Dreams Into Lightning

Brownworth: The feminist revolution is just beginning.

Victoria Brownworth has a stand-out column in the April 2008 print edition of Curve. The article is not available online, so I'll just post a couple of brief excerpts here.

I am a feminist. Not apologetically, under my breath. I believe that the single most important civil rights movement of the 20th century was feminism. But then, I live in the United States, where women have a great deal of freedom. I never cease to be grateful for the fact that I was born here. Being born female in the majority of the world is a very, very bad thing. That is, if you get born at all. Sex-selection abortion, for example, is rampant throughout Asia and the Asian continent.

Brownworth goes on to recount her niece's description of her time in Cairo:

She is a formidable young woman, remarkably fearless, and wears the privilege that comes with being born female in the United States; she will not be made second-class.

But according to her firsthand reports, there was never a day in Cairo or its outskirts when she was not the victim of demeaning and damaging sexual predation. She was angered and repulsed by the constant assaults - verbal and physical - but in no way cowed by them. As she noted, a tone of surprising bitterness in her voice, "At least I always knew I was coming home."

In a very different, quiet voice, she added, "But as I traveled outside Cairo, it was so hard knowing that all around me were women who were victims of FGM [female genital mutilation]."

Brownworth, herself a rape survivior, then recalls an exchange with a woman in Libya; the two women had discussed the case of the Saudi rape victim who was sentenced to 90 lashes. (I posted on it here.) The woman's sentence was increased after she challenged the ruling; she was finally pardoned after international protest.

My friend in Libya was appalled by my "insensitivity and disrespect" for Islamic law. I told her I would be equally outraged had this occurred in a Christian theocracy - except there haven't been any for centuries.

She then told me that if the woman hadn't gotten into a car with a strange man, she wouldn't have been raped. So although the penalty seemed harsh from my "Western perspective", it was for the woman's own protection.

I am no longer friends with this woman. ...

It's worth your time to read the whole piece, and pass it on to a friend. It's in Curve 18 #4; you can purchase back issues at the link.

On a side note, Curve doesn't ignore lesbian conservatives. Go here and scroll down for a McCain endorsement:

I’m a rare out lesbian this campaign year because in the face of two Democratic candidates who are dividing almost the entire LGBT vote, I’m voting for the other guy: John McCain. Before you call me a traitorous wretch and lob verbal attacks about internalized homophobia, let me explain. I’ve been a Republican since Ronald Reagan was in the Oval Office, though I briefly fell off the wagon to support Clinton No. 1, which I regretted almost instantly.

To hear former President Bill Clinton tell it today, he and Hillary are the most gay-positive politicos out there. However, Clinton himself signed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—which has ousted thousands of queer service members since it was enacted in 1993—as well as the Defense of Marriage Act.

John McCain supported it too, but he remained one of the few Republicans to rally against a federal anti-gay marriage amendment, calling it “antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.” Like a true Republican, he’s repeatedly said that states should have the right to define their own policies. ...

Go to the link for the rest. When you're done, check out Tammy Bruce:

I’m a pro-choice lesbian feminist. I’m also an independent conservative and have grown increasingly frustrated with all the candidates for president. I have never voted for a candidate because of the letter after the name, and I still have not made a decision about whom I will vote for in November. For the first time in a presidential race I am not only not excited about a candidate, I am extremely concerned about all their agendas.

How I identify may sound like a contradiction, but it’s really not. I want government to be small and unobtrusive. Whenever government gets big, that means it’s interfering in our lives, and that’s never been a good thing for gays, whose freedom and independence rely in large part on the majority leaving us alone. A main problem is how conservatism is viewed—which is that it has been attached to religious politics for too long. ...

Well worth a read. Longtime readers of Dreams Into Lightning will recall that a piece in Curve prompted my 2004 post on women and power.

Republicans Leading the Fight for Gay Marriage in California - LA Weekly

Patrick Range McDonald and Matthew Fleischer, LA Weekly:

Powerful Republicans, through happenstance and well-orchestrated public policy, were leading the charge for the legalization and defense of same-sex marriage in California. It was something state Democrats, the seemingly natural allies of the gay-rights movement, could never completely pull off.

Via GayPatriot.

Not even Rich Lowry ...

... can convince me to vote for Barack Obama, though he does try.

UK Unitarians Challenge Partnership Law

Via Harry's Place, Islington Gazette:

THE FIRST church in Britain to ban weddings in support of homosexual rights has been backed by the gay leadership of Islington Council.

Newington Green Unitarian Church, which the 18th century feminist Mary Wollstonecraft once attended, has announced it will not hold marriages until it is able to conduct civil partnerships for gay couples.

The protest is also being held by its sister venue - the Unity Unitarian Church in Upper Street, Islington.

Now the council's Liberal Democrat leadership has expressed support.

At the moment, the law bans any religious service from taking place during a gay civil partnership.

Minister Dr Andrew Pakula, who will only conduct services of blessing at Newington Green until this is changed, said: "We will have no legal weddings until we can conduct the same equal ceremonies for all couples - including same-sex couples." ...

David T says "Good for them," and I agree.

Netherlands Rejects Gay Iranian's Asylum Appeal

CNN:

The Netherlands has rejected an asylum plea by a gay Iranian teenager trying to escape possible persecution in his homeland.

Mehdi Kazemi believes he will face persecution if he is made to return to Iran.

Mehdi Kazemi, 19, had originally sought asylum in Britain, where he was taking classes on a student visa, because, he said, his boyfriend had been executed in Iran after saying he and Kazemi had been in a gay relationship. Britain's Home Office rejected his request, prompting Kazemi to flee to Netherlands.

Tuesday's decision by the Council of State -- the highest administrative court in the Netherlands --means Kazemi could face deportation to Britain, which he fears will send him back to Iran.

Council spokeswoman Daniela Tempelman said the council decided it must comply with the Dublin Regulation and return Kazemi to Britain. ...

Kazemi now has exhausted his chances for appeal in the Netherlands and, according to Tempelman, could be returned to Britain on a short notice. The British government about six months ago accepted the Dutch request to take him back.

Kazemi's lawyer will have the option of taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights to request an "interim measure" that could allow Kazemi to stay in Europe until further notice.

"If anybody signs his deportation papers and says, look, he's got to be deported to Iran, that means they have signed his death sentence," said Kazemi's uncle Saeed, who asked CNN to withhold his last name over safety concerns.

Gay rights activists in Europe and Iran are also researching Kazemi's case.
advertisement

"When Britain is prepared to send a young man back to possible execution, that is inhumanity on a monumental scale," said Peter Tatchell, an activist for gay campaign group OutRage. "And I hang my head in shame, as a British citizen."

Words fail me.

Kuwait Makes Cross-Dressing a Crime

I spent seven months in the desert for this?

(New York, January 17, 2008) – Authorities should immediately release more than a dozen persons jailed under Kuwait’s new dress-code law, Human Rights Watch said today. The law, approved by the National Assembly on December 10, 2007, criminalizes people who “imitate the appearance of the opposite sex.”
“The wave of arrests in the past month shows exactly why Kuwait should repeal this repressive law,” said Joe Stork, deputy director of the Middle East division at Human Rights Watch. “Kuwaiti authorities should immediately drop all charges against those arrested, and investigate charges of ill-treatment in detention.”

Security officials have arrested at least 14 people in Kuwait City since the National Assembly approved an addition (Article 199 bis) to Article 198 of the Criminal Code. The amendment states that “any person committing an indecent act in a public place, or imitating the appearance of a member of the opposite sex, shall be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding one thousand dinars [US$3,500].”

Dress codes based solely on gender stereotypes restrict both freedom of expression and personal autonomy, Human Rights Watch said. The only known targets of the new Kuwaiti law have been transgender people – individuals born into one gender who deeply identify themselves with another. Kuwait allows transgender people neither to change their legal identity to match the gender in which they live, nor to adapt their physical appearance through gender reassignment surgery. The new law, coming after months of controversy, aims at further restricting their rights and completely eliminating their public presence. In September 2007, the newspaper Al Arabiya reported a new government campaign “to combat the growing phenomenon of gays and transsexuals” in Kuwait.

On December 18, 2007, Al Watan newspaper announced the arrests of three people at a police checkpoint in Salimeya, 10 km southeast of Kuwait City. Days later, police arrested three more people at a checkpoint in Kuwait City. On December 21, security officials detained another three people on Restaurant Street in the Hawalli district, 8 km south of Kuwait City. The same day, two other people were detained at another police checkpoint. Authorities have reportedly arrested three more people in January, one in a coffee shop and two in a taxi stopped by police. Police arrested all 14 because they believed they were “imitating the appearance of the opposite sex.”

All the people detained are being held in Tahla Prison. Friends of the accused told Human Rights Watch that police and prison guards subjected the detainees to physical and psychological abuse. Al-Rai newspaper quoted police as saying that the “confused [men were] deposited in the special ward,” and that the prison administration ordered guards to shave their heads as a form of punishment. The paper quoted a prison administrator as saying “this step [shaving heads] follows the passage of the law concerning men who imitate the appearance of women.” Friends report that at least three of the prisoners were beaten and one was left unconscious. Authorities deported one Saudi Arabian national among those arrested, to face trial in that country. None of the detainees has access to legal representation.

Transgender people in Kuwait tell Human Rights Watch that they are now afraid to leave their homes – even for work or to meet basic needs – for fear of arrest and ill-treatment. Arbitrary and intrusive gender-based codes for acceptable demeanor and dress violate the rights to privacy and to free expression protected under international law. The beatings and ill-treatment to which authorities reportedly subjected the prisoners violate internationally recognized prohibitions against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

“The intent of this measure is clear: to eradicate the freedoms and visibility of people who already face discrimination daily,” said Stork. “When states impose dress codes, whether on women or on men, they deny their basic rights to both privacy and free expression.”

In a December 31 private letter to Kuwait’s minister of justice, Abdallah Abd al-Rahman al-Matuq, and to the speaker of the National Assembly, Jassem Al-Kharafi, Human Rights Watch urged the government to release the detainees and drop charges against them. In the same letter, Human Rights Watch called on the government to work toward repealing the recent addition to Article 198.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Kuwait has acceded, sets forth the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7). Article 14 of the same treaty affirms the right to counsel. The treaty also bars interference with the right to privacy (Article 17) and protects freedom of expression (Article 19). Kuwait has the obligation to respect and ensure these rights, and to do so in a non-discriminatory manner, as set forth in Article 2.

The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, adopted by a group of 29 experts on international human rights law in 2006, calls upon states to “take all necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to express identity or personhood, including through speech, deportment, dress, bodily characteristics, choice of name or any other means” (Principle 19[c]).

HT: Or Does It Explode

G, L, B ... and what's the other thing?

Transsexual neocon Zoe at A. E. Brain clears up a few points:

1. First, we're all human beings. That needs saying because we too often lose sight of the fact that everyone, even those we don't identify with, even those we feel uncomfortable being around, have human rights. And I speak as a conservative neo-con, not a tree-hugging kumbayah-singing liberal.

2. Then some of us are GLBT - people who do not fit in in some way with the standard bigendered model, where men look and act in accordance with society's norm for men and are only attracted to women, and women look and act accordance with society's norm for women and are only attracted to men. About the only thing such people have in common with each other is that it's the same people who persecute them. Many in this conglomerate - that is, a matrix containing parts of very different nature - don't remotely understand each other, and there's both phobia - fear - and loathing even when they do understand.

There's Androphobic Lesbians who see men, even Gay men, as a threat, Gynaphobic Gays who see anything redolent of femininity as beneath contempt, Homophobic Transsexuals who resent being conflated with those they see as morally corrupt, you name it. And straight Intersexed people who don't see why having an unusual medical condition automatically drafts them into a political activist group made up of weirdoes like mentally ill Transsexuals, Fetishistic Crossdressers, and perverted GLBs.

3. The there are some who are T. This is where it really gets confusing. T for Transgender. And what that word means changes from day to day. ...

Go read it all.

Zero Dimensional

“No, I mean they would kill me.”

There are problems, and then there are problems.

Nicholas Kulish, writing in the New York Times' Berlin Journal, tells us about the lives of gay Muslims in Europe, as seen at a gay dance club in Berlin.

But most of the people filling the dance floor on Saturday at the club SO36 in the Kreuzberg neighborhood were gay, lesbian or bisexual, and of Turkish or Arab background. They were there for the monthly club night known as Gayhane, an all-too-rare opportunity to merge their immigrant cultures and their sexual identities.

Well, that's nice. But there are a few harsh realities to be dealt with. Here's how Kulish explains it:

European Muslims, so often portrayed one-dimensionally as rioters, honor killers or terrorists, live diverse lives, most of them trying to get by and to have a good time. That is more difficult if one is both Muslim and gay.

Our friend Nicholas Kulish wants you to know he won't have any of this nasty stereotyping; far be it from the New York Times to portray Muslims - one-dimensionally or otherwise - as honor killers or terrorists. So we learn that

To be a gay man or lesbian with an immigrant background invites trouble here in two very different ways.

“Depending on which part of Berlin I go to, in one I get punched in the mouth because I’m a foreigner and in the other because I’m a queen,” said Fatma Souad, the event’s organizer and master of ceremonies.

And these two things are exactly equal to one another, right? But there's something odd going on here:

But gay men and lesbians from Muslim families say they face extraordinary discrimination at home. A survey of roughly 1,000 young men and women in Berlin, released in September and widely cited in the German press, found much higher levels of homophobia among Turkish youth.

You don't say?

Hatin Sürücü was shot dead at a bus stop in Berlin, Germany, on February 7. The 23-year-old Turkish woman was mourned by the lesbian and gay community, but not by her family. Deutsche Welle reports:
To the people who came to this bleak part of Berlin's Tempelhof district for Tuesday's solemn vigil -- called not by the city's Muslim community but a gay and lesbian organization -- the image of the young woman in a headscarf, a baby in her arms, was familiar from newspapers and television. A few notes at the memorial read, "Hope you get a better deal in your next life," and "Live a life on your own terms."

"It's a scandal," said Ali K, 33. "All Muslims in Berlin should take to the streets to protest." Yasemin, 22, said, "It's horrific. All Hatin was doing was leading her life the way she wanted."

But it was a choice she paid for with her life. On Feb. 7, 23-year-old Hatin Sürücü was gunned down at the aforementioned bus stop. She died on the spot. Shortly afterwards, three of her brothers -- who reportedly had long been threatening her -- were arrested. Investigators suspect it was a so-called "honor killing," given the fact that Sürücü's ultra-conservative Turkish-Kurdish family strongly disapproved of her modern and "un-Islamic" life.

Sürücü grew up in Berlin and was married off at 16 to a cousin in Istanbul. ...

Here's more from the DW article on Hatin Sürücü:

Days after Hatin Sürücü was killed, some male students of Turkish origin at a high school near the scene of the crime reportedly downplayed the act. During a class discussion on the murder, one said, "She (Hatin Sürücü) only had herself to blame," while another remarked "She deserved what she got --the whore lived like a German." The school's director promptly dashed off a letter to parents and students, castigating the students and warning that the school didn’t tolerate incitement against freedom.

Oh, but wait. Silly me. I've gotten distracted. We were talking about the wonderful gay night life in Berlin. Let's get back to Nicholas Kulish. Now where were we? Ah, yes, "... much higher levels of homophobia among Turkish youth."

“These differences are there,” said Bernd Simon, who led the study and is a professor of social psychology at Christian-Albrechts-University in Kiel. “We can’t deny them. The question is how do we cope with them.”

“The answer is not to replace homophobia with Islamophobia,” he added, pointing out that homophobia is also higher among Russian immigrants and in other, less urban parts of Germany.

Well that certainly is enlightening. "The answer is not to replace homophobia with Islamophobia," the good professor instructs us. Homophobia, islamophobia ... six of one, half a dozen of the other. And we may not know what the answer is (Professor Simon hasn't even attempted to answer his own question) but at least we know what it is not. I feel better already.

But what are those gay Muslims themselves saying?

Kader Balcik, a 22-year-old Turk from Hamburg, said: “For us, for Muslims, it’s extremely difficult. When you’re gay, you’re immediately cut off from the family.”

He had recently moved to Berlin not long after being cut off from his mother because he is bisexual. “A mother who wishes death for her son, what kind of mother is that?” he asked, his eyes momentarily filling with tears.

Hasan, a 21-year-old Arab man, sitting at a table in the club’s quieter adjoining cafe, declined to give his last name, saying: “They would kill me. My brothers would kill me.” Asked if he meant this figuratively, he responded, “No, I mean they would kill me.”

And so, at the end of his 1100-word opus, Nicolas Kulish has his epiphany. Like a sort of reverse Balaam, he wanted to say only nice things about gay life for Muslims in Germany. But reality had other ideas.

***

Last week, two young lives were snuffed out in Texas.

Yaser Abdel Said, 50, was wanted on a warrant for capital murder after police say he shot the girls Tuesday and left them to die in his taxi, which was found parked in front a hotel in Las Colinas, a suburb north of Dallas. Police said Mr. Said should be considered armed and dangerous.

Friends of Amina Yaser Said, 18, and Sarah Yaser Said, 17, described the girls to the Dallas Morning News as "extremely smart — like geniuses," saying the slain sisters had been enrolled in advanced placement classes and were active in soccer and tennis at suburban Lewisville High School.

While police refused to discuss a possible motive for the crimes, family and friends told reporters that the girls' Westernized lifestyle caused conflict with their Muslim father, who immigrated from Egypt in the 1980s.

This comes on the heels of the murder of Aqsa Parvez in Canada last month.

A 16-year-old girl is dead and her father has been charged with murder after an attack in a Mississauga home.

Aqsa Parvez, a student at Applewood Heights Secondary School, had been on life support in hospital since yesterday morning.

Police went to the family's two-storey home on Longhorn Trail about 8 a.m. yesterday after receiving a 911 call in which a man allegedly claimed to have killed his daughter.

Paramedics found Aqsa with a faint pulse and rushed her to hospital. She was later transferred to a Toronto hospital and placed on life support.

Peel police said this morning that she died overnight.

Friends at the victim’s school said she feared her father and had argued over her desire to shun the hijab, a traditional shoulder-length head scarf worn by females in devout Muslim families.

Here's Phyllis Chesler:

Just yesterday, an Egyptian Arab Muslim father in Dallas, Texas allegedly shot his two beautiful teenage daughters to death because he disapproved of their American-style ways. Their names were Amina and Sarah Said and their father’s name was Abdul Said. The girls looked sassy and full of life; they looked like Dallas teenagers. They were 17 and 18 years old and their friends considered them “geniuses.” Abdul was a taxi driver. (In parts of Europe, taxi drivers are known to aid and abet honor murders).

Perhaps how Amina and Sarah dressed, and how they thought, shamed their father Abdul. He was no longer in control of his women—a mark of shame which provoked his need to kill them. Perhaps their flowering sexuality enraged him because it made him desire them—and from this he concluded that other men might desire them too and if he could not have them, no man could.
The blogs and the local Texas media (the Dallas Morning News) were all over this. Hot Air, Atlas Shrugs, Jihad Watch, were too. The only national coverage of this story was contained in the Washington Times. Why did the national and international media so far shy clear of this story? Perhaps they chose to dig deeper first or maybe they were waiting for an arrest to be made. But one also wonders: Were they afraid of being accused of “Islamophobia” if they reported the truth?

There's that word again. Where is all this islamophobia coming from, anyway? Via Muslims Against Sharia, here's an article in the Yemen Times arguing unironically that there must be violence against women:

This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must. ...

Perhaps Abdul Said, fine upstanding chap that he is, was just doing his Islamic duty. We know he was a good Egyptian Muslim; perhaps of the same moral fiber as those Egypt-based internet users who populate my site statistics with searches like "egypt women fuck", "pics of egyption woman for fuck", "egyptian fucking pictures", "fucking girls from egypt", "fucking egyptian girls", and similarly inspiring sentiments. Or perhaps there's some profound cultural and moral value that's being upheld by the sexual harassment of women in Egypt. But I'm digressing again.

And I'm probably being unfair by picking on the Egyptians, so I'll turn now to Irshad Manji, a lesbian Muslim of South Asian background, on Aqsa Parvez:

Aqsa Parvez told friends and adults at her public high school that she feared what her father would do if she stuck by her decision to reject the hijab — the Islamic headscarf. She also said it’s better to live in a shelter than at home.

Nobody listened. Now she’s dead.

Moderate Muslims have warned that we shouldn’t leap to conclusions. Who knows what other dynamics infected her family, spout hijab-hooded mouthpieces on Canadian TV. Not once have I heard these upstanding Muslims say that whatever the “family dynamics,” killing is not a solution. Ever. How’s that for basic morality?

Irshad goes on to make an important point: even "progressive" non-Muslims fall into the trap of confusing the hijab (which Irshad contends is itself of pre-Muslim, tribal origin) with the basic Muslim injunction to "dress modestly".

And this brings us to the idea expressed in the title of Irshad's post - "Covering up the diversity of Muslim women." By refusing to see women in the Muslim world as individuals with hopes, needs, fears, dreams, and faces of their own, the self-styled "progressive" left buys into the notion of women as objects - expressions of an exotic oriental culture more primitive, and yet somehow ineffably wiser, than our own, decadent, materialistic, industrialist Western world.

***
Times Online reports: Woman artist gets death threats over gay Muslim photos.

THE Dutch were debating the limits of freedom of expression last week after an artist who photographed gay men wearing masks of the prophet Muhammad was forced into hiding and her work removed from a museum exhibit.

Speaking on the telephone from an unspecified location in the Netherlands last week, the artist, an Iranian exile who goes by the pseudonym of Sooreh Hera, said she had been threatened with “execution”. She accused the director of the municipal museum in The Hague of cowardice for caving in to Muslim extremists.

Her story is a reminder of the tensions that have put the Netherlands and other European countries on the front line, sending dozens of people threatened by extremists into hiding since 2004, when a Dutch film-maker was murdered on the street and his collaborator driven into exile. [That's Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for those of you who may need a reminder. - aa]

This leaves Hera, 34, in no doubt that she is in real danger. “They said to me, ‘We’re going to burn you naked or put a bullet in your mouth’,” she said, referring to menacing e-mails.

“They say, ‘Now you are locked in your home and you cannot go out any more’.”

She said that by photographing gay Iranian exiles in masks of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, and Ali, his son-in-law, she had wanted to expose a “hypocritical” attitude towards homosexuality in countries such as Iran, where men can be hanged for homosexual conduct. ...

I can picture Sooreh Hera patiently explaining the death threats to the Dutch police: "No, I mean they would kill me."

Read the rest at the link. You know, when the words "woman", "artist", "gay", and "death threats" all occur in a single headline, you'd think this would be just the kind of thing the liberal left ought to be on top of. Well ...

Wouter Bos, the deputy prime minister, seemed to take a stand for freedom of speech, saying: “In a democracy, we do not recognise the right not to be insulted.” The left wing de Volkskrant newspaper, by contrast, praised the museum for its “great professionalism” in excising the images.

Gateway Pundit has a roundup; and here's a link to Sooreh Hera.

***

To worry, as the journalist quoted in the first section above did, about the "one-dimensional" portrayal of terrorists and honor murderers, is to forget the victims. Not merely to forget, but to deliberately blot out of memory. As if it was only the aggressor, and not the victim, who had any reality to begin with. Then one must dance, so to speak, around the reality of violence and fear that rules the lives of so many dissidents, women, and gay people in the Muslim world.

Ironically it's exactly these people - folks like the well-meaning journalist - who help to create the "one-dimensional" picture of Islam, while ignoring the lives of those who sought to reimagine, reinvent, reform, question, rebel against, or abandon Islam entirely.

I am not going to split hairs over whether these atrocities were committed "by Islam", "in the name of Islam", "by extremists who hijacked Islam", or whatever. The common thread is a hatred of joy, creativity, diversity, and life itself. It is a nihilistic desire to reduce the rich flower of the living world to a zero-dimensional state of uniformity and nothingness.

This time last year, Aqsa Parvez and Sarah and Amina Said were active, healthy, determined young women. Now all that's left of them is a collection of pixels on the screen of your computer, and the memories they left behind with those who knew them.

Remember their faces. Remember their names.

Aqsa Parvez

Sarah and Amina Said

Bruce Bawer Blogs

Via Jeremayakovka, I'm pleased to announce Bruce Bawer's blog, Memo from Europe. Here's a quote from Bruce's latest (November 19) post:

Ideologues like this constantly insist that critics of Islamism are preoccupied with “us” and “them.” On the contrary, they're the ones who are obsessed with “us” and “them.” It’s “their business.” It’s “their country.” It’s “their decision.” If they want to execute their children for being gay, hey, that’s up to them.

Bingo. Go to Memo from Europe for actual examples of this leftist "thought" process in action.

Queer Universe

A long-time screen pal has started a blog on lesbian and gay themes in fantasy, science fiction and geek culture. It's called Queer Universe. Go check it out!

Activists Here and There

Jeremayakovka's relationship with the gay world is complex, as is mine, so I always take a special interest in what he has to say on LGBT issues.

Here's an article by Emily K in Ex-Gay Watch bringing down some pretty heavy fire on ex-gay activist Richard Cohen.

Cohen’s tactics are nothing but new-age mind games repackaged as novel, effective counseling, when in reality they are none of these things.

(Although Emily is somewhat kinder to Orthodox Jewish gay-to-straight counselors, saying, "Intelligent, studious Orthodox Jews are seeking an effective scientific solution, but they will never find one.")

Anyway, JMK shows up in the comments with some great examples of how a vigorous but civil debate should be conducted. He doesn't buy the idea that homosexuality is always chosen, but he won't stand for vilification of sincere individuals in the ex-gay movement either. Go check out his comments.

And also from JMK, here's Zenobia at Egyptian Chronicles on activism in Kuwait:

Do you remember when all of the sudden the Arab world last year 2006 found itself in front of a storm coming from Lebanon that is the rise of the LGBT rights group there !!?? Do you remember the rainbow rally and the press conference in Beirut ?? Not to mention the various gay blogs and the endless press coverage for quite sometime , of course online Press

Well be ready because the Next LGBT in the Arab world is coming from Kuwait

Oh yes Kuwait

The homosexuals in Kuwait want a legal protection under the Kuwaiti laws especially for the transgenders as the Kuwaiti law prohibits the transgenders operations

The homosexuals in Kuwait already according to the Kuwaiti El-Nahr newspaper had requested the social Services ministry's permission to have their own LGBT rights group

This is not a surprise to me because Homosexuality is well known in Kuwait and it is something most Arabs know ,by the way here I am not attacking Kuwait heavens forbid ,it is not an attack it is something well known and everyone is speaking about it lately with the spread of the Internet and media

It is used to be in the closet taboo , always brought up when some Kuwaiti attacks Egypt , in my Arabic blog I received similar comments about this ,yes Egypt has its gays and Lesbians in the closet but not in public like in Kuwait ...

Log Cabin: Senator Larry Craig Should Resign

*** UPDATE: He will. ***

Log Cabin Republicans, via e-mail release:

Log Cabin has been providing a strong voice in the midst of the scandal involving Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). His behavior has been inappropriate and illegal. His explanation is not credible. He should take responsibility for his poor judgment and illegal behavior by resigning.

Senator Craig has a terrible record on gay rights issues, so obviously hypocrisy is part of this story. However, even if he had a good record on gay issues his behavior would still be illegal and inappropriate.

See also:

Log Cabin's Patrick Sammon on CNN.

UPDATE via Insty: Senator Larry Craig will resign tomorrow, Saturday, September 1, 2007.

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will announce Saturday he will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men's room, Republican officials said Friday.

Cops Blocked Religious Sympathizers from Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade

In 2006, two young religious Israelis wanted to show their support for the gay rights march in Jerusalem. But the police were having none of it. Jerusalem Post:

When Hebrew University students Isaac and Shlomo wanted to demonstrate their solidarity with the Jerusalem parade in 2006, police prevented them from entering parade grounds. Their crime? Wearing kippot.

"Because we're religious, the police assumed we were there to attack," Isaac explains. "We were there to support democracy, to show that as religious Jews we support gay rights, and instead we were treated like criminals."

When the two students, both 25 at the time, first attempted to enter the parade grounds, they were taken aside into a tent and strip-searched by the police. "We agreed because they told us that after we were searched, we could go inside," says Isaac.
Their participation in the parade was not a matter of personal grievance, but of idealism, explains Isaac, saying that he was determined to demonstrate his support of a marginalized community.

When police prevented the two from joining the parade, Isaac says he felt "hurt. I felt betrayed by the system, that they made assumptions about us [religious people] ... that they didn't allow us to support the same people that they were trying to protect."

"This year, I wore a hat to cover my kippa, and they let me in," he adds. ...

Really, really sad. Read the whole story at the link. A tip of the kippah to my gay Orthodox friend in San Francisco for passing this on.

Israel's Pride

Two important conflicts have played out in the Land of Israel this past week. But first, a word from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook:

Near the end of their journey in the desert, the Israelites arrived at Kadesh. But there was no water to drink, and the people complained bitterly. God commanded Moses to take his staff before the entire people and speak to the cliff-rock, to provide water for the nation. Moses took the staff and assembled the people. But he shouted,

"Listen now, you rebels! Shall we produce water for you from this cliff?" [Num. 20:10]

Moses then struck the cliff twice with the staff, and a huge amount of water gushed out. ...

According to Rav Kook, all religious rage, all intolerance for moral failings, is rooted in this display of anger by Moses. Instead of words of reconciliation, he shouted, "Listen now, you rebels!" Instead of speaking to the heart, he hit the rock. While righteous indignation stems from sincere and pure intentions, the highest goals of holiness will only be achieved through calm spirits and mutual respect.

In our generation, the instruction of Torah and its details involves a pedantic form of debate. Father and son, teacher and student, struggle and battle over Torah study. In the end, their mutual love returns; but the residual feelings of enmity are never completely erased.

The restoration of the peaceful ways of Torah will come through the prophet Elijah, who "shall turn the heart of fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers." [Malachi 3:24]

Rav Kook, who is widely regarded as the founder of religious Zionism (and who's one of my personal heroes), embodied an extraordinary combination of idealism and pragmatism, nationalism and universalism, mysticism and rationalism. One of his greatest strengths was his ability to build bridges between seemingly antagonistic parties. The optimism and magnanimity of spirit that enabled him to do this is evident in the passage I've quoted here.

In Jerusalem this week, the annual controversy over the city's gay pride parade ran its course. Regular readers of Dreams Into Lightning will know that I have sympathies on both sides of the issue, and I posted extensively on the controversy last year. This year, the event seems almost anti-climactic. Here is the Jerusalem Post article:

"Jerusalem of Gold," the ballad that united Israelis following the Six Day War, once again echoed in the streets of the capital as both gay rights activists and religious counterprotesters used the song as their anthem.

The point of unity may have been unintentional, but was not entirely surprising, as both the protesters and the marchers acknowledged that the theme of the parade was more about its Jerusalem location than its message of gay pride.

"When we march in Tel Aviv it's like a big party. We have music, we have fun. We are glad to be here but it isn't fun… we're looking over our shoulders all the time, wondering if it will become violent," said David Etkes, a Tel Aviv University student participating in the event. "We came here because we wanted to show Jerusalem that they can't scare the gay community. Jerusalem must learn to accept us, too."

The article goes on to say that the gay parade was seen by observers as much more subdued than its counterparts in cities like Paris, and that a few religious demonstrators managed to infiltrate the parade and heckle participants before being escorted away by police. Meanwhile, Arutz Sheva reports that leading rabbis are moving away from encouraging any kind of counter-demo:

Leading hareidi-religious rabbis say that anti-Gay Pride Parade protests should be put on a low burner. "Prayers are more effective than rallies," they say.

Rabbi Shmuel HaLevy Vozner, Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, and other leading rabbinical sages in Bnei Brak have issued a statement against participation in the "protests and similar events" against the upcoming gay-pride parade in Jerusalem.

The homosexual march is scheduled to take place along King David St. in Jerusalem on Thursday at 5 PM, followed by a rally at 8 PM. Some 7,000 policemen will be on hand to try to neutralize violence, though Jerusalem Police Chief Ilan Franco says he has no illusions that the event will be "violence-free."

"We again warn regarding the gathering of youngsters in the streets of Bnei Brak for protests and similar events," the rabbis wrote, "and we hereby present our position, the position of Torah, that the Sages are not pleased with these gatherings, and whoever studies Torah should guard himself and stay away from them."

The rabbis even say that it is known that the organizers are reckless and "do not have fear of G-d opposite them, and joining up with them is a spiritual danger... A significant number of them are not yeshiva students, but youngsters from other towns who are looking for an excuse to go wild, burn trash bins and destroy public property... Our strength is in our mouths, in prayer to G-d that He will bring down a spirit of purity to enable us to serve Him truly." ...

In other words, what has happened was exactly what needed to happen: both sides have learned to assert their beliefs and values in a civilized way - and they have learned to live with each other. And that is all that anybody could expect.

And this is how it works in a civilized society. Protesters may sometimes get carried to extremes in the heat of the moment - for example, the Haredi demonstrations in past years, or the original Stonewall riots - but ultimately they understand that it is in their own best interests to reach out to the community through dialog.

Contrast this with the mayhem that occurred in Gaza with the takeover by the islamist fanatics of Hamas. Ha'Aretz reports that some Palestinians are seeing the irony in being forced to flee to Israel:

"There were five of them. They stood over me and shot my legs from the knee down. One of them put his Kalashnikov to my head. Instinctively I moved the barrel aside and the bullet hit my hand," Shadi told Haaretz yesterday. He arrived at Ichilov with one leg amputated and the other leg crushed.

"I wanted to shoot myself for voting Hamas," another patient said. He came with his brother, who had been shot in the head while evacuating wounded people in his taxi. "We really believed Hamas would change things," he said. ...

Later yesterday, Zecharia Alrai, 39, an officer in Fatah's elite Force 17 commando unit, arrived. He had been abducted by four Hamas gunmen a week ago. They loaded him into a jeep and drove him to an isolated spot, where they shot three bullets into his leg and dumped him.

"That's not Islam. That's evil and hypocrisy. How ironic that Israel is rescuing us from our Muslim 'brothers,'" he said.

Like Gay Patriot West and Nate Nelson, I'm skeptical of the concept of "gay pride" as such; I think it's better to be able to be proud of one's achievements. Israel - a free, strong, and democratic state surrounded by hostile dictatorships, and a nation where the most widely divergent views can find open expression - has much to be proud of.

The same profundity and precision which in the past was achieved via zeal and passion ("rit'cha d'oraita"), will be achieved in the future through the spiritual strength of gentleness and equanimity. Then the light of the sukkah of peace will encompass the Jewish people and those nations of the world who gather from afar to the holy city of Jerusalem.

Mary Cheney's Baby, Samuel David Cheney, Born Wednesday

One of our favorite lesbian Republicans has just become a mom.

Fox News:

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary delivered an 8-pound, 6-ounce baby boy on Wednesday, the first child for her and her female partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

Samuel David Cheney was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, the vice president's office announced. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne, paid a visit to their new — and sixth — grandchild a few hours later.

Gay Patriot bloggers weigh in:

Mary Cheney's baby and her father's quality.

While gay activists seem to love to bash the Vice President because they don’t like his conservative politics, they should bear in mind that they claim to working to improve the lives of gay Americans. They may not agree with the Vice President on a whole host of issues, notably foreign and defense policy, but they should note that the one time he has publicly distanced himself from the president (since he was tapped to be his VP) was when he came out against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Not only that. Just to see that image of the beaming Grandpa makes us realize what kind of man Dick Cheney is. That he loves his daughter, knowing she’s gay. That he welcomes her partner Heather Poe into his family. And that he welcomes their child into his family. What better way to support the mainstreaming of gay couples — and gay families — than this open and loving acceptance. Kudos, Mr. Vice President.

Mailroom error.

If Dick and Lynn Cheney were as evil as the Gay Left wants us to believe, they’d take this opportunity to come out and make an example of how wrong they think homosexuality is and their abhorrence for homosexuals having babies. After all, what better platform from which to speak, a baby born to lesbians in their own family? Quite the contrary, they are proud and happy grandparents.

On the other hand, if the Gay Left were as dedicated to forwarding the message that gay and lesbian parents are just as loving and deserving of rights because they’re just like any other family, they’d be praising the birth and looking for fans of the Vice President and his family to follow his loving example.

The White House - Office of the Vice President. 'Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, Wednesday, May 23, 2007. He weighed 8 lbs., 6 oz and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. His parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe.'

Related.
Mary Cheney's baby.

Remarks. I'm not going to make any more political comments on this. I'm just going to say congratulations and wish all the best to Mary, Heather, and Samuel David Cheney. And let's keep working together for fairness for all families.

Wyoming's Dan Zwonitzer Stands Up for Marriage Equality

From Alas, a Blog:

This is kind of old news, but I missed it at the time, and maybe some “Alas” readers did too. Wyoming State Rep Dan Zwonitzer, who is straight and a Republican, in February of this year voted against a measure that would have forbidden Wyoming from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. ...

Thanks to Ampersand for passing this on. Pandagon has more. Here is an excerpt from Zwonitzer's speech:

Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.

In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn’t until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I’ve read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.

Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privelges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long. ...

And here is Zwonitzer's message, posted at Pandagon:

I have obviously thought about this issue a great deal in the last 24 hours, and have truly come to realize that marriage in any form is greater than allowing a group of our citizens to continually be persecuted; and I’ve come to understand that many of the reasons they are vilified in our society is directly related to the fact there is not an opportunity to form recognized, committed long-term relationships.
It is my sincere hope that the outside world does not continue to believe Wyoming to be an intolerant and bigoted state. We have a low population which does not allow a lot of room for intolerance here as everyone knows everyone. When people come to know others who are different and accept them, their attitudes change.

Luckily, I have not had significant negative feedback today from people in my District. Yes, there has certainly been some comment from citizens from the “deep red” portions of my state. I am hoping that the silent majority of Wyoming understands and agrees with me, as I am fairly confident they do. It was greatly controversial right up until it was killed in committee, and within a day things have settled back down.

H.R. 1592

In support of H.R. 1592. I'm supporting HR 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.

There seem to be a lot of objections to it from the conservative world, some reasonable, most (in my opinion) not. In the interests of cogency, I'll begin with the reasonable objections.

The basic argument against H.R. 1592 is the argument against "hate crimes" legislation in general: that it clutters the lawbooks with unnecessary and redundant laws, and that it differentiates between "classes" of citizens (in this case, crime victims) - thus enshrining the very inequality it purports to fight. What is needed, the conservative argument goes, is not special laws to protect certain classes of people, but better enforcement of existing laws against common crime.

I have some respect for this position, but I think it misses a couple of key points. First, the purpose of hate crimes laws is to target bias-motivated crime; that is, it's the motive of the aggressor, not the identity of the vicitm, that's the determining factor. Now you may agree or disagree with that on principle, but there's no basis for the claim that the law operates on the basis of the victim's identity. Here's what HR 1592 says:

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

`(a) In General-

`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the offense; or

`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

There's a lot more at the link, of course. Now I think the language of "actual or perceived race, etc." is a problem because it seems to suggest the opposite, i.e. that the victim's race (or other status) is itself part of the law's concern. It would be better if the text read only "perceived race, etc." because it's the perp's perceptions that we care about. But a little farther down you can find the following:

`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant;

which ought to clear things up. Bottom line: the victim doesn't automatically get to claim "bias crime" just because he or she is a different race (or whatever) from the perpetrator.

The second point I want to make is that bias laws don't just apply to certain groups or "minorities". But don't take my word for it. Here's a clip from the FBI's 2004 hate crime statistics:

Racial bias motivated crimes against 5,119 hate crime victims of single-bias incidents. Nearly 68 percent (67.9) of the victims were the object of an anti-black bias. Slightly more than 20 percent (20.1) were victims of an anti-white bias, 5.2 percent were victimized because of an anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias, and 2.0 percent were victims due to an anti-American Indian or Alaskan native bias. Victims of anti-multiple races bias, i.e., groups in which more than one race was represented, comprised 4.9 percent of hate crime victims.

In 2004, law enforcement agencies reported that there were 1,586 victims of crimes motivated by a religious bias (single-bias incidents only). Most (67.8 percent) were victimized because of an anti-Jewish bias. An anti-Islamic bias motivated offenses against 12.7 percent of victims, and an anti-Catholic bias provoked crimes against 4.3 percent. Victims of an anti-Protestant bias made up 3.0 percent of victims of hate crimes resulting from a religious bias; other religions, 9.3 percent; and multiple religions, group, 2.5 percent. The remaining 0.4 percent of hate crime victims were targeted because of the offender’s anti-Atheism or anti-Agnosticism bias.

In terms of single-bias incidents motivated by a sexual-orientation bias, law enforcement reported 1,482 victims, most of which (60.9 percent) were victims of crimes motivated by an anti-male homosexual bias. In addition, 21.2 percent of victims were targets of an anti-homosexual (male and female) bias. Slightly more than 14 percent (14.3) were victims of an anti-female homosexual bias, 2.4 percent were victimized because of an anti-heterosexual bias, and 1.2 percent were targets of an anti-bisexual bias.

Obviously I've added the bolding here. The point is that phrases like "race" and "sexual orientation" mean what they say; the law recognizes a bias crime as a bias crime. So, does anti-bias law protect straight white Protestant males? Yes.

You can go to the Wikipedia article on hate crime laws in the United States for an informative, readable, jargon-free roundup of information on the subject. Here's what Wiki says about federal law:

Current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity (see 1969 law, infra). Legislation is currently pending that would add gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability to this list, as well as remove the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity ...

Now, I'd originally planned to spend a lot of space rebutting Andrew Jaffee's rant at Israpundit but I don't think it's really worth the effort. In Jaffee's favor, though, I'll point out that the section he quotes about eliminating "the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery" has been stricken from the text of the bill, and rightly so, in my opinion; and as I've already said, I have a problem with the "real or perceived" business for the same reason Jaffee does.

Jaffee goes on to quote a WND article which alleges that 1592 is

similar to a state law that already has been used to send grandmothers to jail for their "crime" of sharing the Gospel of Jesus on a Philadelphia public sidewalk.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, but I take everything WingNutDaily says with a grain of salt. So I'll just zip right to my next main point, and that's on religion, free speech, and homosexuality.

As I posted two years ago, I absolutely support the right of social conservatives to exercise their right to free speech, regardless of whether their views about homosexuality are the same as mine. In the 2005 incident, students at South Windsor High School (my old school, BTW) were denied the right to wear T-shirts with Biblical quotes about homosexuality on the grounds that it was "hate speech".

But the business of "hate speech" is entirely different from the "hate crimes" I've discussed above. In the Connecticut case, school officials acted arbitrarily and high-handedly (and unencumbered by any legal system) to enforce an ad-hoc speech code on their students. No acts of violence or property damage were committed or threatened by the conservative students; they were simply expressing their beliefs about homosexuality, in the context of an ongoing debate over pending gay-rights legislation in the state. (That bill was later signed into law by Republican Governor Jodi Rell, making Connecticut the first state in the US to recognize civil unions through the legislative process).

Now back to hate crimes. A hate crime is, by definition, an act which is already criminal in and of itself - threat, vandalism, assault, murder - and which is legally exacerbated by the bias motive. No hate crime law is going to make it illegal to express your belief that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or a sin - unless your idea of "expressing your belief" means doing harm to somebody else. If you don't know the difference, maybe you need to sign up for a refresher course in Civilized Debate 101.

But here's the thing. There are people out there who are unable or unwilling to draw that very distinction. Do I have to spell it out for you? Do I have to name names?

There are people out there who would like to cut your head off just because you don't believe in the same religion they do. And their views about "lifestyle choices" would make any Baptist preacher look like a free-love apostle by comparison. Regardless of what CAIR may think this legislation will do for them, hate-crime laws are there to make life harder for people who want to do violence based on prejudice - and we in the counter-jihad world ought to remember that and use it to our advantage.

Think of Ilan Halimi. Was he killed because he was a Jew? Does it matter? I think he was, and I think it does. Now think of the immigrant women in places like the Netherlands who live in fear of honor killings if they step out of line. A crime is a crime is a crime, you say? Hmmm.

All right then. This is turning into a long post, so it's time for my bottom line.

Maybe it bugs you that the same law that protects Jews and Christians from religious persecution, might also protect lesbian and gay people from homophobic hate crimes. Well, think about this. HR 1592 is about the crime, not about the victim. It's about the use of gender to justify violence and religion to justify killing gays.

H.R. 1592 isn't there to tell you what to think or what to say. It's not there to tell a preacher in a church or an imam in a mosque that he can't speak about his beliefs on homosexuality. What it does do is bring down a whole lot of firepower on people who use certain kinds of hate to justify illegal and immoral acts against other people.

If you feel that cramps your style, then maybe we'd better have a long talk.

Counterpoint. Via a mailing list, George Will gives an excellent presentation of the case against hate-crime laws. Well worth reading.

Update. On the liberal side, there's some excellent debate in the comments thread at this post on Feministe.

House Passes H.R. 1592

Log Cabin Republicans news release, via e-mail:

(Washington, DC) – Log Cabin Republicans praise the House of Representatives bi-partisan passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1592). The House passed the legislation by a vote of 237-180, with 25 Republicans voting yes.

This legislation would give law enforcement agencies access to the necessary resources for investigating and prosecuting violent crimes. “Log Cabin thanks Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) for leading Republican efforts to pass this important legislation,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. “We also praise the 25 Republicans voting in favor of this legislation. Their votes send a powerful message that every American should be protected from violent crime.”

“Current law allows local law enforcement agencies to receive federal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes based on race, religion, and national origin. Modernizing existing law is critical to ensure that our local law enforcement agencies are given every tool available to prosecute violent crime,” said Sammon.

This legislation enjoys wide support, particularly among the law enforcement community. Virtually every major national law enforcement organization in America supports this law including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National District Attorneys Association, and the National Sheriffs’ Association. In all, over 210 civil rights, professional, civic, and religious groups, thirty-one state Attorneys General, and former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh support this proposal. ...

THE 25 REPUBLICANS VOTING FOR H.R. 1592

Judy Biggert (R-IL)
Mary Bono (R-CA)
Mike Castle (R-DE)
Charlie Dent (R-PA)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Phil English (R-PA)
Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Jim Gerlach (R-PA)
Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Randy Kuhl (R-NY)
Ray LaHood (R-IL)
Jim McCrery (R-LA)
Todd Platts (R-PA)
Jon Porter (R-NV)
Deborah Pryce (R-OH)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Jim Saxton (R-NJ)
Chris Shays (R-CT)
Greg Walden (R-OR)
Jim Walsh (R-NY)

Gay Iranian Activist Mani Zaniar - "Out in Iran"

CBC spotlights Iranian gay activist:

He is followed by secret police. His friends are routinely whipped. Some are executed. His name is Mani Zaniar and he is the leader of Iran’s secret gay rights movement.

It is the most dangerous civil rights movement in the world. And for the first time ever, Mani, and many others, have risked their lives to come on camera and tell their story.

In this startling and unique documentary, Out in Iran, we go to Iran and get the world’s first look at life inside Iran’s persecuted gay community. We meet an astonishing group of courageous people with heartbreaking stories.

HT: Or Does It Explode

Oregon's Bob Jenson on SB2, HB2007

State Representative Bob Jenson (R - Pendleton, District 58) has issued the following statement (via e-mail) following last week's vote on two important gay equality bills in the State of Oregon:

For the past few weeks I have heard from many of you expressing your concerns pro and con regarding SB2 and HB2007. By now most of you are aware that SB2 bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment and public places throughout the state. HB 2007 creates a method of legal recognition for same-sex relationships in Oregon, namely domestic partnerships.

As your representative I feel a responsibility to listen to your concerns and try to make your wishes heard. Sometimes this is not difficult when the issue is one that is fairly similarly viewed within the district. However, it is an entirely different concern when there are widely divergent opinions on a particular issue.

This was the situation with the above two bills. Adding to the complexity was the complication of religion and moral beliefs, and people’s rights. While there were many people with strong religious convictions that opposed these bills there were also a large number of church groups that strongly supported the legislation. Given that situation, I had to make a very difficult vote.

While I respect the position of Oregon voters on Measure 36, which banned same-sex marriage, I also know that many voters who did so believed same-sex couples should have some protections for their relationships in the form of a civil union or domestic partnership.

Many voters further stated that discrimination in things like jobs and housing is wrong. Having lived through the civil rights years where the differential treatment of people who were different was exposed as unfair I believe that our state is strengthened when all who live and work here are equal under the law. No one should be fired from a job, denied a table in a restaurant, or blocked from making medical decisions for a loved one in an emergency simply because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination has no place in our state, and as such I felt compelled to vote for the bills.

Interestingly there is something of a precedent from our district regarding this issue. When former Rep. Chuck Norris held this legislative seat in 1989, HB 2784 came to the floor on one of the last days of the session, July 2nd. That bill essentially stated that sexual orientation was a category that could not be intimidated against. The outcome of that vote was 31-29 with Rep. Norris being the deciding vote.

Thank you, Representative Jenson, for your courage in making this difficult decision. You did the right thing.

Related. Gay equality legislation moves forward in Oregon.

Gay Equality Legislation Moves Ahead in Oregon

Basic Rights Oregon: Senate passes SB2, now on to the House.

3/21/2007
75% of Oregon Senators said YES to equality, NO to discrimination based on sexual orientation!
Today the State Senate moved Oregon another step closer to basic fairness by passing Senate Bill 2, the Oregon Equality Act. In a vote of 21 to 7, Senators declared a resounding YES to equality, and a resounding NO to discrimination.

"This is a great beginning to a historic legislative session," said Aisling Coghlan, Interim Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon. "The Senate clearly agrees with the majority of Oregonians, that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong and should be against state law."

Immediately after the vote, Senate President Peter Courtney said, "After an extraordinary debate, the Oregon State Senate came together again to show that equality is not a partisan issue".

Statewide law banning discrimination was first proposed in 1973, and has been proposed in nearly every legislative session since then. ...

Log Cabin Republicans - Oregon alert.

Right now your elected officials are debating two historic bills to advance equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Oregonians.

The Oregon Equality Act (SB 2) would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Oregon. And the Oregon Family Fairness Act (HB 2007) would legally recognize same-sex couples and provide them and their families with important protections, rights and responsibilities.

Social conservatives have made stopping both these bills a top priority for 2007. Already they are flooding the state capitol with hundreds of anti-equality calls and letters.

Your State Representative needs to hear from you today that you support both SB 2 and HB 2007! Make a call or send an email today! ...

Democrats: Desperately Seeking Archie Bunker

"Once again, the Democrats attempt to define the GOP not as it is, but as they wish it were."

Gay Patriot West is talking here about the DNC's desperate attempt to weaken Rudy Giuliani's candidacy for the White House by "highlight[ing] Giuliani’s stance on gay issues in order to play on the bias of social conservatives, assuming that these Republicans would never support a candidate with such a record."

GPW goes on:

They even feature quote by Pat Buchanan. It’s amusing that while nearly all Republicans, including social conservatives, have distanced themselves from that angry man, the Left continues to define him as “Conservative Leader.” Buchanan’s politics have increasingly come to resemble not those of the conservative mainstream, but those of left-wing activists.

Once again, the Democrats attempt to define the GOP not as it is, but as they wish it were.

What this release really shows is that Democrats fear Giuliani’s candidacy. They want bring his differences from social conservatives to the fore in order to heighten divisions within the GOP and prevent his nomination.

To be sure, the former New York City Mayor will not have an easy time winning over many social conservatives. But, he has impressed the party’s rank and file with his leadership and resolve.

Read the rest here.

Remarks. Watch for the Democrats to keep trying to play this losing hand. Whenever a strong, sensible, social moderate like Giuliani comes up in political conversation, count the number of nanoseconds it takes the Democrats to start talking about the GOP conservative "base".

Wherefore "base"? Because when the DNC talk about the "conservative base", they want you to picture bible-thumping rednecks. As I noted in my post on Mary Cheney's baby, the liberal Left needs Archie Bunker. The Democrats can't win a debate on the real issues, so they have to create a caricatured image of their opponents and hope that you, the public, will be too dumb to see through it.

But as Gay Patriot West observes,

Instead of Rudy snubbing the conservative base, as the Democrats contend, he has been reaching out to them, highlighting areas of common ground, notably his intention, once elected, to appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal bench.

This is a real issue, and a real conservative issue. But it's not what the Democrats want to talk about. So they'll throw a bunch of stuff at Giuliani and hope something sticks.

I won't duplicate Gay Patriot's effort in dismissing the irrelevant Pat Buchanan, so let's take the DNC's quote from David Frum. Here is Frum as quoted in the DNC press release:

Frum Said Giuliani Can't Win. Neoconservative David Frum, ex-speechwriter to President Bush, put it bluntly when asked about Giuliani's shot at the nomination. "He has one obstacle in his way: the social conservatives. And he shouldn't just assume he can get past it," Frum said. [New York Daily News, 11/15/06]

Emphasis in original. Now here is the quote as it appears in the New York Daily News:

Neoconservative David Frum, ex-speechwriter to President Bush, put it bluntly when asked about Giuliani's shot at the nomination.

"He has one obstacle in his way: the social conservatives. And he shouldn't just assume he can get past it," Frum said.

It is, of course, the same quote. But I'm repeating it because I want you to see what it looks like without the DNC's all-important interpolation: "Frum Said Giuliani Can't Win." Frum certainly did not say Giuliani can't win, at least not in the quoted text. What he said was that Giuliani "should not assume" that the social conservatives will not present "an obstacle". In other words, Frum said exactly what GPW is saying here:

To be sure, the former New York City Mayor will not have an easy time winning over many social conservatives.

But as GPW explains,

If he can focus on those issues which unite our party, he could persuade those currently opposed to (or skeptical about) his candidacy to support him, particularly given the alternative of a Democratic president beholden to the far left.

And this is what the Democrats are afraid of.

Related. Mary Cheney's baby.

Democrat Senator Blocks Pro-Gay Legislation

Log Cabin Republicans press release:

Log Cabin calls on Senate Democrat leaders to allow a vote on a pro-gay amendment to the Fair Minimum Wage Act. GOP Senator Gordon Smith's amendment would ease the tax burden for domestic partner benefits. The Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act would correct an unfair provision in the tax code that blocks self-employed people from deducting their domestic partner's health insurance premium costs.

"I am for cutting taxes and this amendment does just that," said Senator Smith (R-OR). "Nontraditional families are part of the fabric of our society and deserve fair treatment. The tax code weighs heavily on small business owners as it is, we shouldn't increase the burden by leaving this inequity on the books."

Senator Smith was prevented from offering his amendment during a recent Finance Committee hearing because Democrat Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) threatened to rule it out of order. Now Smith has introduced his amendment to the entire Senate, but Baucus is still threatening to use arcane Senate rules to stop the amendment.

"Democrat leaders should allow a vote on this important amendment. LGBT Democrats gave a lot of money and support to their Party last November," said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. "Now Senate Democrats better not block the first piece of pro-gay legislation in the 110th Congress. Majority Leader Harry Reid should stop Senator Baucus from obstructing this amendment and allow a vote by the full Senate."

Current law allows small business owners, independent contractors, and consultants to deduct the total cost of their health insurance premiums. They also can deduct the premiums for their spouse and children, but not domestic partners. Smith's bill would correct that inequity. "This common sense legislation will provide basic fairness for hard working gay and lesbian families," said Sammon. "We applaud Senator Smith for leading the fight to provide tax fairness for all Americans."

UPDATE:

Gay Patriot has a few things to say. 'What universe did we just get transported to? The one where a Republican Senator offers common sense, pro-gay legislation and where the Democrats stand in the way? The same universe that has seen gay people offer time and treasure to the Democrat Party for decades yet has gotten nothing in return except a Democrat President who signed off on two of the most anti-gay policies in our lifetime? Oh yeah…. we’ve been living in that universe already… silly me.' Read the rest at the link.

Rabbi Steven Greenberg on Homosexuality and Judaism

This post explores some of the issues around Judaism, homosexuality, and gender raised by Rabbi Steven Greenberg at his brunch appearance in Portland this morning. This is not a transcript of the talk, but rather a reflection on its main points. Previous post: Rabbi Steven Greenberg in Portland.

Lesbianism: "Doubled alienness" and the lesser challenge. Almost inevitably, discussions on homosexuality and Judaism begin with the topic of male homosexuality, which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:24 and 20:13). By comparison, lesbianism appears to be a "lesser challenge" scripturally speaking, and therefore gets less attention. Rabbi Greenberg challenged this approach, opening the talk with a discussion of lebianism. Lesbians, he noted, experience the "doubled alienness" of being both homosexual in a heterosexual culture and female in a male-dominated culture. The general rabbinic reticence around the subject, he said, owed in large part to the difficulty of finding solid legal ground to declare lesbianism forbidden.

"I did not have sex with that woman!" Is lesbian sex sex? Don't laugh, it was a real question for the Rabbis. Talmudic sources disagreed as to the degree to which a sexual encounter between women could be counted as "sex" for purposes of establishing infidelity or eligibility to marry a man of the priestly caste (kohanim).

Lesbians and gay men. For political reasons, it's natural for lesbians and gay men to join together in LGBT organizations. But, Rabbi Greenberg observed, in real life they form separate communities. Greenberg suggested that recognizing the differences between gay men and lesbians (which, after all, are a subset of the differences between men and women) is an important step toward building a truly cohesive community.

Traditional religion as an ally. "The Human Rights Campaign did important work with governments for many years, but they never worked with churches because they didn't see religion as a potential ally. Then they hired Harry Knox ... " Traditionally religious people and secularists often have an adversarial relationship (as was made evident by one very argumentative non-religious guest).

Beyond the victim identity: finding our voice. Rabbi Greenberg asserted that the generosity necessary to dialog with people very different from ourselves is exactly what is asked of the queer community today. We delude ourselves, he said, if we deny that there are some people whose "otherness" makes us uncomfortable; the challenge is to learn what these people come to teach us. Regarding the gay community, Rabbi Greenberg envisioned a future where we can look "beyond our victim status" and find lessons in our own experience that will be meaningful to the world at large.

Gender and power. Drawing on the legend of Lilith, whose "sin" was her refusal to take a subordinate sexual postition to Adam, Greenberg explored the ways in which "top" and "bottom" sexual positions (in both heterosexual and homosexual acts) have been read as indicators of power relationships. The equation "bottom = submissive = female" has profound and far-reaching implications.

RELATED: Rabbi Steven Greenberg in Portland.

Rabbi Steven Greenberg in Portland

As promised, I am liveblogging Rabbi Steven Greenberg's appearance at a private gathering in Portland.

10:45am - event begins

Rabbi Greenberg begins by discussing lesbianism in the Jewish tradition. Traditional rabbis tend to avoid the subject because it is a "doubled alienness" and because it is seemingly less of a biblical challenge than male homosexuality. The result is the perception that male homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself, is an issue in Judaism. ...

Rabbi Greenberg opens up the issue of gender differences within the G&L community and invites guests to suggest some common differences between lesbians and gay men. ...

"Lesbian Relations" handout is passed around ...

RSG: The HRC worked for many years, doing important work, but never addressed the question of religion - because religion was never seen as a potential ally. Then they hired Harry Knox ...

How can the gay Jewish community reach beyond the victim identity? Can we offer some insights from our own experience that are relevant for the non-Jewish world?

11:15am - Study of rabbinic texts: Yevamot 76a; Sifra on Leviticus 18:3-4; Rambam, Hilchot Issurei Biah 21:8.

... There's so much going on here! I really can't do justice to the dialog that is going on. I'll post more soon. The event is proving to be much richer and more exciting than I could have imagined. More soon.

Update and remarks. This event really exceeded expectations. By opening the discussion with the subject of lesbianism, and from there moving to gender roles, Rabbi Greenberg chose "the road less traveled" and, I think, got right to the heart of the real issues. Watch for a full post on the Rabbi Steven Greenberg brunch shortly.

RELATED: Rabbi Steven Greenberg on homosexuality and Judaism.