Michael quotes L. Proyect as posting to another list:
> Tatchell's politics are a combination of rancid social
democracy and gay advocacy, where the latter is
often used as a cudgel against governments or
movements that are in need of "policing" by the soft
left.
Isn't all advocacy a cudgel in some ways? Activists use advocacy to change the staus quo. Shouldn't those who practice/promote homophobia be challenged?
> Nobody can deny that organized Islam is hostile to gay
rights, but his contingent was not intended to change minds
but to piss people off.
Homophobes are constantly "pissed off" by queers and queer advocacy.
> This incident has become a 'cause celebre' for reactionary
elements globally.
If there wasn't an underlying infection of homophobia, there would be no need for this action.
Here is a link from Amnesty International's lgbt pages about Palestinian queers:
http://action.web.ca/home/lgbt/databank.shtml?x=44074&AA_EX_Session=1de186bf7ebc03a424bf634824e033d5
On the list several people have talked about Hardt and Negri's Empire. I have done some preliminary reading and it seems to me that their notion of globalization is a good description of homophobia. There is no head homophobe; it pops up everywhere. Consequently, it must be fought everywhere.
Just as people drain swamps where mosquitos that spread malaria breed, so queers must challenge swamps of homophobia which radiate queer hatred. It seems perfectly logical that while queers can support a Palestinian state, they should not be expected to support a Palestinian state that condones/promotes homophobia.
As I asked in an earlier post, would/should leftists support a Palestinian state that condones/promotes hyper-capitalism?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister