IGF CultureWatch

Pim's Lessons. Here's an excellent piece by columnist Dave Kopel, in the Rocky Mountain News, about the media's bias in reporting about Pim Fortuyn. In taking to task an AP story about Fortuyn which painted him as an extremist, Kopel writes:

"the gay Dutch sociology professor offered complaints about Islam which are quite similar to complaints that some gay American sociology professors (and other American gays) offer about Christianity: anti-gay, sexist, morally imperialist, and premised on the belief that one religion is superior to all others. Now, when American gay activists make such remarks, the AP doesn't work itself into a lather and claim that the remarks reveal "demons" in the American character""

Coverage in the conservative Washington Times notes that last year Fortuyn was thrown out of a left-wing party for condemning a Rotterdam Muslim cleric who had called homosexuals "worse than pigs." Again, criticizing Islamic fundamentalism -- even for its virulent homophobia -- is deemed out of bounds, even after Sept. 11. Clearly, the liberal-left demonization of this man stemmed from his insisting that a point is reached when multiculturalism threatens the basic values of liberal Western culture. If it's true that a leftist environmentalist shot him, then at least it may reveal the extent to which the radical left has truly become a totalitarian anti-Western cult that can't countenance any deviation from its politically correct party line, and the extent to which elite liberalism backs up the leftist worldview (i.e., its willingness to sacrifice gay equality on the alter of anti-Western multiculturalism). That "queer" left groups are clamoring aboard this bandwagon is the ultimate irony -- or revelation of self-loathing.

The Death of Pim. Openly-gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated Monday while campaigning in the Netherlands. The BBC's website blasted out a headline that read "Dutch Far-Right Leader Shot." But Fortuyn, who was openly and proudly gay and supported the Dutch gay marriage law, was hardly a right winger as we understand the term.

In fact, the former academic seemed to support personal liberties on many fronts. But he was an adamant foe of Islamic immigration into The Netherlands. According to the Financial Times , his view was, "There are 16 million Dutch. This is enough. The country is full."

The Dutch provide immigrants (of whom about 800,000 are Muslims, I'm told) with immediate and generous welfare benefits, whether they show any inclination to become productive residents or not, which complicates the issue -- especially when many immigrants seem to devote themselves to undermining the liberal society the Dutch have created. Fortuyn, in fact, had stated strongly condemned the new immigrants for their fervent opposition to women's equality and to gay rights. Dutch Muslim clerics, for instance, have labeled homosexuality as a "shameless," "scandalous," "intolerable" "sickness" that "could destroy society."

Again, to quote the Financial Times:

"Mr Fortuyn had been campaigning on a ticket of ending immigration and reforming public services. Not only was he openly homosexual, but he made clear his sexual orientation informed his politics. He wanted to halt the arrival of immigrants from Muslim countries because he feared they were eroding the country's tolerance of diversity."

Some "right winger" indeed.

Mail Bag. I received an e-mail commenting on my April 20 posting about the big anti-globalization/anti-Israel rally in DC, which included some contingents from the campus-based "queer" left. The writer took me to task, stating:

"In your article on last weekend's protests, you referred to the demonstrators as being 'anti-American'" What is so 'anti-American' about opposing a state that denies liberties to others; wasn't America founded upon the principle that all men are created equal and ought to be free? Those protesting the occupation in Palestine are 'Pro-American', in that respect."

To that writer, I dedicate the posting below.

Trouble in the Left's Big Tent. I owe the popular blog instapundit, written by Glenn Reynolds, for this item. In his 5/3/2002 postings he links to a page of pictures from and comments about a recent pro-Palestinian rally at UC Berkley. Among those enthralled by the romanticism of suicide killers, and appalled that Israel would dare to defend itself, is a group called QUIT, for Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism. But, as instapundit notes, if you scroll down to the comments at the bottom of the page, a guy named Sallah writes:

"As a Palestinian, I must protest the inclusion of a homosexual group in this afternoon's rally. Gay people have no place in society, whether in Palestine or in the US."

A little further below, responding to a post taking issue with his comments, Sallah replies,

"We are fighting for self-determination. That means that we wish to live according to our own societal values, not your Western ones. You are a cultural imperialist. I appreciate your concern for our struggle, but WE will decide for ourselves."

Could the blindness of the pro-Palestinian gay left be made any clearer?

Israel, if it needs pointing out, is the only Middle East country that protects by law the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Come to think of it, it's the only Middle East country that protects by law the civil rights of its citizens, period.

Anita Orange Juice's Hard Times. On a lighter note, the St. Petersburg Times ran this April 28 story about Anita Bryant's filing for bankruptcy, for the second time in five years. Apparently, the anti-gay doyenne has acquired quite a reputation for cheating the employees at her theater in the Tennessee Bible Belt, as well as for not paying her taxes. The story notes that: "In Florida, meanwhile, her name is surfacing once more as lawyers and gay activists try to repeal the state's ban on gay adoptions, blaming Bryant for its passage in 1977." The evil that some people do can have a very long life indeed, but eventually the light must overwhelm the darkness.

UN-Gay. For those who think the U.N. has any relevance whatsoever, it's worth noting that when it's not acting as a megaphone for the propaganda of Jew-hating suicide-killers, or setting up "safe zones" for refugees which it then leaves utterly defenseless, the U.N. is busy bashing gays and lesbians. As reported in a Washington Times article on May 1, Muslim and Catholic countries this week (1) kept the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) from being designated as a consultant nongovernmental organization, charging that the group was soft on pedophilia, and (2) blocked a proposed redefintion of "family" in a U.N. Child Summit document that would have recognized families "in various forms," which critics charged would have opened the door to granting legitimacy to same-sex relationships.

"Altogether, it was a pretty pro-family day," gloated Austin Ruse, of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Which I suppose shows that a rightwing Catholic spokesperson can still get away with being the voice of "pro-family" and anti-pedophile policy these days. Maybe the Catholic Church's being soft on pedophilia should keep that suspect group out of the corridors of U.N. power.

This is a bit complicated, but bear with me. Barring ILGA from participating on U.N. committees was justified, said its critics, because the Brussels-based lobby, with 300 member groups in 76 countries, did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which in years past had enjoyed some traffic with ILGA. ILGA, for its part, said that divulging all its member affiliates could put some in danger, which isn't hard to believe. But nevertheless, ILGA, which is a creature of the political and cultural left, has brought on many of its own troubles. Still, the attack against the group was infused with good, old fashioned, gay-baiting in the name of traditional religious values, both Catholic and Islamic. If those elements of the gay left that support Islamic terrorists had any brains, they could see the hellish nightmare that their new allies would create, if given half a chance.

Interestingly, the Bush administration had supported ILGA's application, arguing in January that ILGA was helpful in the fight against HIV and AIDS. While the U.S. delegation was silent this week in the debate, it voted on the losing side in a procedural vote to send the group's application back to the nongovernmental organizations committee for further investigation, which the Pakistani delegate denounced as a "delaying tactic" to buy another chance for ILGA.

For this, the Bush administration deserves some credit (which of course it won't receive). On the other hand, the U.S. delegation did an about-face and opposed broadening the U.N.'s definition of family. As noted in a previous posting, a senior official at the U.S. Mission has told the Washington Times last week that the Bush administration was backing the redefinition. However, the paper now reports that:

"pro-family and conservative groups that support the "natural" family in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- married heterosexual mother and father and their children and other blood relatives -- persuaded the administration of "dangers" in the loose, undefined language proposed by European delegations""

Given the pressure, which the conservative Washington Times helped engender, the administration caved. Hey, it's the U.N. Like it matters.

Guns 'R Us, Too. Here's an interesting article from planetout.com about some unfortunately gay-bashing rhetoric at a recent National Rifle Association confab in Reno. It seems that some of the speakers couldn't resist linking together Rosie O"Donnell's new gay advocacy with her previous anti-Second Amendment activism (how often Rosie keeps coming up, in unexpected contexts!). At the same time Tom Boyer, a representative of the Pink Pistols, the gay and lesbian gun owners group,

...noted that, at a members' forum in Reno on Saturday, he introduced himself as a Pink Pistol and urged the NRA not to mix other social issues into the agenda of the gun-rights organization. Other members supported that comment, he said. "I did have an NRA director come up and actually ask what he could do to help the Pink Pistols," Boyer said. "So there certainly is an outreach effort."

How often it seems that knee-jerk conservative homophobia is real but superficial and thus "counter-able," as opposed to die-hard fundamentalist bigotry.

Not "Devalued". A solid piece by columnist Rex Wockner on planetout.com describes why he doesn't buy into gay victimhood. In defending Rosie O"Donnell's comment that she has never felt discriminated against for being (as she calls herself) a gay woman, Rex writes:

"I have a theory that people who expect to experience discrimination may encounter more of it. I have gay and transgender acquaintances who seem to get discriminated against almost weekly. On the other hand, those of us who view our homosexuality as perfectly normal, and don't make it into an hysterical elephant in the living room, maybe end up having that reality reflected back at us by most people who figure out we're gay."

In a follow-up piece, Rex responds as follows to a well-intentioned activist who was quick to point up all the legal rights that gay people are still denied:

"[W]hile I am wholly uninterested in walking around feeling "devalued" (because I don't have any feelings like that at all, especially vis-"-vis society, as opposed to the government), I promise to continue, as I always have, to argue in favor of access to plain old marriage for same-sex couples.

Seems a sensible plan to me.

Predatory Priests, and All That. I haven't waded in much on the big gay-related (or is it?) news story dominating the media -- the exposure of the Catholic Church's years of covering up child molestation cases involving priests who repeatedly target young boys. This horror has been well reported and commented upon (see, for example, "The Catholic Pedophile Factory").

But here's my two cents. Attempts by church leaders to blame gay men in the priesthood, or the "homosexual atmosphere" created by a society tolerant of gay people, is certainly backfiring. No one is buying it. The church's refusal to take the blame for putting church PR over the safety of children is so self-evident that attempts to fire up homophobia in order to divert attention from their own sins is only making matters worse for themselves.

Here's a sidebar. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) issued a letter to the media on April 26 criticizing a lack of quotes from gay spokespersons in stories about the Catholic hierarchy's gay-blaming. That's a good point. But the letter oddly devolves into a discussion of pedophilia versus ephebophilia. Writes NLGJA President Robert Dodge:

"Additional reporting may have revealed that the Catholic Church does not have a problem with pedophiles. Instead, it may be one of ephebophiles, or individuals exclusively attracted to adolescents. More reporting might have turned up Dr. Fred S. Berlin, associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. In a statement that offered substantial balance and context, Dr. Berlin recently educated The New York Times readers that: "...We should make it clear that homosexuals are no more risk to children than heterosexuals. In terms of the bigger picture, there are every bit as many heterosexual men giving into sexual temptation with female adolescents.""

Perhaps pressuring 15-year-olds into sex is less horrific than pressuring pre-pubescent 8-year-olds, but I don't really see that this should be an issue to raise about media reporting. I mean, just what point is the NLGJA trying to make here? If they believe some of the teenage/priest sex was consensual, they should have the courage of their convictions and say so (although I haven't seen evidence of any teenagers having positive comments about their encounters with priestly predators). Moreover, the second part of the above quote, which claims that "as many heterosexual men" are prying on female adolescents, is surely not suggesting that there are as many homosexual abuse cases as heterosexual cases, given that under the most liberal theories gays are only 10% of the population (and, in fact, perhaps half that number)? Some advocacy!

Glass Half Full? According to a new study, the number of anti-gay hate crimes reported to a coalition of organizations around the country dropped 12% in 2001. Good news, right? But the gay and lesbian (and bisexual and transgender) anti-violence activists who issued the study were quick to say that the numbers meant only a decline in tracking, not violence. "Absolutely, unequivocally, it does not reflect that violence is down," Richard Haymes, executive director of the New York Gay & Lesbian Anti-Violence Project and a board member of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), told the Washington Blade. Haymes and Clarence Patton, author of the NCAVP report, emphasized repeatedly that the decrease was certainly due to a lack of participation in reporting, not to a lack of crimes to report.

And what is the cause for this drop in crime reporting? Insufficient funding for NCAVP member projects, the activists say. Well, maybe. But it couldn't be that a flat-out positive report just wouldn't be in the interest of those who specialize in raising funds to counter bias-related crime, could it?

Despite the overall drop in reports of anti-gay hate crimes, the activists note that their study does show a rise in crimes targeting transgendered people and gay Latinos.

Cabin Fire. An anti Log Cabin Republican screed by Sarah Wildman in the New Republic's April 29 issue, titled "The Log Cabin Republicans Collapse," forgoes credible criticism for knee-jerk bashing. She's appalled that the LCR is "cheering blatantly anti-gay policies and appointees" of the Bush administration. An example? "[W]hen Bush nominated John Ashcroft, one of the Senate's most consistently anti-gay members, to be attorney general, LCR supported the appointment." Five paragraphs later she tosses aside LCR's explanation that the group had "exacted statements of support from Ashcroft during his nomination process."

In fact, thanks to lobbying by LCR and others, during his confirmation testimony Ashcroft stated repeatedly that sexual orientation would not be a consideration in Justice Department employment or appointments, that he would enforce all laws and regulations protecting gay and lesbian federal workers from employment discrimination, that the gay and lesbian DOJ Pride employee organization would continue to meet and organize in the Department under his leadership, and that federal civil rights laws will be vigorously enforced. Shortly after his confirmation, LCR's leadership 's secured an unprecedented meeting with the new attorney general at his office in the Department of Justice, where he pledged, according to LCR, that he would "enforce the law equally for all Americans, and that equal protection under the law means that no one will be left out."

As I previously noted, to the surprise of many liberals, Ashcroft recently invoked the federal Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act in an indictment for the slaying of two lesbian hikers in Shenandoah National Park, in Virginia. According to the Justice Department, "The United States maintains that the defendant hated women and lesbians and that hatred was a motive for his killing""

Isn't this the way it's supposed to work? Or would liberals simply prefer shouting "Bigot, bigot go away" to actually working with conservatives and advancing their attitudes on gay and lesbian issues? Of course, the answer is the former.

Bush the homophobe? More evidence that the charge that the Bush administration is anti-gay is ludicrous. As the conservative Washington Times reported this week, the administration "has joined European delegates to the upcoming U.N. summit on children in moving to recognize families 'in various forms,' including unmarried cohabitating couples and homosexual partners." This is in opposition to a coalition of Catholic and Muslim countries that has formed to block the proposed change to the tradition U.N. definition of the family -- married heterosexual parents and children -- that the General Assembly's Special Session on Children will take up next next month. The article quoted an unnamed official who explained the U.S. supports the proposal to recognize families "in various forms" because "obviously we feel this more reflects the families of today, which are headed by single parents and extended families."

Now that the news is out, the rightwing can be expected to mobilize against the administration's position. Which is why we need gay Republican's with some clout to lobby the other way. Shouldn't this be obvious to liberals? (Sorry, another dumb question.)

Cheney Joins Pro-Gay Group's Board. That's Mary Cheney, the veep's out-lesbian daughter (what will those homophobic Republicans think of next?). As reported on andrewsullivan.com on April 22, she's joined the board of the Republican Unity Coalition, sort of a gay-straight alliance within the GOP to advance gay inclusion and participation within the Grand Old Party. According to Sullivan's report, Mary Cheney stated, "Working together we can expand the Republican Party's outreach to non-traditional Republicans; we can make sexual orientation a non-issue for the Republican Party; and we can help achieve equality for all gay and lesbian Americans." Now that"s sure to make the "no enemies on the left; no friends on the right" branch of the gay movement go absolutely ballistic.

The "Anti"s" Take to the Streets. Washington, D.C. is besieged this weekend with "anti-globalization" protesters. They"re anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Bush, anti-War on Terrorism, and, first and foremost, anti-free markets and free trade. What are they for? As one frequently seen sign demands, "Construct the Alternative!" Or, to quote a Web posting by Queers for Racial & Economic Justice:

"With the Log Cabin Republicans, Pro-'Life' Lesbians & Gays (anti-choice) and the continued right-wing drift of the Democratic Party, don't you think we need a progressive/radical alternative?"

Other than support for abortion rights (already the law of the land, and under no real threat) and for maintaining race-based preferences, and opposition to "police brutality" and "economic injustice," the contentless "progressive/radical alternative" is hardly an inspiring vision for mobilizing the masses. The question is why a movement that's pretty much just "anti" has attracted as much youthful support as the anti-globalizers have. No, they're not all would-be John Walker Lindhs, but they"re drawn from the same well -- that is, from what I"ve observed, the pampered children of the upper middle classes, in revolt against the very system that spoiled them rotten by fostering economic growth and prosperity.

Of course, the gay left -- especially its campus contingents -- have gone full throttle into the "anti" movement. Queers for Racial & Economic Justice was out marching to overthrow the very freedoms that allowed a gay movement to emerge in the first place -- a civil society based on respect for private property and the rights of individuals to create and own wealth, with only limited government interference.

It's interesting to note that the gay left "anti"s" have already created front organizations. Michael Buchanan, the organizer of the group QAQAF (Queers Against "Queer as Folk"), referred to in the previous posting (below), made this comment in a letter published recently in The Advocate:

"We truly wanted our queer brothers and sisters to know that what is taking place on QAF is not good for the queer community. (One quickie example: The cast picture in the evening's program has a huge American flag as a backdrop. Puke! -- The queer movement, if looked at in context of a bigger global picture, could be the issue that unites minorities against Republican and Democratic corporate globalization."

That's quite a leap from going ballistic because you don't like the non-PC plotline of a gay soap opera to trying to overthrow "corporate globalization" (which is, of course, leftwing blather for shareholder-owned companies doing business around the world with consumers who choose to buy their products). Didn't someone once write a book titled "Revolt Against Freedom"?

Good for Me, But Not for Thee? Paula Martinac, who writes a syndicated column appearing in a number of lesbigay newspapers, may be a writer whose generally on the left, but she scores some excellent points in her Apirl 17 offering, which (in it's Planet Out incarnation) is titled Changing Channels on GLAAD. Taking aim at some of more doctrinaire lockstep thinking on the part of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and others, she declares that "there's sometimes a creepy, doctrinaire undercurrent in the lesbian and gay movement of which GLAAD is only one example." How so? Well, there was GLAAD's attempt to get sponsors to boycott gay-unfriendly radio (and, briefly, TV) personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger, while at the same time criticizing the religious right's efforts to pressure sponsors to stop supporting gay-positive shows. Martinac suggests, not unreasonably, that if you practice the tactic of turing up the heat on sponsors so they'll drop their ads from shows you don't like, then you lose the moral authority to criticize the same tactic when used against gay-themed programming. Better to argue, rather than attempt to silence. Now there's a novel thought.

Martinac also lights into the group "Queers Against 'Queer as Folk,'" which is seeking the cancellation of the popular Showtime series. The group's leader says "We want this show to go away because its portrayals of gay people are 'dangerous.'" Funny, but I think the religious rightists over at the American Family Association are on the same team. Now there's an alliance!

The Case to Overturn "Hardwick"? Just days after the death of Byron "Whizzer" White, the former U.S. Supreme Court justice who penned the infamous "Hardwick" decision upholding laws criminalizing same-sex relations (see item below), Lambda Legal Defense announced it is taking a new "sodomy law" case back to the Supremes, in an attempt to make right what was once done wrong. The new case, "Lawrence and Garner v. Texas," involves two Houston men convicted of violating the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" Law by having consensual sex in the privacy of one man's home. Just as "Plessy v. Ferguson," which upheld segregated public schools, was upturned by "Brown v. Board of Education," it's high time the High Court recognized its error and mended its ways. Hears hoping this is the case to do it.

A Supreme Injustice Remembered. It's said we should remember those who have died with a certain amount of charity. But that doesn't mean excusing the wrong that they did, especially when their actions have caused pain and suffering. And so let us note that death came this week for Byron R. "Whizzer" White, the former U.S. Supreme Court justice who died Monday at the age of 84. Most of the obits remembered him as the former award-wining college football hero who enjoyed a colorful career on the bench. Lesbian and gay Americans, however, will recall him as the author of the horrific 1986 Bowers vs. Hardwick ruling that upheld state laws criminalizing homosexual sex between consenting adults. On behalf of the High Court's 5-to-4 majority, White wrote that it was appropriate to find Michael Hardwick guilty of having consensual adult homosexual relations in the privacy of his own bedroom because:

"To claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. -- .The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. -- [The defendant] insists that majority sentiments about the morality of homosexuality should be declared inadequate. We do not agree, and are unpersuaded that the sodomy laws of some 25 States should be invalidated on this basis."

It's worth noting that White was not appointed by a right-wing Republican, but by liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy, who praised his nominee as "the ideal New Frontier judge."

One can only imagine what the impact might have been if these so-called "sodomy laws" had been thrown out. Certainly, the fact that several states still have these statutes on their books to this day has aided those who oppose same-sex marriage and support the military's gay ban. The laws also work to deny lesbian or gay parents custody of their children -- or even, in some cases, visitation rights.

Fortunately, a 1996 Supreme Court decision by another Kennedy (unrelated to John and his clan) helped lay the foundation to eventually overturn "Hardwick." In Romer v. Evans, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that found Colorado's constitutional amendment prohibiting gays and lesbians from ever being covered by anti-discrimination laws was unconstitutional. He declared:

"The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies. -- The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence" Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance". We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause""

Did I mention that Justice Kennedy was a 1987 Reagan appointee?

A question: Just how many hundreds of thousands of dollars will the Human Rights Campaign raise for liberal and left-leaning Democrats, using the specter of the vast danger posed by future Republican Supreme Court nominees (like Anthony Kennedy, or Bush the First appointee David Souter)?

That's not to say I'd support any nominee that Bush the Second might put forward (and I'm very grateful that Robert Bork was Borked, back in Reagan's day). However, it is to argue that nominees should be judged fairly, on their own merits, and that the scare campaign underway over the very idea of a GOP Supreme Court nominee is mostly partisan hyperbole, like so much in Washington these days.