.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
What is surprising is how Carey misjudged that a wide swath of LGBT progressives, including influential liberal Democrats, remain opposed to the academic left’s demand to boycott Israel.
What is not surprising is that you consistently confuse and/or intentionally conflate the actions/statements of a small minority on the far left with “the left” in general, as you did in your sensationalist banner “LGBTQ Task Force Exemplifies Bigotry of the Left”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This has more than a little to do with the fact that Israel is the only Middle East nation where gay people have legal equality.
A curious statement, indeed. Your view is that the “academic left” (whatever that is supposed to mean) is backing the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement because “Israel is the only Middle East nation where gay people have legal equality”? Odd, and disconnected from reality. The Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement is tied, at least in public statements, to Israeli policies concerning Palestine and Palestinians, not Israeli’s laws and policies relating to gays and lesbians. I understand that homocons claim gnosis about many things, but your statement is a surprise to me, so a little evidence would be of use.
Israel, by the way, although having an exemplary record on legal equality (and a better record than the United States in numerous respects), is not a “nation where gay people have legal equality”. Close, but no cigar.
A brief rundown: Sodomy is not criminalized. Marriage equality is in place, in a fashion. Israelis can marry in the State of Israel only if the marriage is performed by a small number of officially recognized religious authorities. None will marry same-sex couples, couples of mixed faith, or couples falling afoul of other religious requirements. Civil marriages between Israelis performed outside of Israel are recognized, however, so same-sex couples can marry outside the country, and the marriages are recognized under Israeli law for domestic purposes (e.g. government benefits, spousal exemptions from tax/inheritance laws, inheritance and so on), although often under provisions of law that recognize the marriages as undifferentiated same-sex unions rather than marriages. Adoption by gays and lesbians is restricted, although generally permitted in recent years. Gays and lesbians serve in the military on an equal footing. Gentile same-sex partners of Jews are permitted to make Aliyah, and both receive Israeli citizenship. Employment discrimination is prohibited nationwide, with limited exemptions for religious organizations. Gay and lesbian kids are protected from harassment in schools.
posted by Jorge on
I think Mr. Miller is arguing that it’s the unexpectedly broad support for Israel that’s tied to its pro-gay policies compared to the rest of the Middle East.
Israelis can marry in the State of Israel only if the marriage is performed by a small number of officially recognized religious authorities. . . . Civil marriages between Israelis performed outside of Israel are recognized, however
A theocracy that tolerates infidelity. How quaint.
What? Doesn’t that mean the same as apostasy?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think Mr. Miller is arguing that it’s the unexpectedly broad support for Israel that’s tied to its pro-gay policies compared to the rest of the Middle East.
Stephen is so insistent on lumping “the left” into a demonic force that he fails to understand that “the left” is as varied in its thinking as “the right”, and just as fractured. Stephen does with “the left” what anti-Semites have historically done with “the Jews”, smeared us with a broad brush.
Whenever you hear someone talking about “the left” or “the right” or “the Jews” or “the Blacks” or “the Muslims” or “the Pick-Your-Group” without nuance or differentiation, you can bet the farm that what follows will be biased and inaccurate.
Stephen seems convinced that “the left” is a bigoted, dangerous lump of like-thinking authoritarians, determined to destroy freedom, including but not limited to jack-booted silencing of differing points of view. Within that perspective, Stephen has no room to consider the question of whether some/many/most on “the left” may value diversity of opinion and freedom of speech, so he had to come up with another reason why the Task Force was pressured to reverse its position.
He decided, if you are right about his thinking, that Israeli policies on LGBT issues was that reason. I’d say that is as simplistic and inaccurate as the position I questioned.
My guess is that pressure to reverse the decision came from many directions within the Task Force’s constituency. Supporters of Israel, whether or not the current policies are palatable. Jews who are dead tired of Gentiles telling them what’s what about Judaism and Israel. Liberals who value the exchange of ideas, even heinous ideas. Gays and lesbians who value Israel’s positions on LGBT issues. Task Force constituents who think that it is wrongheaded for the Task Force to become involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Constituents who simply think that the Task Force should avoid controversy about issues peripheral to LGBT issues. And so on.
A theocracy that tolerates infidelity. How quaint.
You have to understand the history of the State of Israel to understand its “quaint” laws on marriage.
Israel became a nation in the aftermath of Shoah, but had been settled for a long time before it became a state.
To keep things simple (the old joke: Q: Why do Christians only have 10 commandments? A: Because for some people, you have to keep things very, very simple.”) the population of Israel at the time of its founding as a state consisted of three main groups: secular Zionists, religious Zionists, and Shoah survivors. The marriage laws resulted from a comprise between the secular and religious Zionists — Israel would be a secular state in almost all respects, but in some matters directly related to Halakha (marriage being one of them, conversion another), Israeli law would conform to Halakha as interpreted by religious, almost invariably traditional or Orthodox, rabbis.
Over time, the areas of law governed by Halakha have become increasingly narrowed, but echoes of the founding compromise remain.
What? Doesn’t that mean the same as apostasy?
No.
posted by Jorge on
Stephen seems convinced that “the left” is a bigoted, dangerous lump of like-thinking authoritarians, determined to destroy freedom, including but not limited to jack-booted silencing of differing points of view.
The number of independent rationales people among the left have for bigoted, lumpy authoritarianism is truly astonishing. I am only half-kidding.
…The marriage laws resulted from a comprise between the secular and religious Zionists — Israel would be a secular state in almost all respects, but in some matters directly related to Halakha (marriage being one of them, conversion another), Israeli law would conform to Halakha as interpreted by religious, almost invariably traditional or Orthodox, rabbis.
That was very fascinating.
What? Doesn’t that mean the same as apostasy?
–No.
Just be glad I didn’t say adultery.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge: What? Doesn’t that mean the same as apostasy?
Tom: No.
Jorge: Just be glad I didn’t say adultery.
Why? The odd disconnects in your thinking — you connect dots that only you can see — are one of the entertainments available on IGF.
posted by Tom jefferson 3rd on
The parts of the “academic left” that are calling for boycotts, are do so because of Israeli policies with regards to Palestine.
I doubt its because of Israeli LGBT policies.
Yes, they are progressive policies (not quite full equality), but much of the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian campaigns are about the status/treatment of Arab Palestinians and safety/security concerns of Israelis.
In terms of a LGBT rights it migh be useful to hear from both LGBT Israelis and Palestians.
Israeli men with a Palestinian partner is one issue worth looking at.
posted by Houndentenor on
There are at least two independent films that explore the topic of gay male relationships between Israelis and Palestinians. I agree that we should hear from everyone. If there is an objection to a speaker, the appropriate response is to invite a rebuttal speaker, not to ban someone.
That said, boycotting and divestment is sometimes effective, as in the case of South African (over Apartheid). I remember well many businesses panicking over the threat of boycotts of businesses doing business with Sudan during the Darfur genocide. But in the case of Israel/Palestine to ban one side when there are serious problems on both sides is ludicrous. Don’t buy their products if you wish (that’s always your right) but banning speakers is unacceptable, especially on a college campus…a place where all ideas should be heard.
posted by Jorge on
There are at least two independent films that explore the topic of gay male relationships between Israelis and Palestinians.
Oh, dear, verboten upon verboten outcast behavior. I’m starting to wonder if Jesus is going to reveal himself and start accusing people of being mean to him soon.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As I write this, ISIS is hunting gay men to toss from the rooftops of Raqaa, and nearly 80 countries proscribe homosexuality. Yet for a 36-hour period earlier this week, the National LGBTQ Task Force chose to ally itself not with the one country in the Middle East that guarantees and protects the human rights of LGBTQ people, but with those who hang them from construction cranes.
Kirchick has his head so far up his ass that he thinks he sees sunshine. Whatever else there is to say about the Palestinians, they are not ISIS.
posted by craig123 on
Palestinians…are not ISIS.
No, they’re just Hamas.
posted by Jorge on
Either that or
[I’d say that is as simplistic and inaccurate as the position I questioned.]
He’s playing the Muslim card. Smart people don’t engage in lazy-sloppy unless they’re trying to hide something.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Dr Mahmoud Zahar (pictured), the groups leader in Gaza, in an article on an Arabic website condemned the rights that gays have in Israel and made it clear that he thinks that gays are perverts. “Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?” He asked on the Elaph website.
And that statement is different from the statements of Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, Brian Brown and the other spokesmen for conservative Christian anti-gay movement — or for that matter the utterances of a number of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination — how?
Kirchick was, as Jorge noted, clearly playing “the Muslim card”, and in my opinion he was playing the card in a way that obscures the real issues facing Israel. You aren’t doing anything much different, to be blunt.
Israel’s support for LGBT rights just doesn’t seem to be a factor except when homocons can use it has a hammer to pound gays and lesbians on “the left”. I can’t recall a single case in which a Republican politician cited Israel’s support for LGBT rights as the reason why the United States should support the policies of the Netanyahu government. I don’t remember any Republicans citing Israel’s support for LGBT rights during the buildup for Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress, widely understood to be a Republican attempt to toss a monkey wrench into President Obama’s handling of US/Israeli relations.
Stop trying to play us all a suckers.
posted by craig123 on
Just like Tony Perkins?
From the Washington Post: Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Just like Tony Perkins?
Nice try, Craig, but no banana. Tony Perkins and his ilk, with the active cooperation of Republican politicians, fought LGBT rights in this country from beginning to end, and are still fighting. If it were up to them, all we have gained over the last several decades would be reversed.
If you want to now pretend that right-wingers support Israel because of Israel’s support for LGBT rights, feel free to do so. It won’t change the facts, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Censorship by disruption, by the anti-Israeli left. And, of course, the LGBTQ Task Force caves in, again: “Protesters on Friday forced the cancellation of a reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s annual conference that was to have featured two advocates from Israel.”
Do you bother to read the articles to which you link? The protesters took over the stage and blocked the entrances. The hotel called the police, who came in and calmed things down, apparently. The reception was cancelled by the organizers, not the LGBTQ Task Force.
posted by craig123 on
Said the reception sponsor: “The conference tragically did little to provide for their safety and security.”
Tom, your consistent mendacity would be laughable if it weren’t so very sad.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yeah, well, what do you expect of a perfidious Jew? Nothing sad about it.
But there you are, shape-shifting again, sliding away from the topic. I suppose that the Task Force could have (and perhaps should have) employed special security guards for the reception, but it doesn’t seem to me that their failure to do so has much of anything to do with Stephen’s allegation that “the LGBTQ Task Force caves in, again”.