On Jan 23, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> Dear List:
>
> Donna writes:
>
>> A different approach, from the Class Matters website:
>
> This is just the same tired, ineffective HRC approach:
> tell them our stories and they will abandon evil. NOT.
>
> This passive approach gives away queers' power to
> disrupt and weaken the enemy. Once we befriend the
> enemy we lose any advantage we have. Should all
> radicals settle for telling George Bush our stories and
> hope that he will listen? Would you advise a union to
> give up strikes and pickets and just tell employers/owners
> their stories. Double NOT.
>
> Unions are not queer's natural allies. If they were they
> would have realized that allying themselves with queers
> made sense. Instead they cave in to the religious bigotry
> and hatred of their members. Queers have not mounted
> a campaign against unions, but unions have mounted a
> campaign against queers.
>
> John L writes:
>
>> Because the IBEW takes a reactioary position on queer
> oppression, you should side with the boss if they picket over
> wages or pensions?
>
> The IBEW did more than take a reactionary position. They
> are actively discriminating against queers and causing harm
> to them. They were not forced to act in this manner. They
> chose to and in doing so broke solidarity with all leftists and
> radicals who support basic human rights, one of which is the
> right of freedom of sexual self-expression.
>
> As for crossing the picket line, I have explained that my action
> would be to protest the active hatred that the IBEW was engaged
> in. In your authoritarian style ( def: expecting unquestioning
> obedience), you try to control my discourse by saying a) that
> picket lines are always and only about class; and b) since I
> crossed the picket line I must be supporting the bosses, even
> though I have clearly stated what my reason was and that I
> would explain my actions to those on the picket line.
>
>> If the HRC calls a protest against some anti-gay reactionary,
> do I say to hell with them (and effectively side with the
> reactionary) because the HRC is a middle- to upper-class white
> gay male organization with an anti-working class outlook and a
> board half of whose members are probably Uncle Tom's
> Cabin Republicans?
>
> First, it is almost impossible to image HRC calling for a protest:
> much to messy. Secondly, has HRC ever called for a protest
> against unions? Have they inflicted actual harm on unions the
> way the IBEW inflicted actual harm on queers? Once queer
> marriage is legalized in Canada and other states, how many more
> unions will follow the IBEW's lead? Will you defend them too?
>
>> If you have to be a saint to be deserving of solidarity, then no
> one qualifies.
>
> Again, you simplify in order to defend heterosexism. It is not a
> question of being a saint. It all depends on your stand on
> queer rights. If you think queers rights are unimportant then you
> will not be bothered by IBEW's actions. I think queer rights
> are basic human rights and deserving of being respected. If
> IBEW changed their by-laws to exclude women or blacks,
> would you be upset?
> Eubulides wrote:
>
>> No, you're simplifying the issues so you don't risk the
> presuppositions of your argument to substantive counterexamples
> which show your position to be seriously incomplete and
> inadequate for the much needed and all too lacking 21st century
> forms of solidarity.
>
> Yeah, what Eubulides said. Double. LOL.
>
> Doug writes:
>
>> I think someone brought up the old aphorism that hard
> cases make bad law, and it seems that everyone is looking for the hard
> cases here. I don't really understand why.
>
> Maybe because it is my life. Also, it is interesting that all posters
> are only focusing on the question of crossing the picket line.
> They have ignored my question of what you do with a union
> that practices and promotes heterosexism? What do you do when
> your (alleged) allies break solidarity. By practicing discrimination
> against queers, IBEW members turned themselves into enemies of
> humanity.
>
> John A. writes:
>
>> we could see another East St. Louis-type of occurrence,
>
> If you could, what are you referring to.
>
> John L. writes:
>
>> I am bothered by the word "authoritarian," and never use
> it except to ridicule it, mostly because I have never seen
> anyone give a credible definition of what "authoritarian" means.
>
> I gave a definition earlier in my post.
>
>> They're saying that holding people accountable to collective
> decisions is just as bad as enforcing arbitary class rule
>
> So I should be held accountable to a collective decision that
> harms myself and my queer sisters and brothers? I am to
> abandon all thought of preservation in order to enforce
> collective decisions? Now that's authoritarian LOL.
>
>> or that leftists are bound to respect union picketlines
>
> How about leftists are not to bring harm to queers and should
> shun and cripple those who do. But you seem to put union rights above
> queer rights (which is your perogative
> as hateful as it is) as evidenced by your website which has
> many links to leftist resources, but none to any queer sites.
>
> ravi writes:
>
>> do we estimate that point based on high-level rules presented
> as axioms (thou shall not cross a picket line), or from some
> more fundamental moral values (thou shall not restrict the life
> opportunities and experiences of others, thou shall not harm other
> living creatures, etc)? if the latter, then definitely reasoning has to
> be involved in answering the question of solidarity. if the former,
> with greater priority over the latter, then am i not being asked to
> act against moral fundamentals that i hold (which have not been
> proved wrong)?
>
> Once again ravi has clarified what I was trying to say without
> much success on my part. John L. fetishizes collective decisions.
> Who cares if they violate basic human rights? Who cares if hate
> and bigotry are behind them. The tribe has spoken. Queers to
> your deaths. It is this sick way of thinking that has crippled
> the left.
>
> Brian Dauth
> Queer Buddhist Resister
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>