babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Sharon's Gay Legacy

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Sharon's Gay Legacy
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 February 2006 08:19 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
A very keen insight from Glen Wheeler. It is important in my view to see this side of Sharon and Israel since I have little doubt that in a Hamas led state we would ever see such a thing.

NOW


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 February 2006 08:34 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is important in my view to see this side of Sharon and Israel since I have little doubt that in a Hamas led state we would ever see such a thing.

Okay, so Sharon was more progressive on gay issues than Hamas. Leonid Brezhnev was probably more enlightened on women's rights than was the Mujahideen, but is that supposed to factor into an ethical discussion about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

The main moral issue facing Israel is the treatment of the Palestinians. Praising Israeli politicans for their stand on gay rights is something that can wait until the Palestinian crisis has been equitably resolved.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 February 2006 08:50 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Im not so sure that Gay men and women in the PA would be as quick to agree. That said I wholly agree that the Palestinian issue and Israel's treatment of Palestinians must be resolved. Of course it must.

I am suggesting that we can discuss the Middle east through other prisms and acknowledge progressive attitudes...see them as potential positive precursors.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 10 February 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Sure thing, ohara, but

quote:
I have little doubt that in a Hamas led state we would ever see such a thing.


"Ever" is a long, long time. That said, the treatment of LGBT folks in the PA is atrocious, and the Palestinians' plight vis-a-vis Israel can never be allowed to excuse or mitigate it.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 February 2006 09:21 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
To be fair Heph, did I say that?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 10 February 2006 09:33 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
ohara...

No, you inferred that a Hamas-led Palestine could 'never' be as progressive (on gay issues, anyway) as a Sharon-led Israel.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 February 2006 12:46 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But that is obviously true. Hamas is a RELIGIOUS organization of fanatics. There is no chance ever in a hundred million years that they would ever be remotely gay-positive.

Sharon comes from a rightwing nationalist but SECULAR tradition.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 10 February 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
The main moral issue facing Israel is the treatment of the Palestinians. Praising Israeli politicans for their stand on gay rights is something that can wait until the Palestinian crisis has been equitably resolved.

Isn't that a lovely sentiment?

The main moral issue facing the United States is the horrible war in Iraq, so us homos can just wait until that's settled before we agitate for civil rights, eh? No, wait, no rights yet, we have to settle this vexing race problem. Then comes... well, whatever else str8 people think is more important.

Ok then, we'll just sit here quietly by the phone and paint our toenails until the str8 folks call to let us know its our turn... how'd that be? You're gonna call, right? Eventually? Promise?


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 February 2006 01:20 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by voice of the damned:
The main moral issue facing Israel is the treatment of the Palestinians. Praising Israeli politicans for their stand on gay rights is something that can wait until the Palestinian crisis has been equitably resolved.

Isn't that a lovely sentiment?

The main moral issue facing the United States is the horrible war in Iraq, so us homos can just wait until that's settled before we agitate for civil rights, eh? No, wait, no rights yet, we have to settle this vexing race problem. Then comes... well, whatever else str8 people think is more important.


Where in my post did I say that Israeli gays shouldn't advocate for civil rights? All I said was that I am not interested in hearing a mass murderering nutbar like Sharon being praised because he happens to support gay rights.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 February 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's give credit where credit is due. Some people point out that mass murderer Saddam Hussein was actually pretty good on women's issues.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 10 February 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Where in my post did I say that Israeli gays shouldn't advocate for civil rights? All I said was that I am not interested in hearing a mass murderering nutbar like Sharon being praised because he happens to support gay rights.



no you inferred it

From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 10 February 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Stockholm - I don't think the article was a whitewash of Sharon's crimes against the Palestinians, just a look at a show of support from an unlikely source, given Sharon's alliance with Israeli religious parties that are utterly homophobic.

Stating that most Iraqi women were far better off under Saddam is not denial of is brutal treatment of the Kurds or of dissidents. I'm pretty sure women were by and large better off when Afghanistan was a Soviet satellite as well, but that does not preclude denunciation of the brutal occupation nor of the war crime of wide use of land mines.

Another historical example of a ruthless and wicked figure who took a surprising stand was the dictator Franco who evidently protected the "secret Jews" of Spain rather than following in his Nazi ally's racial laws, as Mussolini did.

How the Hamas stranglehold will be overcome is by allowing progressive, secular Palestinian forces to develop - Israel actually supported Muslim fundamentalists against secular Palestinian forces, not only Fatah but the PFLP.

And indeed, I don't think there can be any hope of a solution for sexism or homophobia within Palestine until an end of the Occupation at the very least.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 10 February 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lagatta why do you pin this on the end of the occupation? Why can't homophobia and sexism be addressed now in the PA.
From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 05:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, you know on September 10th 1939 Mackenzie King should have been debating gay rights in the house of commons, rather than the bill to bring Canada into the war against Germany?

I am sorry to say this but there are some issues of greater concern to a government and its constituency than gay rights, and such is defined by the circumstances in which it is governing. To wit, your question side steps the fact that the priority for any Palestinian government is, at this point in time, the construction of a civil society within which a debate about gay right could be held.

Israel, on the other hand has had "civil society" for quite sometime, and is in the present case able to evolve a more just position of gay rights while the Palestinians do not even have a country, or someting recognizing a civil society.

In this case, while it is obviously reprehensible that Hamas almost certainly has a bad position of gay rights, on much more improtant foundatioinal issues its position is superior to that of Sharon and Israel.

Hamas supports the creation of a Palestnian civil society in which a debate about gay rights could be held, while Sharon as can be seen by his actions, opposes the creation of a civil society in which Palestinian could debate gay rights and evolve a better position on gay right.

What this means is that while Sharon may be in favour of gay rights of Israelis, he has done everything in his power to prevent Palestinians gay people even having a politcal space in which they could discuss gay rights. In essence Sharon is opposed to gay rights for Palestinians but supportive of them for Israelis.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
gabong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8663

posted 10 February 2006 05:12 PM      Profile for gabong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry for just standing by and cheering, but Cueball has said all that needs to be said.
From: Newfoundland | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 10 February 2006 05:28 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Agreed, Q-ball. And I could be a lot more sanguine about the timeline of queer rights in Palestine if only they would stop killing queers. Any small step in this regard would be an improvement, unfortunately most players with influence over the PA have no love lost for the 'mos, either, so there is little pressure on the PA (or Palestinian society at large) to moderate their stance.
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that an ability to enforce laws would be of an advantage here. Since the re-ccupation much of what was available that might have been used to enforce determined social norms and keep peoples prejudices in check has been destroyed.

I mean are we really believing here that Sharon was some kind of liberal free thinker on this issue, or simply moving in the direction of international norms. Many leaders (Paul Martin for instance) folded on the issues of SSM against his personal feeling on the issue.

So, over time I think, if basic social needs can be taken care of, there is room in the future for a more open relationship between Islam and gay people. For instance there was the case of the Ankara state prosecutor quashing the ban on the Ankara Gay Rights organization, so there is plenty of evidence that gay rights and Islam are not antithetical in practice.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 February 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Seems to me that Heph has got his eye on the ball here. This is more than Gay rights in the PA. Gay men are being murdered. And Lesbians and trans gendered people...well forget about it....

A Gay acquaintance of mine formerly from Bethlehem counts it as a miracle that he came here to Ottawa where he is now a landed immigrant. What he went through in Bethlehem was sad and horrible.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 06:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, well isn't it sad that as an Arab, he couldn't move to Israel.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2006 06:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know how gays feel about being exploited by cynics for purely political reasons, but I can sure tell you how feminists feel when George and Tony and Cherie and Laura explain to us that they are bombing Afghans and Iraqis in order to liberate the women of those countries.

Especially when George and Tony and Cherie and Laura have gone out of their way to avoid the politically active women of those countries.

ohara, this is transparent.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 February 2006 06:37 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
I see nothing transparent about this. If it were anyone else I am confident you would have never made the comment. Please keep focused on the issue. If you cant its your problem not mine.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 February 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes, well isn't it sad that as an Arab, he couldn't move to Israel.
Sadder that he was almost beaten to death for a relationship he had with another gay man in Bethlehem.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 06:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes well your defence of racism, through denouncing the homophbia of others is... what? What is it?

I mean really, what if he had become collateral damage in an Israeli rocket attack, or offed by a "stray" bullet from the barrel of an IDF sniper rifle?

What would you be saying then?

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 10 February 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Gee, you know on September 10th 1939 Mackenzie King should have been debating gay rights in the house of commons, rather than the bill to bring Canada into the war against Germany?

I am sorry to say this but there are some issues of greater concern to a government and its constituency than gay rights, and such is defined by the circumstances in which it is governing.


You know, the snideness of your first sentence tends to make your professed sorrow in the second sentence less than convincing.

Also, the idea elsewhere on this thread that the Israeli Occupation is even partially responsible for Palestinian fathers and brothers murdering their gay family members is ludicrous. Murder in the living room is about as far removed from the wide political struggle can be.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Absolutely the occupation is responsible for the summary murder of gay people by there families. First of all, there is not court for gay people to be tried in. Seeing as there is no court for gay people to be tried in it can hardly be contrued that Palestinian society as a whole has sanctioned that murder/killing.

Nor is there an enforcement mechanism in place, so as if Palestinian society were to prohibit such murders, there is no mechanism for them to enforce the law against killing gay people, because they are gay.

So in your mind which it more important at this time, the creation of a civil order in which such things as "rights" are actionable within a court system, or celebrating the legacy of people whose life goal has been the to ensure that no such system exist in which any Palestinians, gay or otherwise, have any rights whatsoever.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 10 February 2006 07:10 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Murder does not suddenly switch from being a morally neutral act to being a morally wrong one by virtue of its being made illegal.

ETA: And no amount of tolerance for another People's culture will make murder morally neutral either.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Certainly. But it is not even clear that were Palestinian civil societies to construct a set of laws in which the rights of gay people were defended, that they could do anything to defend that right.

I eschew the principle that cultures are inherently anything, and I also assert that cultures evolve, and I find it highly suspect when people from societies which until very recently in a historical sense did very much the same things, then turn around to shame all other for not being at exactly the same place, and compltetely operating by the very newly established norms of there own society, especially when it it the case that such norms are very much up for grabs, as can be seen by Stephen Harper's stated intent to reopen the issue of SSM.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because this is not a thread about Sharon's legacy on gay rights. This is thread about comparing Sharon's legacy of gay rights in comparison to those of Hamas, which doesn't even have a governing legacy at this point really.

It is clear to me that this thread is directly compare Israelis favourably to Palestinians as part of a propoganda excerised intended to justify supression of the rights of all Palestinians without regard to their sexual orientation.

This is true, Sharon fucked over all Palestinians without regard to sexual orientation.* That was his legacy on the rights of gay Palestinians. Not to mention that it was Israel itself which bares a lot of responsibility for the creation of Hamas in the first place.

Conversely, if this were a thread dedicated to revealing the problems with some interpretations of Islam, and how that operates among the Arabs of the Middle East from the perspective of liberating gay Arabs from the repressive mores, that would be another thing entirely.

* ETA Actually, even this may not be true, because it is actually possible that allowing for effecitve governance by the PA, might actually have improved the rights of gay people, in that the effective application of basic laws, such as the law against murder, might actually have been some kind of deterent to those Palestinian homophobes whom thought to take matter into there own hands.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Israel birthed and nurtured Hamas. In the past half-decade, Israel has been doing its utmost to weaken the Palestinian Authority. Be it prisoners' release, freedom of movement, work permits, even just high-level meetings – if anything could strengthen the Palestinian Authority, Israel wouldn't allow it. The top was Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza: the Palestinian Authority begged for a symbolic role, an appearance of coordination, which would enable it to take some credit for Israel's pullout and restore the Palestinians' confidence in negotiations and the "peace process." Sharon indeed coordinated his moves – with the U.S., with Egypt; but not with the Palestinian Authority. The PA was left out of the game, humiliated, and Hamas could capitalize on the withdrawal as its victory.


Hamas and Israel: Rival Twins


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 10 February 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is true, Sharon fucked over all Palestinians without regard to sexual orientation.* That was his legacy on the rights of gay Palestinians. Not to mention that it was Israel itself which bares a lot of responsibility for the creation of Hamas in the first place.


This is true, Hamas fucks over all gays without regard to nationality.* That is their legacy on the rights of gay Palestinians and Israelis.

I'm sure that Hamas would just as happily stone a gay Palestinian to death as a gay Israeli.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 February 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually you are probably wrong there on two counts, both which come from the same passage in the Qu'ran.

Stoning to death is only in Qu'ran when Mohammed makes a determination on what to do with two Jewish adulterers, he deems, based on the Islamic principle that Muslims are judged by the Qu'ran, and that all others are judged by there own holy scriiptures, that they should be stoned to death for there crime as determined by the Torah. On the other hand they would not stone a Palestinian gay person to death because the Qu'ran does not prescribe stoning as a mode of punishment for Muslims, in anycse.

Though, possibly they would stone and Israeli gay person to death as that is an punishment common in the Torah. You know, for doing things like lighting a candle on Satruday, that kind of thing.

I think Mohammed thought that the punishment of stoning was a prmitive and barbaric punishment, as practiced by backwoods Jewish Rabbis, not something that civilized Muslims would partake in. They preffered the far more humane form of capital punishment of beheading.

Perhaps you'd like to go into absolutist notions of cultural superiority in more depth?

Mohammed is probably the first practioner of formalized multi-culturalism.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 10 February 2006 11:02 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
...it is actually possible that allowing for effecitve governance by the PA, might actually have improved the rights of gay people, in that the effective application of basic laws, such as the law against murder, might actually have been some kind of deterent to those Palestinian homophobes whom thought to take matter into there own hands.

Deterrence of that sort is unlikely in the extreme, since the common scenario is that gay Palestinians are murdered by their own fathers and brothers.

We might also look at just where gay Palestinians go most often, should they manage to escape death at the hands of their relatives: to Israel. Legally, or illegally.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 01:40 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:

Deterrence of that sort is unlikely in the extreme, since the common scenario is that gay Palestinians are murdered by their own fathers and brothers.

We might also look at just where gay Palestinians go most often, should they manage to escape death at the hands of their relatives: to Israel. Legally, or illegally.


Of course it is deterence. Even in the deep south when it was the case that members of the police force were often members of the KKK, and particpated and covered up lynchings, they still felt the need to cover them up, and keep the doings of the Klansmen secret. Why?

Even in cases where racist cops, not all cops approved of lynchings, or extralegal activities of any kind. There is no reason to presume that all Palestinians are homophobic in the extremist manner, and no reason to presume that some law enforcement officials would not have tried there best to prevent, or investigate capital crimes.

But then is there even a case for debating this given that Palestinians have never had an opportunity to govern their affairs, so your point is theoretical, and prejeudiced, based on presuposition of behviour you think might be displayed.

If you think Israels complete subversion of Palestinian human rights is justified by the fact that it acts to harbour persecued Palestinians (aware of course that this information can be used, and is used to provide postive propoganda) I can not support you in that. It is absurd to link the two.

Did Soviet support for the Vietnamese justify its repression of dissidents in its own country. No way.

Being on the right side of one issue does not make one right on all issues.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 01:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So I ask, quite simply, that the issue of homophobia in Palestinian society be attacked seperatetly, and without the leaden weight of an comparison to Israel's record on gay rights, as that is being exploited here not to forward gay rights, but to justify other human rights violations by Israel.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 11 February 2006 02:08 AM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
A very keen insight from Glen Wheeler. It is important in my view to see this side of Sharon and Israel since I have little doubt that in a Hamas led state we would ever see such a thing.

NOW


Defenders of occupations and repression of minority groups often use invidious comparisons such as this to divert attention from central issues of power, racism, and so-on. It happened with South Africa, it happened in the case of Serbia and Kosova. Some positive - and often even true - aspect of the dominant group is focussed on in order to paint a disparaging picture of an oppressed group, or the political leaders of that group. Doubtlessly, life in South Africa proper was much more "civilised" and "liberal" than in black townships and Bantus. Did that make Apartheid any more justifiable than Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands?

We should fight for minority (re: GLBT) rights everywhere including Israel and/or a Hamas-run state. We should fight for an increased democratisation and humanism in BOTH Israel and Palestine as one and the same goal.

It may be paradoxical, but it's better to be free to be oppressed than to be freely oppressed, get my drift?

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 February 2006 02:25 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:

How the Hamas stranglehold will be overcome...


If'n ya git down on yer knees and PRAY, sister, Jay-sus will put that ol' Hamas in a half-nelson for the Lawd, and rassle the sin right outta his soul!


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 11 February 2006 02:34 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But then is there even a case for debating this given that Palestinians have never had an opportunity to govern their affairs, so your point is theoretical, and prejeudiced, based on presuposition of behviour you think might be displayed.

Is my point more theoretical, prejudiced and based on presuposition of behavior one thinks might be displayed that your notion that,

quote:
"it is actually possible that allowing for effecitve governance by the PA, might actually have improved the rights of gay people, in that the effective application of basic laws, such as the law against murder, might actually have been some kind of deterent to those Palestinian homophobes whom thought to take matter into there own hands..."?

Now, as to this:

quote:
So I ask, quite simply, that the issue of homophobia in Palestinian society be attacked seperatetly, and without the leaden weight of an comparison to Israel's record on gay rights....

Have you changed your mind? Because earier today what you were asking, quite simply, was that we all recognize the truth embodied in this:

quote:
"I am sorry to say this but there are some issues of greater concern to a government and its constituency than gay rights, and such is defined by the circumstances in which it is governing."

So, which is it? Is the issue of gay survival (not just 'rights') in the PA something that belongs on the back burner because there is a greater, more noble cause, at hand? Or is it legitimate for gay people to be averse to the open murder of their people in the PA? Now if we address it 'separately,' it's ok by you? Many thanks for being so magnanimous.

And BTW, to address your charge that,

quote:
"Israel's record on gay rights... is being exploited here not to forward gay rights, but to justify other human rights violations by Israel..."

...is entirely unfounded as far as it concerns me. Whatever quarrel or history you have with the person who started this thread doesn't involve me at all. You may have noticed that I rarely even post in this forum.

ETA:

quote:
Being on the right side of one issue does not make one right on all issues.

True enough. But being wrong on one issue sure does make you wrong on that issue.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 03:56 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I am saying is that there is no potential for Palestinians to move forward on any issues, if there is no goverment. The first order of government is its own creation. I am sorry if you think gay people can be liberated in a politcal vacuum and that gay rights trump all other rights and that gay rights (survival what have you) can be somehow come into being without the benefit of a legal structure in which they can be enforced.

So yes, I think there are more important issues than gay rights, such as the right to have a body of laws which defines "rights." It would seem the latter would trump the former, as the former can not exist without the latter, I think.

No it does not at all bother me when people talk about summary murders of gay people among Palestinians, I am just fine with that. Gay people are summarily murdered by friends, family and strangers, police and states all over the world everyday. There is nothing particullarly Palestinian about it. It would be nice if it would stop.

What bothers me is when people hold up chimeras, such as the Hamas bogey-man, comparing it to Israel, based on articles which don't even mention the organization, or make such comparisons. I think that is dishonest and playing with gay rights for effect.

This is especially true, since there is no way to compare the Hamas legacy with that of Areil Sharon since it doesn't have one as yet. The stereotype being played with it is a generally anti-Muslim one which puts emphasis on the atrocious behaviour of the Iranian Ayatollahs, and not say Turkey, (also at this time run by an Islamic party) which is not to say Turkey is perfect but to say that Turkey is not Iran. I am sure you get my drift.

It also ignores that Hamas elected 6 women and a number of Christians, things which don't at all conform to the traditional stereotypes of Islamic "fundamentalism." So the court is out, and we will see.

So why compare Israel to Palestine, why not Sri Lanka, or India, or China. The only possible reason is to make disparaging comparisons so as to justify Israeli repression. I am glad you are not doing that, but someone else is.

quote:
Is my point more theoretical, prejudiced and based on presuposition of behavior one thinks might be displayed that your notion that,

No. I sought to end the useless back and forth about our "theories," about deterence, the potential attitutdes of police, and the relative potential roles of family members, etcetera. To generalized about very specific circumstances, which might have happened had Palestinians been allowed a chance to govern, but they were not, which was my point.

But the general point remains, it would be more likely that gay persons would have been protected from family members were there a law enforcement system in place. Without one there was no chance at all, and Sharon ensured that there was not.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 04:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So we have all these gay Palestinians fleeing homophobia in the West Bank to Israel whom can't enjoy the fruits of Israel's liberal civil rights code because they are Arab.

Yea Israel!

Why are we arguing this Tape?

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 11 February 2006 09:45 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Yes well your defence of racism, through denouncing the homophbia of others is... what? What is it?

I mean really, what if he had become collateral damage in an Israeli rocket attack, or offed by a "stray" bullet from the barrel of an IDF sniper rifle?

What would you be saying then?

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



I would urge you to start a thread to discuss that. Meanwhile lets not try to deflect

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 February 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
al-Qa'bong, what a strange comment. You know I'm not a Christian of any sort (much less fundamentalist) and have no more use for any monotheistic religion than any other. I was talking about the secular Palestinian left, which has been hounded by Israel - to the extent that they preferred supporting the development of the Islamist current - and is now up against Hamas as well as oppression by Israel.

I agree with cueball that there can be no hope of fostering a movement for gay rights - or for women's rights for that matter - under the boot of occupation. But not that such things can be relegated until later on, as an afterthought.

I don't know any gay militants in the Occupied Territories, but I do know feminists there, in grassroots organisations. (Alternatives and other groups here have ties with them). They are up against a lot - the Israeli occupiers, but also the development of a retrograde view of women as sort of a bulwark against this oppression. That is certainly not confined to majority Muslim societies - we can have seem the same in Ireland and even here in Québec before the Quiet Revolution, to a certain extent.

I do think that religious fundamentalism is a flawed response to oppression, and hope it will be overcome - by progressive militants in those countries, not by Western intervention.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 11 February 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Why are we arguing this Tape?

To be perfectly frank, the argument started with earlier statements by you and votd that struck me as entirely too familiar. I was provoked because I am tired of str8 people telling gay folks to wait, to delay, that the political situation is not yet ripe, that... perhaps one day-- not today, nor tomorrow--but one day, if we're lucky, and if a sufficient number of heterosexual stars align themselves in the heavens just so.... Well, you get the idea. I'm just so tired of 'not yet' that it makes me sick.

As I tried to convey, I'm not a partisan on the subject of Israel vs. Palestine. I think both sides are reasonably well screwed in their respective heads. But if I have to choose-- and apparently the situation there forces me to choose-- forgive me if I'm gonna pick the side that isn't deliberately targeting the gay people in their own families.

I can agree with you on one thing: this line of argument is probably tapped out. I've said about all I wanted to, and I think you have too, eh?

Pax frater.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 11 February 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tape, as a feminist I certainly empathise with your anger at the "not yet" sentiment, pushing our demands (very demands for being, and for not being victims of sexist or heterosexist violence) to the back burner.

But occupation and other forms of national oppression only exacerbate such sexism and heterosexism among conquered peoples, by essentialising woman and family as a haven - and forcing males and females into narrowly-defined roles. And there is nothing specifically Muslim about that response.

Occupation also glofifies macho militaristic roles among the occupiers, in the sense of Marx's (or was it Engels') comment about the Brits in relatin to Ireland a century and a half ago, that one nation that oppresses another cannot really be free.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 11 February 2006 01:34 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a strange parallel here with another thread which asked the hypothetical question of whether or not autonomous FN governance should be 'allowed' to resist equal marriage legislation. It seems to me that minority rights are being rather cynically used to question the legitimacy of an occupied peoples to govern themselves. This fostoring of divisions within colonized communities is very sad and cynical, and it disturbes me to see otherwise progressive people buying into this strategy so enthusiastically.
From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 11 February 2006 02:33 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tape I know you are done with this so I'm not trying to re-engage you I just haven't been able to post since this discussion started.

I agree that the time will never be right for straight people that gay people have rights. Every right that gay men and women have gained has been fought for tooth and nail.

It is insulting to see people diminish what the Palestine people do to their own families if someone is gay. I am not going to be silent about that or suggest that it's secondary to anything. My people are being killed.

The rights of gay men and women should not be on a timetable dictated by straights.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 11 February 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that any time you have an international conflict, the easiest way to decide which side to take is to simply look at which side has a better record on gay rights and women's rights. Its abundantly clear that Israel is lightyears ahead of any Arab countries in its treatment of women and gays, ergo I will side with Israel. If the Hamas domianted PA government wants to pass a lay guaranteeing gay marriage etc... and rejecting Islamic laws on the status of women - maybe I will switch sides.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 11 February 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's more complicated than that. I lean towards Palestine being in the right but both sides have done fucked up stuff.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 11 February 2006 02:53 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Why are we arguing this



Because we're letting ohara gull us into playing his/her little game? As skdadl pointed out:

quote:
I don't know how gays feel about being exploited by cynics for purely political reasons...


Pretty much the same as you, skdadl. And I also agree that:

quote:
ohara, this is transparent.


The simple fact of the matter is that, this thread aside, Q-ball has been one of the MOST consistent supporters of queer rights on this board, and I would be totally remiss if I failed to point that out. I refuse to allow ohara's attempted sophistry to cause bad feelings between me and Q-ball.

I just felt I needed to point that out.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 11 February 2006 04:21 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
I must admit to finding it odd that I post a story from NOW magazine, from what I have read in the past whenever i get to Toronto, a rather progressive paper. The story was not written by me though I thought it was tremendously interesting. From there it seems I become the subject of discussion not the story pretty sad

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: ohara ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 04:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was was contextualization of that story as comparative to the Palestinian leadership. It was quite obvious that you were only interested in the feather in the cap aspect, as opposed to the human rights aspect of the story, otherwise why not post the story without commentary, or comparison.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 11 February 2006 04:44 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
The comparision was valid comment. It is my view that the comment should be debated not the poster. Debating a poster is flaming which I understood to be improper on this thread.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 05:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

The simple fact of the matter is that, this thread aside, Q-ball has been one of the MOST consistent supporters of queer rights on this board, and I would be totally remiss if I failed to point that out. I refuse to allow ohara's attempted sophistry to cause bad feelings between me and Q-ball.

I just felt I needed to point that out.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]



Thank you. I certainly see no reason to allow all this stuff to udermine solidarity around issues. I believe that the very same basic human rights, and the principles behind them apply universally and to all, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, or sex.

And thess basic principles support both the rights of gay Palestinians, gay Israelis, and also straight Palestinians. It is essential I think for rights to thought about this way.

This is why I have endeavoured here to show that the attack upon Palestinian rights in the general also impact the rights of gay Palestinians, and this is true irregardless of the fact that their are also forces of reaction within the Palestinian community.

It greatly distressess me that members of the left are retreating into a kind of issue-centric tribalizm, where we defend our personal issues, at the expense of the universal principles.

Meaning, of everything that was said by Tape in this thread the thing that got me most was the construction of the idea that "gay" people were his people (not even necessarily true, given that I have never been very specific about my sexual orientation on this site -- perhaps it is not specific eh?), as opposed to my people. Well, enough Tape has the right to make this determination about who he is and whom he identifies as his people, and I an not going to lay claim to membership in the gay community, or to speak for it, but I have never considered (and it was a really unusual experience for me to consider the prospect) that gay people might not be part of "my" people in the larger sense -- it just never crossed my mind.

I thought we were one people with a particular set of ideas about universal rights, and equity, however much our ideas about how we achieve those things might diverge.

So Heph, you are my people, and it is on that basis that I defend your right to be who you are.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 11 February 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
To be fair, Q, Tape and RB (and others) use the term "My/our people" and I use the term "my community", but we mean pretty much the same thing.

Those gay Iranian teenagers who were murdered by the mullahs, Aaron Webster who was murdered in Vancouver by punks, and Brian Williamson, who was murdered in Kingston are all "my people" in a way that fellow-Canadians like Stockwell Dork and David Mainse will never be. "My people" do not have any colour, creed or nationality, and they are scattered from one end of the earth to the other, but they are still "my people".

Of course, this will never prevent me from seeking alliances with other groups as well. But, as Tape and his BF have pointed out to me in the past, gays and lesbians have no "natural allies", only "tactical" ones. Perhaps that is one reason why I feel so committed to the others in my community, regardless of where they may be located.

Hope that clarifies some things for you.

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see that. But then why bother with this then?

Palestinians are not my people. My defence of them has nothing to do with my specific relations to them, but a matter of principle, the same principles I apply when I consder the issue of gay rights/survival what have you?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 11 February 2006 05:39 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I see that. But then why bother with this then?


Fundamental fairness. The Palestinians are getting screwed over by people more powerful than them, people who want to "keep them down" and even some who would like to exterminate them all. As a 'mo, I know what that feels like, and I support them simply because it's the right thing to do. Same reason I support African Americans in the face of bigotry (or Jews or Catholics, for that matter.) It would be nice, however, if there weren't such sizable segments of all of those groups who would cheerfully turn around and discriminate against *me*... it's a true fact that even in Auschwitz the lowest of the low were the 'mos, spit on and shunned even by Jews destined for the gas chambers.

That's what I mean about us having no "natural allies" -- many of the people I have traditionally supported against injustice would feel fully justified in selling out *my* people. That's not going to make me write off all Jews, black Americans, Catholics, Palestinians, or what have you. Maybe the leaderships of those groups, but not all of the people...

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 05:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
... But Tape is attacking the people per se. The assassinations are made by the family. And then these acts of individuals are seen as just cause to support Israel against the Palestinians, even though there is no way really clearly identifying this kind of extreme homophobia as being the policy of anyone, other than the idividuals.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 05:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I mean how many gay men are offed every year in Russia. How many militia officers fail to investigate those crimes as hate crimes against gay men, for what they are in defference to the feelings of the family, or bury the evidence when they discover the cause? Does this naturally impugn the Russian people as a whole in whatever other affairs they may be involved in?

Israel is more than happy to document the statistics and promote them, for obvious reasons, but this does not mean that similar activities don't go on all over the world. What it probably means is that the successful destruction of the PA's police structure has been succesful in undermining the PA's ability to whitwash crimes against gay people, not that they are any more prone to killing gay men than Bulgarians, say.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 11 February 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Well, the simple fact of the matter is that gays ARE being murdered by their own family members. Of course, this isn't restricted to Palestinian (or even Muslim) families -- it is also done by some Jamaicans who profess to be "Christian". Hell, it's even done by some Canadians and Americans. However, I have read that in many cases in Palestine (and was told by Brian that this is also true in many parts of Jamaica) if it becomes known that someone is gay and the family doesn't expunge the "blot on their honour" -- or turn the queer in question over to the neighbours, who will helpfully expunge the "blot" for them -- the neighbours are like as not to turn on the entire family.

That doesn't sound like a few screwed-up individuals to me, that sounds like a fucked-up society.

ETA: Just to let you know, I'm not ducking out on this thread, but I've gotta hitch into town now, so you won't get any more responses on this from me in the short term.

[ 11 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ciao.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 February 2006 06:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
The comparision was valid comment. It is my view that the comment should be debated not the poster. Debating a poster is flaming which I understood to be improper on this thread.

So, given this discussion above, do you have any insight into dealing with the forces of reaction operating within anti-imperialist movements and apparent conflicts between allies in regards to human rights issues?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 11 February 2006 11:52 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Yes I do
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 February 2006 08:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the... ummm... err.. wooden nickle?!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 12 February 2006 11:12 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Well, apparently, if s/he is unable to provoke a fight, ohara loses all interest in the thread.

Good indication of motivation, I'd say...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca