No surprise, an Iranian official confirms gay executions are routine in the Islamic Republic. Islamofascists (and "fascists" is the appropriate term) make American religious rightists look like pussycats.
Strangely, while the regime is punishing homosexuality with death, it's publicly funding gender reassignment surgery for transsexuals. As if thousands of gay executions weren't enough, it compounds the tragedy that is Iran to contemplate how many gays have undergone the knife in an effort to save their lives.
More. At Columbia University, the liberal professorteriat is still up in arms over university president Lee Bollinger's critical remarks when introducing Mahmoud ("no homosexuals in Iran") Ahmadinejad:
"I think for most people the Ahmadinejad incident was an occasion that brought out a lot of discomfort," said Wayne Proudfoot, a religion professor. "It seemed clear to me that the language he used in introducing Ahmadinejad was intended to, and had the effect of, placating, appeasing and being a message to conservative critics."
Bollinger had said, in part:
"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you, why have women, members of the Ba'hai faith, homosexuals and so many of our colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?"
There was a time when speaking up for those oppressed by petty and cruel dictators was of concern to liberal academe, but today anti-Americanism trumps all on the "progressive" (sic) left. And so if Ahmadinejad hates Bush, he must be a good guy, right?
28 Comments for “Tyranny Unbounded”
posted by Xeno on
I don’t know how many gay men have undergone sex-reassignment surgery in Iran, but I do know there are women that already have in Saudi Arabia.
posted by Lorenzo aka erudito on
I believe ‘fascist’ is the term you are after.
{editor adds: correct — typo has now been corrected}
posted by TomChicago on
Jeez, I thought there were no homosexuals in Iran.
posted by ETJB on
I dislike the term “Islamofascists” because it was made up to promote partisan politics, rather then to honestly describe something. I also dislike the term “political correct” for similar reasons.
No LGBT person supports what is going on in Iran and several international human rights groups have protested against it and tried to raise awareness.
The foreign policy question becomes; how can we advance democracy human rights in the Middle East?
“No surprise, an Iranian official confirms gay executions are routine in the Islamic Republic. (and “fascists” is the appropriate term) make American religious rightists look like pussycats.
Strangely, while the regime is punishing homosexuality with death, it’s publicly funding gender reassignment surgery for transsexuals. As if thousands of gay executions weren’t enough, it compounds the tragedy that is Iran to contemplate how many gays have undergone the knife in an effort to save their lives.
More. At Columbia University, the liberal professorteriat is still up in arms over university president Lee Bollinger’s critical remarks when introducy Mahmoud (“no homosexuals in Iran”) Ahmadinejad:
posted by ETJB on
Also, I really think you are being unprofessional unfair when you try to paint all progressives as some how endorsing human rights abuses against LGBT people.
What a person in academia says, may or may not, be supported by most people outside of academia (left, right, center, etc.) it also may or may not be true.
I have not read what this professor has said/written in its whole, but their is truth to the notion that sexual/gender identity can be different among different cultures.
Yet, their is a big difference in examining how people identity themselves (or how ‘out’ they are) and whether or not people are gay. The former is very much influenced by culture, class, and creed.
Many progressive people protested and have critized the Iranian president for his comments and the nation’s overall human rights record, including on LGBT issues.
It is not “anti-America” to be critical of American foreign policy. When people are so quick to toss such labels around they often end up acting like the very dictators they claim to support.
posted by Avee on
ETJB, the leftwing Columbia professors are upset because Bollinger condemend Ahmadinejad for persecuting women, Bahais and gays. Please explain how their protest over Bollinger’s comments isn’t Anti-American but merely “critical of US foreign policy”?
posted by ETJB on
“Leftwing Columbia professors are upset because Bollinger condemend Ahmadinejad for persecuting women, Bahais and gays.”
(1) If being ‘Anti-American’ is defined by U.S. policy, then the United States has certainly not come around to support equal rights (at home or abroad) for LGBT people.
(2) It is generally much better to respond to speech that you disagree with, with more free speech. Why not get a bunch of professors together to debate and discuss foreign policy, gay rights, womens rights, etc? More then just; “Well, leftists must be anti-American and anti-gay because…”
posted by Greg on
The furor I think is less about challenging Mr. Ahmadinejad, than it is about the University President excoriating a guest that he had invited. He could have challenged Ahmadinejad without being rude, but he went out of his way to be rude.
It is never Anti-American to criticize. Bollinger wasn’t being anti-american in inviting Ahmadinejad, nor in criticizing him. His critics weren’t being anti american when they questioned his decision to invite him, nor when they questioned the propriety of his introduction.
Also, in the article that Stephen referenced that said 100 professors had signed a letter of protest, it also stated that 60 had signed a letter of support, which doesn’t exactly show the faculty to be a ‘professorteriat’ now does it. Nor does he point out that the letter of protest listed many grievances against Bollinger which had nothing to do with the speech.
For whatever reason Stephen decided to take what was a post about Iran and its horrible treatment of its subjects and turn it into a rant about liberals and their supposed anti-americanism.
posted by Craig2 on
According to liberal Iranian expatriate friends of mine, many Iranians actually consider Ahmadinejad to be an ignorant, militaristic socially conservative buffoon who was only voted into office because of appeals to rabid xenophobia.
I tend to agree about the kneejerk homogenising attitudes of some naive Americans, but hey, I remember a time when the Taliban were “brave anti-communist Islamic allies” fighting a cruel Soviet invader too. Dilettantism isn’t solely confined to naive liberals.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Craig2 on
“Islamofascist?” Iran is a highly imperfect and constricted democratic state, which does have elections, and displays considerable social diversity.
Not all Iranians, whether inside or outside their country, support the Ahmadinejad administration either, for that matter.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, well put. It is fascism despite the liberals’ unease at calling a spade a spade these days… unless it’s an untoward comment at Cheney, religion in general or the US in particular. And Lee Bollinger is a card-carrying member of the BlameAmericaFirst crowd. When he was president of my alma mater, U of Mich, he proved to be toooo liberal even for that school –notorious for its LeftLeanings… he saw America’s foreign interests in CenAm as “imperialism without purpose”, he saw society’s honoring of WWII vets as “misplaced sentimentality for a war mongering generation” and he thought the Founding Fathers were flawed in their convictions to representational democracy and freedoms… in his last State of the University address he opined they were just greedy land barons intent on stealing from the Brits, the Spainards, the French and the Native Americans.
Nice guy that Lee. Nawh, not anti-American at all. LOL.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
And Stepehen, you are solidly correct on the deafening silence from the GayLeft in America for protesting the evil toward our own peers in Iran… but then, the GayLeft wouldn’t think of suggesting Iran’s support of terrorist groups in the MiddleEast is bad either… or Iran’s technical support for the IED manufacturers in Iraq and the killing of US GIs is wrong either.
About the only gays raising the alarm on Iran’s treatment of gays are the GayRight and GayConservatives… sort of like LauraBush pleading for the case of women under Taliban rule in ’99 & 2000; where were all those feminists?
I think the GayLeft is worried that if they appear to be against something Iranian, it’ll be misconstrued by their rabid base and DemocratMasters as “supporting” W or Cheney. God forbid that happens!
posted by Rob (aka Xeno) on
About the only gays raising the alarm on Iran’s treatment of gays are the GayRight and GayConservatives… sort of like LauraBush pleading for the case of women under Taliban rule in ’99 & 2000; where were all those feminists?
Bullshit, Peter Tatchell is far from a conservative, and he’s raised more than one alarm on this issue for years, even more than any gay conservative. I see gay conservatives whining more about the ‘gay left’ than raising alarming bells about the plight of gays and lesbians living in oppressive states.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Rob, I think it might do you some good to look at “major” GayLeft blogs like OMGJoe, the sub-blogs for GayLefties over at DailyKos or even the porn/political blogs of GayLefties who irrationally spew the BushHatred, ImpeachCheney, GOP-are-Nazi derangement rants. They’ve been virtually silent about the plight of our peers in repressive states.
Bullshit is a great term. Rather than apply to the fact the gayconservatives lead on raising the alarm about the treatment of our peers in IslamicFascist countries like Iran… you should apply it to the selective outrage you demonstrate above. “The plight of gays… living in oppressive states”… I’m guessing, to you, that would be a red state?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Craig2 offers: “Iran is a highly imperfect and constricted democratic state, which does have elections, and displays considerable social diversity.”
Elections like the ones that Saddam ran for years in Iraq? Oh yeah, love those elections. And please be sure to tell the next round of gays hung in public squares that Iran is just “displaying considerable social diversity” in hanging them for their actions.
Gheez, Craig! Do you even read what you write???
posted by Samantha on
I agree with this comment:
“For whatever reason Stephen decided to take what was a post about Iran and its horrible treatment of its subjects and turn it into a rant about liberals and their supposed anti-americanism.”
Yes, it’s absolutely shoddy reporting/commentary by Miller. No one agrees with the treatment of gays in Iran. For that matter, we don’t agree with the treatment they get in Saudi Arabia, our ally, either, or anywhere else in the middle east. To portray it otherwise is irresponsible. Is this what this website is for, to appeal to the Rush Limbaugh crowd, take cheap shots, and criticize the “liberal academe?” What IS the liberal academe anyway? Anyone in a university who’s not a member of the GOP and an evangelical?
Even the made-up word “islamofacism” smacks of partisan politics.
Craig2 astutely noted that our government once considered the Taliban to be “brave anti-communist islamic allies.” Even AFTER 911, while we were invading Afghanistan, Bush played some politics and said that the Taliban had some good values. (Yeah, right.) Now, conveniently, they’re all Islamofacists. Oops..wait, not ALL of them, just the ones we want to invade that particular week.
In truth, Iran’s populace was one of the more progressive in the middle east, especially the young people, and the only reason Ahmadinejad got elected was because he rode on an anti-bush backlash. We set that country backwards, my friends, not forward. Even still, there’s hope for Iran, the young people consider their leader to be weaker than our media pumps him up to be, and certainly do not support him.
As far as Bollinger, even a conservative gentleman I work with (the old term for conservative folks, not the neocon version…lol), shook his head and was surprised at the diatribe. He said there was no need to introduce him like that if they’re the ones who invited him in the first place.
So we all know what it was. We all see it for what it is. Bollinger was afraid of being seen soft on terror, or being too liberal, elitist, a traitor or whatever, and decided to “prove” he wasn’t. But like my co-worker said, all it did was make Ahmadinejad look good. It was a stupid and weak move on Bollinger’s part.
By the way, Hitler and Mussolini would be proud. I’m sure they hated the “liberal academe” in their countries as well. Some of us know what facism is.
posted by Avee on
Never under-estimate liberal-leftists’ capacity for self-delusion. Here’s a more accurate Hitler comparison: Judging from the hysterical and hateful comments above, if Hitler had been invited to speak at an academic univeristy and the fellow introducing him had criticized Germany’s treatment of Jews, that would be totally uncalled for behavior (so uncivilized!) and nothing but water-carrying for that war-monger Roosevelt. (And yes, during the years of the Hitler-Stalin pack, that’s exactly what many American leftists would have said!).
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Avee: “And yes, during the years of the Hitler-Stalin pack, that’s exactly what many American leftists would have said!”
How do you figure that? From what I could tell, it was hawkish rightist businessmen (Bush Sr, Lindbergh, Henry Ford, etc.) who would be most likely to level that charge. Surely you wouldn’t be pushing mindless rhetoric without any basis in fact, would you Avee?
posted by Avee on
You should listen to some of CP-member Pete Seeger’s songs from the Hitler-Stalin pact years. “Franklin D., Franklin D., don’t send me across the sea.”
See http://www.zvents.com/performers/show/15859-almanac-singers (click on full details)
“Following their rousing performance at the American Youth Congress meeting in Washington, D.C., in February of 1941, where they regaled the delegates — mostly pacifists and leftists — with anti-Roosevelt and anti-war songs, the Almanac Singers were a going concern. Seeger, Hays, and Lampell were not only master songsmiths, but were equally adept at modifying traditional songs, grafting on lyrics that referred to issues of the day, including the mistreatment of workers and the supposed neglect of the government in looking out for them. . . . the Almanac Singers arranged for their first recording, entitled Songs for John Doe, which took the Communist Party’s official isolationist line (Hitler and Stalin having signed a non-aggression pact the previous year), urging listeners to resist any American involvement in the war in Europe.”
Go read some history about the American left during the “pact” years (or rent “The Way We Were”).
posted by Samantha on
I don’t know who this Avee person is who can’t tell the difference between a liberal and a leftist. Liberals and Democrats are not leftists, and neither am I. So keep your dirt to yourself.
Miller was the one who brought up fascism, and the fake “islamofascism,” and I responded to that. So if you’re looking into history go look up the history of fascism and educate yourself.
If the Machiavelli-reading Rove, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz and Bush’s of this world did invite a young, powerful and impressive Hitler to speak at Bob Jones University, he’d get a rousing applause. Can you picture Rove pressing his brown uniform, finding glee in discrediting the educated classes, the professors, researchers, scientists, artists, musicians, and moderates, while hyping up the simple patriotic ferver of the german homeland and worship of the state? I can.
The moderates, the free-thinkers, the writers, the “liberal academe” are opposing forces to fascism and bushism. They are enemies which need to be destroyed. That was my point, that it’s no surprise to me that those types of people would be Miller’s verbal target, given Miller’s apparent politics.
Ann Coulter, with all her comments about New Yorkers being traiters and how moderate senators should be assassinated, also follows the fascist blueprints just fine. This woman who once asked in exasperation about Senator Clinton, “Why does she have to write a book?!” fears the intelligentcia, fears all versions of thinking, speaking or expression unless it directly serves the right-wing machine. So in her view, it’s elitist, sneaky and dirty to pen a book and publish it unless it serves her political party in some way.
posted by Avee on
I “don’t know who this Samantha person is” (to paraphrase her), but I’ve been posting here for months and she’s just showed up.
Frankly, I can’t make heads or tails out of her claim that liberals oppose fascism and Bushism (and the assumed equivalence of the two in her mind speaks volumes, no?). And so, Miller was wrong to criticize those who were upset by “conservative” criticism of Iran (let’s forget that the president of Columbia U is himself a liberal)?
Sorry Samantha, but you’re so hyped up with Bush-Cheney derangement syndrome and its accompanying paranoia that you have lost the ability to say anything of interest to anyone. Or to recognize what real fascism is in Iran, not the White House.
posted by Another Steve on
Avee, I think what Samantha is saying (and I agree it’s hard to tell) is that liberals (for whom she claims to speak) oppose fascism and “bushism,” but also are opposed to those who speak out against Iran’s anti-gay execution, etc., (even when that criticism is made by a liberal who has wondered off the reservation) because that plays into the hand of Bushite conservatives who want to wage imperialist war against Iran.
Anyway you parse it, it is not a very convincing rationale for attacking those who would criticize the arrest and state-sponsored murder of gay Iranians. But it’s where the Kos brand of “liberalism” has taken a great many and naive people.
posted by Craig2 on
Sigh. I’m very much afraid that not all Iranians voted for Ahmajinedad, and there are frequent incidents of so-called ‘morality police’ trying to intimidate younger, more progressive Iranians, who are quite aware of the outside world, and want political and social liberalisation.
I’m certainly not apologising for Iran’s theocratic elements, or its execution of lesbians and gay men. However, Iranian society is not as homogenous as some foreign policy conservatives would have us think.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Avee on
Craig, ok, but what does that have to do with public criticism of Ahmajinedad? Are you saying we shouldn’t criticize him because not all Iranians are ordering the killing of gays? Do you think we shouldn’t have criticized Hitler because not all Germans were Nazis? Honestly, I have no idea what your point is.
posted by Samantha on
Avee, nobody cares if you’ve been posting here for months. I was asking what kind of person you are if you couldn’t tell the difference between a liberal and a leftist.
I made a solid post regarding miller’s comments, and I supported some really great observations in a couple other posts, and then I’m slandered and called “hysterical” and hateful. Not that I haved heard those words before, they show up on fox news all the time.
Then you called me “paranoid,” and that I’ve said nothing interesting. That’s odd….If it’s so uninteresting, why did you feel compelled to respond twice to it?
And Steve…what the hell is the “kos” brand of liberalism? You mean the blogger? You’re not one of those frustrated and jealous conservatives who have a cow every time a liberal blogger says something, are you?
Wow…this Independent Gay Forum site is amazing. I don’t have to listen to Rush or Hannity or any of the dick-sucking, water-carrying deadheads on tv…I can just come here for that kind of entertainment.
posted by Samantha on
“Craig, honestly, I have no idea what your point is.”
“Samantha, I can’t make heads or tails out of [your] claim that liberals oppose fascism and Bushism.”?/I>
Apparently, Avee, you can’t understand anyone’s post.
posted by LawCap on
Wow. I cannot believe what I am reading here. I used to think of myself as a liberal, left-of-center type. But I want no truck with that if this is where it is heading. They seem to have succumbed to their paralyzing hatred of Bush in a similar way that the GOP succumbed to their paralyzing hatred of Clinton a few years back. Maybe this is cyclical? Maybe there are real liberals still out there (perhaps wandering in the wilderness with the real conservatives), but for now we seem to get only the heat of irrational emotionalism instead of a sober, intellectually honest exchange of ideas.
BTW: Everyone should remember that the argument is over as soon as someone trots out Hitler and/or the Nazis as a point of comparison.
posted by instafaggot on
I’m howling into the abyss of this website, but you said:
“There was a time when speaking up for those oppressed by petty and cruel dictators was of concern to liberal academe, but today anti-Americanism trumps all on the “progressive” (sic) left. And so if Ahmadinejad hates Bush, he must be a good guy, right?”
The intellectual dishonesty in that remark is profoundly unprofessional and unfair. No one. Mind you. No. One. Anywhere. On. The. Left. HAS EVER (EVER!) characterized Ahmadinejad as a “good guy”. Is it really so hard for you post an article on this site that doesn’t demonize those who disagree with you? Are we expected to believe that you sincerely believe that allowing someone to speak is the same as agreeing with them. Come on!
You sound like a partisan in campaign mode….which is exactly what you are.