The conservative but not homophobic FrontPageMagazine.com (I've written for them, as have other IGF authors) has an article titled Complicity in Iran's Anti-Gay Jihad. It details how Britain's Labour government has finally reversed course, in the face of public protests, and will (for now) allow Mehdi Kazemi, a 19-year-old Iranian student, to remain in Britian. Kazemi's lover was executed in Iran for sodomy, reportedly after naming Kazemi as his sexual partner. Kazemi would surely be executed had Britain succeeded in deporting him.
Writes Robert Spencer:
Yet despite all this, the Left in America, for all its vaunted concern for gay rights, remains largely silent about Iran. Has The Nation, or Katha Pollitt, rushed to Kazemi's aid? No - not a word about Kazemi has appeared in The Nation. And The Nation is not alone. Although Columbia students did react derisively to Ahmadinejad's denial that there were homosexuals in Iran, the violent persecution of gays in Iran was well-known in the West long before the President of Iran's visit there - and yet he was still welcomed enthusiastically by students who would have lustily reviled Pat Robertson or Franklin Graham, neither of whom has ever called for anything remotely close to the execution of gays, had either of them dared to set foot on campus. And a delegation of Columbia professors, according to Tehran's Mehr News Agency, even planned a trip to Iran in order to present an official apology to Ahmadinejad for the way he was treated by Columbia President Lee Bollinger when he visited the university.
There seems to have been a great silence, as well, from the leading U.S. LGBT groups. Perhaps they think that a friendly dialogue with Ahmadinejad by the next administration will take care of all.
There's more background on this outrageous affair in the Times of London. That Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary in Gordon Brown's govenrment, had to be shamed by activist Peter Tatchell (whose group OutRage! has taken heat from the British left for standing up to Islamofascist homophobia) and by a gay member of the House of Lords before she halted her efforts to send Kazemi to his death is utterly despicable.
44 Comments for “No Enemies (as Long as They Hate Bush)”
posted by Rob on
FrontPageMagazine is a neoconservative website founded by David Horowitz, a former Trotskyite who still retains its radical nature. I wouldn’t classify it directly as conservative, and while they may not be antigay, they’re not entirely empathic to LGBT issues.
While I don’t care for David Horowitz, I have to say that Robert Spencer is quite the expert on Islam, who can decipher quite a lot of bullshit coming from Islamists. I read his blogs Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch on a weekly basis, and they’re a lot better than Little Green Footballs. The public should take his words, as well as those of Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, Pat Condell, and Geert Wilders very seriously.
posted by Jordan on
Stephen, I’m continually incredulous at the fact that you can post, with a straight face no less, these childish little rants about how the left is complicit in bigotry, when the right isn’t just complicit in it, but actively engages in it. People in glass houses, you know?
You grow more shrill and less believable with every passing day.
posted by ShermanStreet on
It sorta reminds me of that saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The Islamofascists hate George Bush (and America), the Left hates George Bush (and America for the most part) so Left gives the Islamofascists a pass because they both have a common enemy, George Bush (and America)
posted by Bobby on
The left is complicit because they pretend to be gay friendly while closing their eyes to the harsh realities of muslim homphobia.
“they’re not entirely empathic to LGBT issues.”
—Most people aren’t, including the NAACP. Besides, what are LGBT issues? San Francisco paying with taxpayer money for transexuals to have sex-change operations? Come on, I’m gay and I don’t agree with that.
Ironically, FrontPage is empathetic, they could write an article supporting what Iran does to homosexuals. But they’re not, because they have principles of how people should be treated.
As for David Horowitz, he’s persecuted because he raises issues nobody wants to talk about, such as the famous “slavery reparations” fiasco. He’s a hero of real academic freedom and college students who want to hear other views aside the typical college academia leftism.
It’s a freaking shame that neither him nor Coulter can go to a college university and give a speech without loud hecklers. Conservatives may hate Michael Moore, but the worse they do is raise a sign in protest.
posted by Mark on
Davis Horowitz may not be a homophobe, but he has been supportive George Bush’s destruction of the country of Iraq. I suppose Horowitz gets a pass on his support of evil because he supports this gay Iranian.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Good piece, Stephen. Bravo for having the internal fortitude to call a spade a spade and risk the ire of the GayLeft.
Bruce & Dan, over at GayPatriot.org have been detailing this very issue of how the GayLeft in America is silent when it comes to international atrocities involving persecuted gays, like in Iran.
It’s a shame that on a single issue like this, where one would think that the usual scortched-Earth partisanship of the GayLeft could be put aside for even a moment of unity with their conservative gay brethren, the GayLeft is unwilling to raise even a feeble cry of staged outrage.
Not surprising… just a shame.
posted by Leo on
Jordan, no one is for a second suggesting the right is guiltless when it comes anti-LGBT bigotry. And this site routinely takes on those bigots.
But the willingness on the part of some leftists to throw LGBT people under the bus when presented with some group they deem more worthy of their sympathies is an old story and it’s hardly “childish” to take them to task.
And in England where the Muslim population is becoming a significant voting block it’s very clear that presumably left leaning politicians have no compunction about pandering to the conservative, religious and social agendas of that Islamic electorate if it’s what will keep them in office.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
So what should these ominous freedom-hating American queer leftists do about the treatment of gays in Iran? Should they organize an embargo on Iranian products? Write nasty emails to the Iranian government? Where is the solution to their problems? Certainly the all-knowing Conservative gays here at the esteemed IGF wouldn’t let their poor misbegotten (and freedom-hating) queer brothers languish without direction…would they?
posted by Avee on
So what should these ominous freedom-hating American queer leftists do about the treatment of gays in Iran? Should they organize an embargo on Iranian products? Write nasty emails to the Iranian government?
Well, that would be a start! (Actually, there already is an embargo — at least until Obama lifts it.)
Suddenly the gay left doesn’t see any utility in public demonstrations of outrage (at least, as Steve says, when the target hates Bush and thus can’t really be bad at all, even if they do hang a couple hundred gays).
posted by KamatariSeta on
Oh good god, Horowitz is many things but “persecuted” is not one of them. Hecklers may be annoying, but persecution it is not.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CP offers: “So what should these ominous freedom-hating American queer leftists do about the treatment of gays in Iran?”
I didn’t read anyone here noting that “queer leftists” (your term) are freedom-hating. I think, from prior posts, it’s pretty clear that the GayLeft is anything but freedom-hating; in fact, they want so much personal freedom and validation from society that it regularly impinges on the right of the majority to pursue their own collective sense of happiness.
I guess a start would be for the GayLeft to acknowledge the error of their self-interested, politically motivated way and stand with their conservative brethern in the gay community –rather than snarl some caustic and oh-so-insincere cynicism and sarcasm, CP. I think that’s been the message conservative gays have been sending to pseudo-conservative groups like LogCabineers and others.
But for sure, a real start, would be to abandon the snarling insincerity that marks the usual response of GayLefties to any proposal for change that suggests they aren’t the monolith voice of “gay America” or have a lock on the gay agenda.
posted by KamatariSeta on
“”; in fact, they want so much personal freedom and validation from society that it regularly impinges on the right of the majority to pursue their own collective sense of happiness.””
Would you elaborate further on what you mean by this?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
MM: “I guess a start would be for the GayLeft to acknowledge the error of their self-interested, politically motivated way and stand with their conservative brethern in the gay community –rather than snarl some caustic and oh-so-insincere cynicism and sarcasm, CP.”
And this will help gays in Iran? Good to know.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CP, nice try at disembling… taking lessons from Obama’s Rev Wright crisis mgt plans are you?
No, it won’t help gays in Iran. It will might help stateside, with the US State Dept, if gays formed a consensus and worked with StateDept officials and UN Officials to protest Iran.
It would have helped if gays had protested the recent Iranian President’s visit to the liberal enclave at Coumbia Univ. It would have helped if gays across the political specturm would press their advantage on this intern’l human rights issue. I guess you guys were too busy screaming for Cheney and Bush to be frog-marched off the World Court at the Hague and tried as war criminals to bother with real issues.
Like I wrote above, what we don’t need is more sarcastic cynicism from the petty GayLeft on this issue.
Like I wrote above, it’d be nice if folks like you could put your harsh, unyielding partisanship aside and work with your conservative brethren on at least one frikcin’ issue without resorting to the “trade tricks as usual” nonsense like “And this will help gays in Iran? Good to know.”
Put down the kool aid, CP. This ought to be an issue even someone like you can support.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
KamatariSeta asks: “Would you elaborate further on what you mean by this?”
Sure Jason. CP implied that someone called the “queer leftists” (his term, not mine) anti-freedom. I rebutted that nonsense by noting that no one even implied that and CP, implicitly, agreed since he didn’t dispute it in a subsequent taunting reply.
In fact, if anything, the GayLeft is more inclined to be pressing for expanded freedoms -especially personal freedoms- than just about any other group. Mostly because we’ve been denied rights and privileges afforded others in our society.
posted by KamatariSeta on
“”In fact, if anything, the GayLeft is more inclined to be pressing for expanded freedoms -especially personal freedoms- than just about any other group. Mostly because we’ve been denied rights and privileges afforded others in our society.”‘
Thats not what I wanted to know. What I wanted to know is how this “”regularly impinges on the right of the majority to pursue their own collective sense of happiness.””
Could you explain how it does that?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
MM: “CP implied that someone called the “queer leftists” (his term, not mine) anti-freedom.”
I implied nothing of the sort, kind Sir. It was I who said “queer leftists,” and I meant it. You yourself wrote that it was my term…so why the threats of implication?! They are sad individuals, these career leftists (socialists.) They have the audacity to side with Iran due to their inherent Bush-hatred. They do in fact hate freedom. Their embrace of Ahmenajad (specifically the homosexuals on Columbia’s campus) is proof enough of that. So the question remains, how can gay leftists (those who aren’t beyond the reach of salvation, that is) assist our poor misbegotten gay Iranians? I’ve offered two examples while you’ve offered nothing but cruel name-calling and pernicious dissembling. Why are you unwilling to help? Why aren’t you offering solutions??
posted by KamatariSeta on
Well, I’m not a leftist, per se, I’m just a liberal, but I’m certainly not fond of Iran.
As for what to do for gay Iranians, I’m not really sure what anyone CAN do.
I don’t know of any Iranian products to boycott, though I try to buy American when I can out of other principles anyway.
Letter writing to or protesting in front of an Iranian embassy is one possibility, but I sincerely doubt it would accomplish anything.
For that kind of activism and pressure to work on a government, it has to be a government that has at least SOME trace of a civilized nature, and I don’t think the Iranian government has that.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CP, as much as you would like to claim someone else is responsible for your confused thinking, that burden lies solely on your shoulders.
You implied the queer leftists were anti-freedom or, I think your unique phrase was “freedom-hating”. That’s where the implication arises; not with the phrase queer leftists.
I think you need to turn off your sarcastic volume, take off the blinders and drop the sarcasm. It’d help you grow as a constructive agent for change… if that’s even your goal.
As for suggestions of how the GayLeft could help, I offered a simple, easy, politically UN-painful one: join with conservative gay brethern and fight oppression of gays in Iran… and Cuba… and Venezula… and Palestine… and, oh well, maybe the GayLeft can’t abandon all her precious friends. I think that was the point of Stephen’s most excellent post here.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
KamatariSeta opines “Letter writing to or protesting in front of an Iranian embassy is one possibility, but I sincerely doubt it would accomplish anything.”
Gheez, one example: black civil rights activists in the 1970’s-1980’s in America brought intern’l pressure to bear on the old Rhodesia and South Africa through exactly that mechanism you think won’t accomplish anything. Right.
Toss in a divestment effort, coupled with protests at US-based embassies, the black civil rights leaders of the prior generation could call you uninformed.
Nawh, won’t accomplish anything! Never been done.
Right.
posted by Brian Miller on
Outright Libertarians and its membership registered our opinions with our representatives in the USA, and with the British Embassy, but that didn’t do much.
The reality is that very few of the “Powers That Be” care about us on either the left or the right. We need more candidates who will stand up for the basic human rights of underrepresented and oppressed groups like queer Iranians. We won’t get them by continuing votes for Tweedledee Democrats and Tweedledum Republicans — both parties that were absolutely silent about this outrageous situation.
For a real laugh, check out the conspiracy theories of far-lefties in Britain like perjur-in-front-of-the-Senate George Galloway. He claims that all criticism of the Iranian regime on this issue is for neoconservatives to get a pretext for war with Iran — and that gay life in Tehran is no more dangerous than gay life in Texas or (English town) Tunbridge Wells.
You can watch the laughable claims here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXZh8FUWnyg
Even more galling is the trail of “progressives” in the comments field who are backing up everything Galloway is claiming, and attacking the gay rights group OutRage as “tools of Zionism” for continuing to focus on Iran’s practice of torturing and executing gay people.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Let’s not forget that Pegah Emambakhsh, a 40-year-old lesbian, is also currently trying to avoid deportation from the UK back to Iran.
posted by Jorge on
Why can’t this be just about a simple bureaucratic injustice averted? There should be nothing “political” about this story, unless it’s that nobody in the UK cares about gay people being executed in Iran (something I won’t say Europe is unique about yet–does our government grant asylum to gay Iranians?). I mean this kind of thing is sad but I don’t remember the US government lifting a finger for oppressed Muslims in the Middle East before you-know-what. It’s always supposed to be the job of activists to fight the heartless government to save vulnerable lives like this.
What is going on in Europe?
posted by KamatariSeta on
MM, that worked with those nations, but do you really think it would work with a nation as arguably insane as Iran? Do you think Ahmadinejad really gives a damn about what anyone in this nation thins about him or his government?
Brian is right that the major parties are silent on this, and unless we have some kind of major politicians or other figures speaking about this as well, it’s even less likely anything can be done.
Additionally, it WOULD have to be an international effort, MM, as was the one against Rhodesia and S.A., but is there ANY chance of that? The most we could get is a few disparate activist groups in the U.S. and Europe and maybe some other nations.
But the U.S. government won’t speak out about it, since they have no incentive too.
European governments won’t speak out about it because many of them share some variation of George Galloways sentiments about criticizing arab nations.
At THIS point, anything we would do would be a blip on the radar, because we don’t have the power and the numbers to mount a REAL effort to do anything about it.
posted by Craig2 on
I’m one of those Tatchell style leftists, who does criticise regimes like Zimbabwe. In the case of Iran, though, several factors are operative:
(i) The current Iranian government consists of conservative homophobic Islamists;
(ii) Iranian society is not homogenous. It is divided into conservative and liberal factions;
(iii) Indisputably, they do execute gay men, as well as whip them repeatedly beforehand.
(iv) I’d feel more comfortable if IGF qualified its aversion to
Islamofascists with recognition of LGBT Muslims, who bravely resist conservative homophobic elements within their faith.
(v) Incidentally, Tatchell doesn’t have much time for christofascists, either…
(vi) Being anti-Bush *isn’t*
enough for me, nor for many other sane leftists. It’s the ossified and antiquated marxist-
leninist sects of yesteryear that
are the worst offenders, and not
many gay leftists inhabit those…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Brian Miller on
Why can’t this be just about a simple bureaucratic injustice averted?
Because there’s more to the story than that.
1: The British government awards automatic asylum based on religion and ethnicity — but not sexual orientation. If the gent in question had been Jewish, that enough would have granted him asylum. Yet the British Home Office AND courts were willing to send him back with an admonishment to “just be discreet” — something they WOULDN’T do for a political, religious, or ethnic minority.
2: If the case was in a US court, the usual suspects would be screaming from the rooftops about how “AmeriKKKa” is about to send a man to his death. The EU seems to get special dispensation.
3: The rhetoric being embraced by both the far right and far left is literally killing gay people in Iran. Nobody seems concerned for their long-term safety, or in our supposed “principles of the free world.” Instead, the discussion is centered around ridiculous debates about immigration and whether or not sexual orientation is a “choice.”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
KamatariSeta asks: “MM, that worked (protesting before US-based foreign embassies) with those nations (Rhodesia & South Africa), but do you really think it would work….”
Like I wrote, it’s a start. You wrote it wouldn’t work and I reminded you of two salient, applicable recent cases where those strategies DID work. We can also add efforts like the disinvestment strategy engaged against England and Northern Ireland in the Sullivan Principles effort of the same time period if you wish… Senator Moynihan protested before the Brit embassy in DC on dozens of occasions.
So, toss in some disinvestment strategies with the embassy protests, GayLeft groups standing with GayRights and GayModerates to advance the issue within the MSM, GayLeft groups applauding Geo Bush’s efforts to bring UN sanctions to bear on Iran for other issues, etc. Who knows what’s possible or probable? The senior policy experts at the US State Dept’s African Desk as late as 1976 didn’t think embassy protests would amount to anything meaningful with Rhodesia, either. Two years later, poof… Rhodesia is gone.
Will the GayLeft drop its harsh partisanship and step outside the box? I doubt it; it’s like asking a zebra to go white… it’s literally against the nature of the GayLeft. They’d prefer to saddle up next to darling dictators and despots than suggest GayLeft political alliances might be all wrong.
But then, the point of Stephen’s most excellent post was to underscore how the GayLeft refuses to even fake outrage at the slaughter and repression of gays in Iran and other backward countries which are currently “darlings” of the GayLeft and FarLeft forces in the Democrat Party.
You think it won’t work. I gave you three examples of where it DID work with repressive, extreme govts. How about a fourth example closer to home?
Our own American Revolution for Independence began with a protest outside a Brit imperial office (the era’s equivalent of an embassy). It was the Royal Customs House in Boston where the Brits slaughtered innocent colonial subjects protesting British hegemony in the colonies 238 years ago this month.
Nawh, protests before govt offices of foreign countries don’t lead to anything meaningful, do they?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Brian offers: “Nobody seems concerned for their long-term safety, or in our supposed principles of the free world.”
Umm, Brian… the conservatives on the GayRight are concerned. Blogs like GayPatroit have been pressing the tocsin on this very issue.
Any responsible LibertarianGay blogs or groups doing same? Don’t know.
posted by Mike Airhart on
Umm, how exactly has the U.S. gay left been silent on Iran’s persecution of gays?
A few quick searches found these progressive gay organizations’ statements against Iran:
HRC
NGLTF
NGLTF and HRC
Internationally, the gay left has spoken as well:
IGLHRC and Human Rights Watch
ILGA
Have they all jumped on the Mehdi Kazemi bandwagon in particular? No. But they have not been "silent" about Iran’s human rights violations.
A
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
All those empty words do nothing for our gay brothers and sisters in Iran, Mike. What these organizations REALLY need to do is follow MM’s suggestions and “join with conservative gay brethern (sp) and fight oppression of gays in Iran.” It is only when all gays become jackbooted conservatives that we will see any real change in Iran. God Bless you MM, you have the true answers to all of the world’s problems.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
CP, that’s because, as you so accurately noted, “MM reads books”. LOL. You gotta get that big-assed chip off your shoulder, dude… it’s killing ya. Or is that just your GayVictimHoodCard on steroids?
posted by Richard on
I am sorry, but this has got to be one of the biggest piles of you-know-what. Liberals do not care about LGBT rights global?
BS!
All of the international human rights groups that deal with LGBT rights (as a focus or as one of major issues) would probably be labled ‘progressive’ (AI, HRC, IGLHR, IGLA). Several gay progressive bloggers have also focused on the issue.
How many conservative LGBT groups/bloggers deal with gay rights on a global perspective? How many conservatives have expressed much concern for LGBT Iraqis?
Also, American religious fanatics, have to be a little bit for more careful about how they peddle thier hatred, for public relations reasons.
Is the delegation of Columbia professors liberal or left-wing? Do they get a chance to respond to the charge that they do not care about the plight of gay Iranians?
Most of the ‘leading’ LGBT groups do not focus or deal with global issues. Period. Maybe they should, but most focus on local/state or federal issues.
Also, I suspect that most of the people who protested the Brown’s government were probably progressive or otherwise on the political left.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard asks: “Is the delegation of Columbia professors liberal or left-wing? Do they get a chance to respond to the charge that they do not care about the plight of gay Iranians?”
Gheez, Richard… I would posit that the Columbia professors care as much about gay Iranians as the Duke professors care about the rights of WRONGLY accused white lacrosse players.
Not much because they’re both mostly ultra-liberal types who think they have the monopoly on what it truth, right, beauty and wisdom… and think it their “right” to impose that view on society at large, students in general and counter-thinkers in specific. Afterall, as Colorado-Pat judges the world, they’ve read more books than anyone.
posted by James on
To say that gay activists have ignored the plight of LGBT people in Iran is ignoring the facts. And the facts are these – over the past three or four years, I have read countless articles in the gay press concerning the horrific treatment of LGBT people in countries ruled by Muslim theocracies. I have seen almost no coverage of this issue in the “mainstream” press, and I have heard no cries of outrage from any politicians, save Barney Frank. But how can I – or any gay person in the US – be able to reposnd to the plight of gay people in Iran or anywhere else, when religious fundmentalists in this country are still persecuting gay and lesbian people with an endless barrage of distortions, stereotypes, and outright lies? Or to put it simply – I am horrified by the way LGBT people are treated in many countries outside the US, but there is still tons more work to be done here.
posted by Jordan on
Richard, the problem is that all the progressive groups you mentioned have actually been lobbying, creating networks, speaking out publicly, and trying to make real social change on a global scale. Meanwhile, right wingnut groups have been calling for the destruction of Iran in a nuclear holocaust, which would obviously put an end to the torture and hanging of gay people. Thus, in the logic of the conservative movement, the right has been “doing something” (standing behind our death-obsessed leaders, demanding destruction on a large scale), while the left has just been “ignoring the issue” (not being ignorant idiots) — because dropping bombs for peace and prosperity always trumps the measured, logical, and realistic response.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
But Jordon, did you not read the article? The gay left hates Bush (Stephen Miller wouldn’t lie to us, his loyal readers)…how can they accomplish anything?
posted by Brian Miller on
the conservatives on the GayRight are concerned. Blogs like GayPatroit have been pressing the tocsin on this very issue.
Any responsible LibertarianGay blogs or groups doing same?
Yes, but blogposts don’t do that much to influence policy.
And based on experience, gay Republicans will fall into line behind their candidate regardless of his stance on the issue, which doesn’t help apply pressure to the British if the candidate doesn’t care.
McCain was just in the UK — hopefully the queer Right was responsible and petitioned him to bring this issue up in his discussions with Gordon Brown.
posted by Brian Miller on
To say that gay activists have ignored the plight of LGBT people in Iran is ignoring the facts. And the facts are these – over the past three or four years, I have read countless articles
Meaningless words. Real action includes withholding support from candidates who refuse to lead on this issue. When both Democratic candidates and the GOP nominee are opposed to basic immigration rights even for partners of US citizens, yet get significant support, this shows the “support” for Mehdi’s rights to be empty, meaningless words.
As for Human Rights Watch, queer head honcho Scott Long is a notorious patsy for the Tehran regime — going so far as to claim the recent executions of gay men in Iran were for “rape” and that critics of Iran’s anti-gay policy were interested in using it as a pretext to start a war with Iran.
HRW hasn’t saved anyone in Iran from death, but they sure have been useful idiots for their friends on the left.
Mehdi and friends, on the other hand, are fortunate enough to have people in the UK — including my friend Brett Lock at OutRAGE! — fighting on their behalf in the political system. We’re doing our country no favors in our own behavior in this mess. Words aren’t enough — we need to let politicians know that continued doublespeak or lack of action on these issues will result in gay votes going to competitors or not appearing at all when they need them.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jordan offers: “Meanwhile, right wingnut groups have been calling for the destruction of Iran in a nuclear holocaust, which would obviously put an end to the torture and hanging of gay people.”
Another groundless, baseless boogey-man of the JustGiveHugs RadicalLeft in America… opps, I mean France… opps, I mean Palestine.
But it’s clear that the concept of far right nutwing types planning a nuke attack on Iran stuck in someone’s mind, eh Jordan? Even a rat trap works at least once. I like that you ignore that credible sources and decisionmakers in the US govt said that would not happen.
To think it plausible to offer the nuking Iran is the Right’s answer to doing something for oppressed gays is just silly cocktail hour nonsense. You ought to be ashamed for even repeating it with a str8 face -and questionable intent. Gheez, can the GayLeft can anymore dishonest and intellectually corrupt?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
“McCain was just in the UK — hopefully the queer Right was responsible and petitioned him to bring this issue up in his discussions with Gordon Brown.”
It kind of reminds me of the treatment First Lady Laura Bush rec’d from the radical FarLeft Democrat-water-carrying American feminist community when she singularly raised the issue of the plight of women under the Taliban, before the successful Republican-led and multinational invasion of Afghanistan.
She was the lone voice pointing out the horrible treatment of women in Taliban society. I guess NOW & others were more interested in keeping the enemy of my enemy is my friend strategy going… I’m only surprised that NOW and other Democrat “womens” groups haven’t held fundraisers for the ex-patriated Taliban leaders. I guess that will come if Obama gets elected.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Just like Stephen points out the GayLeft is doing on the question of Iranian treatment of gays.
posted by Jordan on
“I like that you ignore that credible sources and decisionmakers in the US govt said that would not happen.”
The fact that you think anyone in the current government is credible pretty much proves my point.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jordan, the topic was “Rightwing nutjobs” calling for a nuke attack on Iran… like I wrote:’Gheez, can the GayLeft can anymore dishonest and intellectually corrupt?”
I guess the answer was yep and you proved it. Thanks.
posted by Richard on
(1) The notion that somehow the LGBT Left or progressives do not care about LGBT people in the Middle East is false, and certain people here should admit their mistake. The bulk of the work on international LGBT rights has come from progressives.
(2) If you are going to accuse of a professor or being left-wing and not caring about gay Iranian, do you even attempt to get your facts straight? Do they get a chance to reply? Or does the truth and fair play not matter?
posted by RIchard on
The first lady Bush was not the first person to talk about various human rights abuses in Afghanistan, including the rights of women. Although one
might ask about the human rights situation in that nation now or in Iraq.
Often times you have a situation where many people — on the political left and right — are not really interested in facts when it comes to the Middle East. Instead, they want to be told simple answers and have their own partisan politics be vindicated.
Is talk meaningless? Are protests a waste of time? It really depends on the circumstances, and who is doing the talking or protesting. Amnesty International has done a lot of good work, with pretty much all ‘talk’.
Also what, pray tell, is the ‘GayRight’ doing about gay rights in Afghanistatn or Iraq?