Leninology wrote:
> Palestinians are not to blame for the actions of a minority of that
movement.
Yes they are. By their silence they help maintain Muslim homophobia. Silence = Death. Just as I am responsible for the increase of the horrors of the Bush administration if I remain silent.
> Tatchell's group were clearly trying to disrupt the demonstration by
implying that Palestinians oppress gays.
Not a disruption -- an enhancement.
> The actions of Hamas deserve condemnation, but why on earth would you
charge into a demonstration in favour of freeing Palestine and make it your
first order of business to
condemn "Palestine" for oppressing gays.
Since the oppression of queers is a problem, then it is natural to address the issue in what would seem to be a natural audience: leftists concerned with Palestinians issues.
> The reaction of people on the demo was only natural.
Suppression of speech about queer issues is only natural for homophobes.
> According to eye-witness reports, the reaction was not violent (as Cohen
suggests) but merely one of dismay.
In what type of person would speaking out for queer justice cause dismay?
> They were asked to stand at the rear of the demo.
Back of the bus/demo doesn't work.
Todd writes:
> Depends what "unity" we're talking about. Was the demo there to
demonstrate
against Israeli occupation or, was it there to demonstrate against the oppression of gays by Palestinians?
Demos can have more than one message.
> In any event, it's hard to stay "on message" in something as diverse as a
demo if people decide to jump in with their own placards.
That is what freedom is about, something I think leftists should encourage.
> How would you feel if, while demonstrating for something you believe in,
someone else jumps in with a sign attacking, directly or indirectly, that
very thing?
Happens all the time. Happened in the queer movement with women disrupting to achieve greater voice. Same with people of color.
> The Outrage group was targeting Palestine (rightly) in a supposedly
pro-Palestinian demo. Not cool for fellow lefties.
Untrue. They were attacking homophobia which is very cool for lefties to do (well, for some of them).
> Yes, and it will continue to come up, given the fractured and fractious
nature of the "Left" in any country and given how these issues are spun in
the real world of deal-making and compromise, especially if there are groups
who don't seem to mind cutting in on other's turf or time, or who think only
in terms of ideological purity.
The sad thing is that queers have to cut in to fight the homophobia that infects the left. If the left were less ideological pure about excluding sexual issues there wouldn't be this problem.
> Independence and initiative aren't bad, so long as you're careful in how
you apply it.
It seems that on queer issues, some leftists become the Letitia Baldridges of the struggle. Suddenly, there are wheres and whens and hows of fighting for freedom.
> All I'm asking for is refraining from stepping on toes as happened at that
demo.
Maybe queers are tired of being polite Franklin Pangborns. It tires fast when supposed leftist allies are always telling queers to hush up.
> It is a political tactic.
And it is wrong-headed and homophobic. Just like the Bush administration saying that anti-Iraq war talk is unpatriotic.
> If you ARE involved in that tactic, then the "head" should have the
decency to outline EXACTLY what is expected of the rest of the movement, and
the members should either do the best they can or leave the movement and
carry on their own agenda outside it (barring changing the movement from
within, given time and circumstance).
The head should understand ALL the concerns of the members of the movement and craft an inclusive tactic. Monarchial approaches are soooo 19th century.
What is expected of the movement is that it not be homophobic (if it claims to be leftist).
> IF they are members of some larger alliance trying to put forward a united
face. If they aren't, they shouldn't go crashing other's demos.
Sometimes you have to crash a demo in order to confront and defeat its homophobic nature.
> In principle, I can get behind that, but there had to have been a better
way of presenting a less "jarring" picture in this particular instance.
What concrete better way do you suggest?
> Yes, and it should always be strived for by everyone involved to the best
of their respective abilities and ideologies (not to mention the
situation), but choices do have to be made, and sometimes some people will
get or feel left out, I imagine.
I believe that sexual self-determination is a basic to any leftist struggle
Michael writes:
> In April, Brazil put forward a gay-rights resolution at the UN Human
Rights
Commission; Muslim countries successfully filibustered it.
Michael cites this event as well as many others to demonstrate that the left faces a difficult issue. While it is important to fight for the establishment of a Palestinian state, is it not also crucial to make sure that such a state respects sexual self-determination?
If Palestine were to take the form of an ultra-capitalist state would the left be silent?
Most of these Miss Manners concerns about when and how to raise the subject of homophobia are just attempts to forestall the left from facing the homophobia within its culture and addressing it.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister