Gays in ‘Eurabia’

Four years after the assassination of gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, his warning of the threat posed to the rights of European gays and women by intolerant, anti-assimilationist Muslim immigrants is increasingly vindicated by events.

Muslims have migrated in large numbers to Europe, have more children than ethnic Europeans, are disproportionately involved in crime, and increasingly insist on being governed not by the prevailing civil laws but by Muslim Shari'ah law. Many Muslim clerics in Europe look to the day when Europe will become a Muslim caliphate. Scholar Bat Ye'or has dubbed that future Europe "Eurabia." Already, Muslim leaders in France, Britain, Denmark, and Belgium have declared certain Muslim neighborhoods to be under Islamic jurisdiction.

A prime target of Fortuyn's criticism was the European establishment, a mutually reinforcing collection of political, academic, and media elites who are given far more deference by the public than in America, and who are largely accountable only to themselves. A new book by gay author Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within, describes how these elites, with their lax immigration policies, welfare subsidies, politically correct suppression of dissent, and collaboration with Arab governments, have imperiled the very freedom and tolerance in whose name they deny the problem.

Bawer describes private Islamic academies, subsidized by European governments, that teach hatred of Jews and America and contempt for democracy. Muslim children are frequently sent to Qur'anic schools in their parents' home countries to cleanse them of Western ideas. Muslim girls are forced into marriages with men from the homeland, who are then allowed to immigrate, reinforcing Muslim separation from European society. Girls who date outside approved circles, stay out all night, or marry contrary to their families' wishes, are routinely murdered in so-called honor killings, as are rape victims.

A judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK signed a death order against Terence McNally for depicting Jesus Christ (who is revered in Islam) as gay in his play Corpus Christi. Muslim gangs commit savage assaults on busy streets while crowds look on passively. Researchers don't dare gather statistics on the rise in gay-bashings lest they be seen as criticizing Muslims. Describing his awakening to the threat, Bawer wrote, "Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me." If current trends continue, European imams will have the votes to do it in a few generations.

Bawer writes:

Fortuyn's opponents claimed that he called for an end to immigration and the expulsion of Muslims from the Netherlands. What he proposed, in fact, was a firm policy of education, emancipation, and integration. The Dutch government, he argued, should stop issuing residency permits to imams who preached that Dutch women are whores and gay men lower than pigs….

For this, officials demonized Fortuyn as a fascist bigot, ignoring the majority of Dutch citizens who shared his concerns. Rather than face the danger portended by Moroccans in one Dutch town dancing in the streets on 9/11, and a mosque selling calendars showing the New York skyline on fire, Dutch officials pilloried Fortuyn as the dangerous one.

As Bawer reports on his blog, on February 10 in Oslo, Velbjørn Selbekk, a magazine editor who had reprinted the Muhammad cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and who had withstood pressure from Muslim extremists and the Norwegian establishment for several days, suddenly appeared at a press conference beside the head of Norway's Islamic Council and abjectly apologized. In response, the Muslim leader pledged his protection, and Norway's foreign minister praised Selbekk's "integrity and courage." The death threats against him and his family had apparently taken their toll. Submissive infidels are known as dhimmis, a role tacitly embraced by those Westerners who call any criticism of Muslims racist.

Fortunately, some are refusing to surrender. On March 25 in Trafalgar Square, British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, a self-described "left-wing Green," joined a crowd including humanists, libertarians and liberal Muslims in a rally to defend freedom of expression. The organizers stated, "The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence…." Notwithstanding such progressive aims, the rally was denounced by many on the left.

Tatchell wrote:

Sections of the left moan that the rally is being supported [by] the right. Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don't they organise their own demo in support of free speech? The truth is that some of the left would rarely, if ever, rally to defend freedom of expression because they don't wholeheartedly believe in it. Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights. Their support for free speech is now qualified by so many ifs and buts. When push comes to shove, it is more or less worthless.

Unilateral disengagement leads not to peace but to subjugation. If the Enlightenment values that made the gay rights movement possible are to be preserved and extended, the heirs of those values need to overcome their post-colonial reluctance to fight for them. We write our own destinies. Nothing is guaranteed to us. As T.E. Lawrence said blasphemously to his Arab friends 90 years ago, "Nothing is written."

Moscow’s Pride & Prejudice

The debate over whether Moscow will witness a Gay Pride parade in May carries important implications for Russia's future.

How the Moscow authorities respond to the threats of violence issued by Talgat Tajuddin of Russia's Central Spiritual Governance for Muslims is important in its own right. According to Mr. Tajuddin, "The parade should not be allowed, and if they still come out into the streets, then they should be bashed."

Such threats have no place in a society governed by law. No one should be subjected to violence for holding hands in the street or walking peacefully in a parade. That much should be clear.

But the question of whether the parade should be allowed also raises a bigger question about whether Russia will be a leader in industry, technology, art, culture and science, or will retreat to insularity and backwardness. It is a question of whether to be an open society or a closed one.

And how it is answered has implications that go far beyond whether someone likes or dislikes gay people.

Studies of American and Canadian cities have demonstrated quite effectively that the more open and welcoming a city or region is to peaceful diversity, the more economically productive, prosperous and commercially and technologically advanced it is likely to be.

In a pioneering study of urban life in America published by the Urban Institute in 2001, Richard Florida of George Mason University and Gary Gates of the Urban Institute created a measure of homosexual presence in an urban population and then correlated it with the presence of high-tech industries and economic growth.

They concluded that:

gays not only predict the concentration of high-tech industry, they are also a predictor of its growth. Five of the cities that rank in the top 10 for high-technology growth from 1990 to 1998 rank in the top 10 for the "Gay Index."

They also found a strong correlation between the presence of artistic and creative people-writers, photographers, sculptors, actors-and high-tech industries. Of especially great importance to Russia, which faces a long-term demographic crisis, they discovered a robust correlation between the percentage who are foreign born and the success of high-tech industries.

It seems that it's not a case of the old cliche that "those people" are creative, but instead it turns out that places that exhibit lots of creativity are places that are open to creativity.

How does toleration of gay people figure into economic success? It is a good proxy of the openness and toleration of a society generally. And such openness and toleration is conducive to the flourishing of a society.

As Gary Gates put it during an Urban Institute conference on "The Demographics of Diversity," the presence of a gay population is important because

They add to a social climate of tolerance toward diversity in cities, and that has specific positive economic outcomes for various regions and cities. The argument here is that a vibrant gay and lesbian community provides one of the strongest signals of diversity and tolerance, both within neighborhoods and cities.

It's rather obvious that welcoming talent is an essential condition for attracting it.

This is not a new issue. The relationship between toleration and prosperity has been known for a long time. The Netherlands emerged in Europe as a leader in commerce, the arts, technology and industry many years ago because of the greater degree of toleration it afforded minorities.

The decision about whether to allow a Gay Pride parade down Tverskaya Street in Moscow is not merely approval or disapproval of seeing gay people in public. It is much more a decision about Russia's future.

Thirteen years ago, Russia's democratically elected leaders made the right choice by decriminalizing homosexual love. In doing so, they advanced into the front ranks of modern, progressive, open societies.

The debate over whether to allow a Gay Pride parade in Moscow is a proxy for the much wider debate about whether Russia will choose to be counted among the nations known for creativity in technology, science, art, culture and wealth, or among those known for insularity, prejudice, poverty, and backwardness.

The Immigration Debate.

It's interesting that President Bush, in defending a guest worker/citizenship program for undocumented aliens, is willing to stand up against the reactionary House Republicans who want to build a big wall along the Mexican border and drive all the undocumented workers back across. Bush sees Hispanic Americans as a potential bloc for the GOP, unlike gays (who would alienate the religious right base).

Interesting, too, that NGLTF put out a press release in support of the McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill (which, to me, does sound like a reasonable measure), but missed the opportunity to discuss the problems of gay immigrants, especially partners of U.S. citizens who can't gain residency. Guess that's "mission creep" (or fear of offending their supposed Latino "allies" by bringing up gay-immigration matters).
--Stephen H. Miller

Still Inspiring.

Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president who helped bring down communist totalitarianism, defends spousal rights for gay couples as his country's Chamber of Deputies passes a law on registered partnerships. Says Havel:

I was most intrigued in the debate by the absurd ideology advocated by the Christian Democrats and [current president Vaclav] Klaus, who argue that family should have advantages since, unlike homosexual couples, it brings children to life. This is the concept of family as a sort of calf shed in which bulls can inseminate cows so that calves are born. ...

This is nothing spiritual, nothing intellectual. This is a purely material concept of family. This is what made me most upset in the debate.

I'm glad Havel continues to distinguish himself by standing up against injustice.

Signs of the Times (and Journal).

Monday's Wall Street Journal carried a page one feature (online for WSJ subscribers only) on couples "uncoupling" in the digital age. It began:

A few days after breaking up with his boyfriend, Jeff Ramone couldn't resist logging on to Friendster-a popular online social community-to check out his ex's profile page.

Dr. Dobson, as well as anti-assimilationist (and anti-Wall Street) gays, will no doubt be displeased by such inclusion.

Elsewhere, the Washington Post had an interesting story on the decline of marriage in the African-American community. Somehow, they'll blame this on us, too.
--Stephen H. Miller

More Recent Postings
03/26/06 - 04/01/06

One or Many?

We've posted John Corvino's insightful look at polygamy illogic and the "slippery slope" argument. Over at Slate, William Saletan also joins the debate with a column worth reading, in which he observes:

Fidelity isn't natural, but jealousy is. Hence the one-spouse rule. One isn't the number of people you want to sleep with. It's the number of people you want your spouse to sleep with.

Saletan also recognizes a key point, "Gays who seek to marry want the same thing. They're not looking for the right to sleep around. They already have that. It's called dating."

More. Uh, oh. HBO's "Big Love" muddies the waters. Here's their synopsis of this week's episode:

Roman's been busy on several fronts. With son Alby as his P.R. aide, he grants an interview to the Los Angeles Times to defend the practice of polygamy.... With Alby's prompting, he offers the journalist a final talking point: "If the Supreme Court says yes to the privacy rights of homosexual persons, surely it's time to recognize our rights to live in peace, too."

--Stephen H. Miller

Gay is Good (for the Economy, Stupid).

Tom Palmer, writing a column in the Washington Blade, looks at why intolerance toward gays, in Russia and elsewhere, puts economic growth at risk:

Studies...have demonstrated quite effectively that the more open and welcoming a city or region is to peaceful diversity, the more economically productive, prosperous and commercially and technologically advanced it is likely to be.

But the fight against "insularity, prejudice, poverty, and backwardness" will be a long one, over there and over here.

More Recent Postings
03/19/06 - 03/25/06

Florida Supremes, Wrong Again.

The Democrat-dominated Florida Supreme Court, the one that killed school choice and tried to elect President Gore, turns sharply rightward when it comes to gays. Having upheld, in 1995, that state's worst-in-the-nation ban on letting gays adopt, the court has now ruled a sweeping anti-gay marriage amendment can go on the ballot. The amendment reads:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

But the Florida constitution prohibits "logrolling" in constitutional amendments (that is, putting something into an initiative that voters like, and then adding something else that voters wouldn't necessarily approve on its own). Since the amendment in question first defines marriage (one man, one women), and then adds in language that bans even civil unions and domestic partnerships (i.e., "other legal unions"), it seem like a pretty clear case of impermissible logrolling. But count on the Florida Supremes to ignore the language of the law and again rule on their own prejudices.

More. Like those Japanese soldiers at the end of WWII who hid in the jungles and refused to surrender, some of our readers still insist that Bush stole the 2000 election. Nothing will convince them that Kos and Moore aren't reliable sources, but for the rest, this should.

The State Department’s Gay-Rights Tool

Sometimes you just need to ask the right person. On April 9, 1991, three Washington activists met with Tom Williams, then director of the Country Human Rights Reports Team at State Department headquarters in Washington's Foggy Bottom. Michael Petrelis of ACT UP, Margaret Cantrell of Gay and Lesbian Watch, and Barrett Brick of the World Congress of Gay and Lesbian Jewish Organizations wanted State to include anti-gay incidents in its annual report to Congress on human rights abuses around the world.

They had done their homework, and provided Williams with evidence of incidents that should have been in the 1990 report. Williams was persuaded, and the report has included gay-related incidents ever since.

Petrelis, now a blogger based in San Francisco, was still on the case when State released its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on March 8. Not only has he stayed in touch with State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor as well as the desk officers for individual countries, he worked with British activist Peter Tatchell last year to declare December 4-10 "Report Antigay Rights Abuses to U.S. State Dept. Week."

The success of Petrelis and his international network of collaborators is evident in the report. It includes numerous anti-gay incidents, some familiar from gay press reports:

  • In Poland, gay activists braved violent counter-demonstrators to march in Warsaw and Poznan despite being denied permits; they subsequently won a Warsaw court ruling.

  • In Zimbabwe, thugs again harassed Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe into withdrawing from an international book fair.

  • In Jamaica, an AIDS activist was shot to death, and the gay rights group J-FLAG reported abuses "including police harassment, arbitrary detention, mob attacks, stabbings...."

  • Under Shari'a law in many Muslim countries, homosexuality was punished by death. In Iran, a number of men, including two teenagers, were executed apparently for homosexuality though charged with other crimes.

There were also some positive developments:

  • In China, "Gay men and lesbians stated that official tolerance had improved in recent years."

  • In lowland areas of Laos, "there was wide and growing tolerance of homosexual practice, although societal discrimination persisted."

  • In the Czech Republic, "the lower house of parliament passed a law that recognizes the legal validity of gay civil partnerships."

  • In Brazil, a federal court ruling granted partner benefits to same-sex couples.

Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), praised the report:

State Department officials who have worked to include documentation of human rights violations against LGBT people are to be commended, as are the many global activists who brought these violations to light.

In contrast, the Human Rights Campaign used the report's release mainly as an excuse to bash the U.S. government for its recent vote against consultative status for gay organizations at the United Nations. HRC President Joe Solmonese said:

The State Department report is enlightening but it won't be effective if the U.S. government keeps siding with abusers like Iran in supporting silencing human rights watchers.

This is patently false, since the reports are used by lawyers for asylum seekers to bolster their clients' cases.

Unfortunately, some people are so fixated on their opposition to George W. Bush that they are reluctant to give credit to anyone in the federal government who might be doing something worthwhile. Last year, when Petrelis praised the 2004 report, some gays took great offense that he would say anything nice about the Bush Administration.

But the annual human rights report has value regardless of one's views of Bush. The plight of gay people in so many countries is far too dire to subordinate it to partisan political concerns. Indeed, the 1991 breakthrough by Petrelis and his colleagues occurred during the presidency of Bush's father.

I spoke with Petrelis the other day, and he wants to ensure that activists in each country are made aware of the relevant contents of the State Department report. My own local activist group is a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and I have pledged to make a project out of contacting as many foreign gay organizations as I can find and forwarding them the information.

When you get desperate e-mail pleas from gay people around the globe, as I occasionally do (and I am not talking about scam letters, which I also receive), it can make you feel pretty small and helpless. When I read those pleas, such as one a few years back from an Iranian in Indonesia who faced deportation back to his native country, where he would likely have been killed, I can do little more than refer the person to IGLHRC and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and offer some words of encouragement.

But small acts can help save lives. My Iranian correspondent found asylum in Canada. Of course, he is a drop in the ocean given the magnitude of the problem worldwide. Many cannot or do not wish to leave their countries. For them, international visibility and support are crucial.

You can play a part in helping oppressed gay people around the world. The Internet is an invaluable tool. Organizations offering online resources include IGLHRC, ILGA, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UNHCR

As Michael Petrelis, Margaret Cantrell, Barrett Brick and Peter Tatchell have proven, individual voices can and do make a difference.