Todd writes:
> Hard for on-lookers to tell what a particular demo's about if all the
signs have different messages on them.
I think onlookers are smarter than you give them credit for.
> And is it wise to have messages critical of an oppressed group?
If they are involved in oppression -- yes. Are oppressed groups exempt from criticism?
> I'd think twice about attending a gay rights demo with a sign saying,
"Bath-house sex
is unsafe sex; use a condom"
It has happened. In fact, in the early stages of the AIDS pandemic demos were a great place to get the safe sex message out.
> "Don't litter our parks with your used rubbers".
As long as there are no signs against sex in the park LOL.
> So "freedom" is doing whatever you want, when you want. Damn the
consequences.
No, that is not what I said. You always seems to trip on this point.
> And were the white gay men who were so obviously racists and sexists slink
away to their just desserts?
Some did. More argued. It was all very healthy.
> And they were doing it in a manner that I think was a mistake and could
have been done better.
Here we disagree.
> I really don't get this assertion of yours: that the left is excluding
sexual issues, that it's deliberately done.
It is. That you do not see it may be because of the perspective you come from. Michael has posted many links explicating this history.
> There are always wheres, whens, and hows. If you're so much in favour of
doing anything you please to further the cause of queer lib, go climb a bell
tower with a rifle and start popping the breeders. Surely, that's just as
effective and legitimate a tactic as reading a statement at a demo.
No it is not. And I am not in favor of doing anything one pleases. You keep jumping to extremes.
> We're at an impasse. You just want to go on willy-nilly "doing your
thing". Fine. Whatever.
The impasse occurs when leftists ally themselves with homophobes. The problem is not queers protesting homophobia, but Muslims who practice it. When you make alliances with haters, you should tell them to expect opposition. Though we support Muslims in the fight for a Palestinian state, we cannot suport them in their persecution of queers. We do a disservice both to them and to the left when we censor ourselves. It is better to be upfront and allow them to determine whether or not they want our support.
I do not think allowing homophbia to infect the left is a good strategy.
> Whatever. You've got that single-issue in your head. Any criticism of
queer tactics = homophobia.
No, I do not. You appear to be the single issue thinker in that you want demos to be single issue affairs. Your model appears (to me) to be that a leader (or leaders) determines the agenda and that those who wish to support that agenda sign on, but are expected to remain silent about other issues.
To me that is bad leadership. A leader does not dictate, but rather finds message that can reflect all concerns. This "Father Knows Best" approach is just wrong for the 21st century -- George Bush is wrong to use it and the left will not succeed by imitating him.
> How about negotiation beforehand, with the parties involved?
Good idea. See my suggestion above.
> Or using one's head by checking out the websites of the members of the
demo and figuring out that there are some pretty conservative elements
among them, who might
not cotton to queers being there.
Good idea, but it makes sense to go where the conservatives are and challenge them, doesn't it? And why would leftists want to ally with homophobes in the first place?
> Why not call on the more progressive groups and ask them to help at
another demo in which gay rights are championed worldwide, including
Palestine?
That should be done as well. But you also have to take the fight to the haters.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister