Report: Iran Executes Gays Following False Charges
The UK gay rights group, OutRage!, has just issued a sweeping report of the gay exterminations going on in Iran. (They are one of the Axis of Evil, remember?)
Iran’s state murder of gays….Victims framed for kidnap and rape….”Deportation would be a death sentence”….Asylum urged for gay Iranian refugees
London – 20 April 2006
The Iranian government is executing gay and bisexual men under the cover of rape and kidnapping charges, according to a major new investigation by Simon Forbes of the UK-based gay and lesbian human rights group OutRage!
Mr Forbes’s nine-month investigation, published today by OutRage!, is based on information gathered from sources inside Iran. His research reveals:
- Lynchings by Iran’s security forces, and ‘honour killings’ by families in the south western province of Khuzestan
-Secret hangings in prison
- The method of hanging is designed to cause slow, agonising strangulation
- Internet entrapment of gay Iranians using foreign-based online gay dating agencies
- A pattern of framing gay people on charges of kidnap, rape and paedophilia, as the following five sample cases suggest:
– The Gorgan case where two men were publicly hanged for Lavaat (sodomy) in November 2005– Details of the Kermanshah case where three men were hanged in prison in November 2005 for sodomy that was alleged to have taken the form of the kidnap and rape of a younger male
– The Arak case of two men sentenced to death for sodomy in August 2005, which also involved the alleged kidnap and rape of a younger male, the son of an officer
– Two cases of public execution for sodomy in Mashhad in December 2004 and July 2005 that involved suspiciously similar charges
– Claims of rape are sometimes made to save the family’s honour or to save the passive partner from execution, and are part of an Iranian government propaganda offensive to scapegoat and demonise gay people
– Comparisons with Saudi Arabia, where it is also suggested that bogus rape charges are levelled against gay men
– Hypocrisy of the mullah’s attitudes towards the abuse of young girls, the rape of both males and females in custody, and widespread sodomy in religious colleges
I hope no one is surprised by this. I must say it is still shocking to me that the American Gay Left views President Bush of more of an enemy to gays than Islamic fundamentalists who want to destroy Western Civilization with gays as the first in their crosshairs. Maybe American gay activists are so upset that Christianity is the foundation of America that they are willing to take their chances with Islamic rule? How tolerant, no? What it really makes me think is this: Choosing Islam over America in the War on Terror is the ultimate in being a gay who is self-loathing.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
FULL REPORT AFTER THE BREAK
Iran – The State-Sponsored Torture & Murder of Lesbians & Gays Men
New evidence of how the clerical regime frames, defames and hangs
homosexuals
By Simon Forbes of OutRage! London, UK
With editorial input by Brett Lock and Peter Tatchell of OutRage!
The shocking photos of the execution of gay teenagers, Mahmoud ‘Asgari
and Ayaz Marhoni, in the Iranian city of Mashhad on 19 July 2005,
bought home to many people for the first time the barbaric, inhuman
and violently homophobic nature of the Iranian clerical regime.
Their executions were, of course, just two of many state-sanctioned
murders of children, unchaste women, gay people, and ethnic, political
and religious dissidents.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been repeatedly condemned by Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch for widespread and severe human
rights abuses, including abuses of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender people.
Limited official information about sodomy executions
Detailed and reliable figures concerning Iranian executions for Lavaat
(sodomy) are hard to come by, as the government rarely gives out
information concerning its criminal justice system. It seems
particularly reluctant to provide statistics on sodomy cases, much as
Britain and Europe were reluctant to reveal the true scale of
executions in the days when sodomy was a capital offence.
Homan, an Iranian lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) exile
group, estimated that around 4,000 people had been executed for Lavaat
from 1979 until the mid-1990s. An attempt to set up a gay organisation
in the early 1980s led to 70 executions. Around 100 gay people were
sentenced to death following one raid on one private party in 1992.
[1]
A very large number were executed, or rather lynched without trial, as
the Ayatollahs began to hijack the Iranian Revolution by the end of
1979. Those killed reportedly included foreign visitors. That year gay
activists from the Lavender Crescent Society in San Francisco were
taken from the airport in Tehran shortly after their arrival and
summarily shot dead. [2] Gay and bisexual men were quite literally
hanged from trees at that time. Executions of lesbians took place as
well. [3] Additional ‘smokescreen’ charges, such as rape and kidnap,
were rarely made, seemingly because there was very little
international interest or protest at these widespread killings of LGBT
people. Since the world did not care much about the execution of
queers in those days, the tyrants in Tehran felt no need to disguise
their actions and motives.
Executions for sodomy are believed to be at a lower level in recent
years, although it may simply be that they conducted in secret and are
unpublicised.
An informed Iranian source, for whom English is his second language,
told OutRage!: “Having said that the authority do not systematically
looking for gays in every corner to find and execute them does not
mean that the authority have changed their opinion or are somehow more
gay friendly now.” [4]
According to Iranian informants, two, or possibly three, gay men were
executed in prison in the city of Khoramabad without any publicity in
the early part of 2005. [5]
OutRage!’s sources in Iran acknowledge that in small pockets of the
country, principally in the wealthier parts of Tehran, it is sometimes
possible for same-sex couples to live discretely with each other;
albeit with the ever present danger that they might be exposed and
face lethal punishment. In truth, nowhere in Iran is truly safe.
To say that some parts of Iran are safer than others for queers in
2006 is the equivalent of saying that some parts of Germany were safer
than others for Jews in 1935.
Our Iranian informants are at pains to stress that although gays are
not the number one target of the regime and although there is not a
permanent, systematic, universal witch-hunt of LGBT people in every
corner of the country at all times, this does not mean gays are not at
risk.
Gay and bisexual men can meet in certain parks. They can contact each
other via gay chat rooms on foreign-based gay websites. Private gay
parties do take place in the major cities.
But this all happens very discretely and is very dangerous. The
participants risk entrapment, arrest, torture and even execution.
In other words, some gay life exists in Iran but it is underground and
precarious. An OutRage! contact inside the country is adamant (in his
own unedited words, as a second-language English speaker):
“It [the holding of secret gay parties and so on] does NOT mean that
gays are not executed and killed because of their sexuality. In Iran,
everything depends on which city or which part of the country you are
living in, and it depends on the judges as well. Unfortunately many of
gays arrest or killing are not reported in the media.” [6]
Internet entrapment of gay men
To catch gay men, the Iranian authorities are increasingly resorting
to entrapment via internet chat rooms. They arrange a date online,
turn up at the agreed rendezvous point, and then arrest and charge the
victim.
This is confirmed by Amir, a 22-year-old gay Iranian from the city of
Shiraz, who was arrested by Iran’s morality police.
Through a Persian translator, Amir gave the US journalist Doug Ireland
a firsthand account of the anti-gay crackdown.
Ireland wrote it up on his blog:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html
‘Amir set up a meeting with a man he met through a Yahoo gay chat
room. When his date turned out to be a member of the sex police, Amir
was arrested and taken to Intelligence Ministry headquarters, “a very
scary place,” he says. “There I denied that I was gay—but they showed
me a printout from the chat room of my messages and my pictures.”
‘Then, says Amir, the torture began. “There was a metal chair in the
middle of the room—they put a gas flame under the chair and made me
sit on it as the metal seat got hotter and hotter. They threatened to
send me to an army barracks where all the soldiers were going to rape
me. The leader told one of the other officers to take [a soft drink]
bottle and shove it up my ass, screaming, ‘This will teach you not to
want any more cock!’ I was so afraid of sitting in that metal chair as
it got hotter and hotter that I confessed. Then they brought out my
file and told me that I was a ‘famous faggot’ in Shiraz. They beat me
up so badly that I passed out and was thrown, unconscious, into a
holding cell.
‘”When I came to, I saw there were several dozen other gay guys in the
cell with me. One of them told me that after they had taken him in,
they beat him and forced him to set up dates with people through chat
rooms—and each one of those people had been arrested; those were the
other people in that cell with me.”
‘Eventually tried, Amir was sentenced to 100 lashes. “I passed out
before the 100 lashes were over. When I woke up, my arms and legs were
so numb that I fell over when they picked me up from the platform on
which I’d been lashed. They had told me that if I screamed, they would
beat me even harder—so I was biting my arms so hard, to keep from
screaming, that I left deep teeth wounds in my own arms.”
‘After this entrapment and public flogging, Amir’s life became
unbearable. He was rousted regularly at his home by the basiji (a
para-police made up of thugs recruited from the criminal classes and
the lumpen unemployed) and by agents of the Office for Promotion of
Virtue and Prohibition of Vice, which represses “moral
deviance”—things like boys and girls walking around holding hands,
women not wearing proper Islamic dress and prostitution.
‘Says Amir, “In one of these arrests, Colonel Javanmardi told me that
if they catch me again that I would be put to death, ‘just like the
boys in Mashhad.’ He said it just like that, very simply, very
explicitly. He didn’t mince words. We all know that the boys who were
hanged in Mashhad were gay—the rape charges against them were trumped
up, just like the charges of theft and kidnapping against them. When
you get arrested, you are forced by beatings, torture and threats to
confess to crimes you didn’t commit. It happens all the time, and has
to friends of mine.”‘
This compelling testimony by Amir to Doug Ireland reveals the
widespread use of internet entrapment, a threat of execution for mere
homosexuality, the torture of gay men to extract false confessions,
and the implied admission by an Iranian colonel that the youths in
Mashhad were hanged because of their sexuality – and not because they
raped and kidnapped, as was officially claimed by the Iranian
authorities at the time of their hanging.
Honour killing of LGBTs
In the some parts of Iran the risk of death for homosexuality is
extremely high, either at the hands of the security forces or at the
hands of the individual’s own family. In the south western province of
Khuzestan, from which Mahmoud and Ayaz came, a gay man is known as a
raguuS or “little dancing boy”, a term suggesting effeminacy and
sexual passivity. [7] Ewen Macmillan, an expert on life in the Ahwaz
region, says:
“RawaagiiS (plural of raaguuS) are generally killed in Ahwaz, by the
security forces or by their male kin, in one of three ways:
strangulation, throat-slitting or decapitation. If the homosexual
youths are killed by the security forces, their corpses — frequently
decapitated but accompanied by their heads — are left in the street.
Their families therefore have a certain tragic incentive to kill them
more humanely and bury them secretly. In addition, amongst Iran’s Arab
minority, male relatives of homosexual youths regard their murder as
vindicating the honour of the clan and, indeed, of their ethnic group
as a whole. [Name deleted] said that he knew of another youth from
al-Aamiri [in Ahwaz], who was a raaguuS, and who had expressed the
wish to escape Iran, but who was unfortunately killed before he was
able to do so.” [8]
In some cases a member of one or other of their own families report
them to the authorities, as happened in the case of Mahmoud and Ayaz.
In Khuzestan, this included an instance where a “mother is alleged to
have found him (her son) and his lover having sex and informed the
authorities. The actions of the mother — the consequences of which
she may at the time have been unaware — are alleged to have resulted
in the killing of her own son.” [9]
Another documented case in the same province involved Sayyid RiDa
Mussawi. Just as ‘Iyaad Marhuuni used the Persian name Ayaz, RiDa used
the Persian name Shahraam about town. He was not killed by authorities
but beheaded by some his brothers and cousins in 2002 in the city of
Ahwaz/Ahvaz. The family members were arrested but they were later
released when the parents of Shahraam forgave the killers, as
permitted under Shari’a Law. Shahraam was murdered because he became
known as a raaguuS and specifically because he was known as the
partner of another gay man, who later fled to Britain. [10]
The level of honour killings varies wildly within the country. In
Tehran they are said to be rare, but in the western provinces, such as
Khuzestan, Luristan and Kurdistan, and in the south eastern province
of Baluchistan, they are said to be much more common. [11] Public
lynchings of LGBT people by the security forces also seem to be
largely confined to the rebellious province of Khuzestan where, as a
matter of course, they act outside the legal system with scarcely any
restraint or respect for the local population (Khuzestan is inhabited
by Ahwazi Arabs, who are a severely persecuted ethnic minority).
Secret executions in prisons
In recent times, many executions for Lavaat (sodomy) seem to be have
been conducted inside prisons, rather than in public. These secret
executions take place behind closed doors. They are not publicly
notified. The local population is unaware they have happened. In the
period 1979-89, public executions were much more common. According to
a former woman resident of the city of Mashhad, such hangings “were
not a rare event and homosexuals were regularly killed like that” when
she lived there. [12]
I have uncovered references to a case in 2000 or 2001, where a student
was sentenced to death for Lavaat. As is typical, his execution was
not publicised. Since it was not publicised, if the death sentence was
carried out, it probably took place in prison, not in public. We
cannot know for sure that he was hanged, but since his guilt was clear
and he had committed same-sex acts repeatedly over a long period of
time, it seems unlikely that the sentence was commuted. He was
defended by Mr K, who later gave evidence about this case at UK asylum
appeal tribunal. [13]
According to Mr K’s evidence “The student had been sentenced to death
because he had confessed. They had found sperm in his body. There
was no way for him but to confess. He had carried out homosexual acts
for a long time with another student, and his room mate had realised
this and reported it to the people responsible for the dormitories,
and they had put the person under surveillance and entered the room at
the time he was arrested. He knew he would receive the death sentence
and he had confessed.” [14]
The Tehran case
On 14 March 2005 two gay men were sentenced to death for consensual
Lavaat in Tehran. [15] The younger man, a wrestler, confessed that he
had shot a video of them having sex together for the purpose of
extortion. Unfortunately, the wrestler’s wife found the video and out
of curiosity played it. In a fury she took it to the Qazis who watched
it as well. Both were arrested brought before the court and sentenced
to death. [16] The act committed was presumably anal sex, which is
punishable by death for the first offence.
It would appear that only the younger man confessed. Confession by one
man would not automatically lead to the conviction of the other. The
older man was therefore probably convicted through “knowledge of the
judge” under Article 120 of the Penal Code.
In practice, Lavaat is probably much easier to prove without
confession than some people think, at least in the case of the passive
partner. Medical evidence of penetration may well be sufficient. As we
have already heard, 22 year old Amir, from the city of Shiraz, was
threatened by the police that if he was sent for a medical examination
and they found penetration he would be sentenced to death. [17]
It is not known if or when the sentence in this 14 March case in
Tehran was carried out. Stoning is a possible sentence because the
young wrestler was married, and stoning is the traditional mode of
execution for married people who commit sodomy.
Otherwise, hanging is the normal method of killing ’sodomites’.
Although not as cruel as stoning, it should be born in mind that the
way it is carried out is designed to ensure that the neck is not
broken. Instead, death is induced by slow, painful strangulation.
Relatively thin ropes or even wire are often used to maximise
suffering. The knot is placed at the side of the neck to prolong the
agony. [18] We can see from photographs in the case of Mahmoud and
Ayaz that death did not come quickly. [19] The windpipe can take
several minutes to be slowly squeezed shut. [20]
The Gorgan case
Another public execution, in November 2005, was in the northern town
of Gorgan near the Caspian Sea. The sole internal Iranian press report
read as follows: “Execution of two criminals:- Gorgan – Kayhan
reporter: Sentence of execution of two people by the name of Mokhtar N
and ‘Ali A for the crime of homosexuality (Lavaat) came to be carried
out in the Shaheed Bahonar Square, Gorgan. The criminal records of
these two people [included] kidnapping, knife-wielding, rape (tajaavoz
beh ‘onf), harassment and fighting. They were aged 24 and 25
respectively.” [21]
The men were publicly hanged from two cranes. Unlike the Mashhad
hangings in July 2005, photography of the execution was actively
discouraged, although a poor quality picture was sent to the Persian
Gay and Lesbian Organisation. [22] A report by Iran Focus suggested
that the reason for the execution was simply for Lavaat and that the
other crimes listed were previous convictions. [23]
It was Iran Focus who spotted this small article, which could easily
have been missed. Subsequently Human Rights Watch, who are not fans of
Iran Focus, also suggested that the executions were for consensual
homosexual conduct. [24]
Amnesty International wrote to the Iranian authorities about the case.
As of early February 2006, four months later, they had received no
reply. [25] The Dutch Foreign Ministry, who have a cordial
relationship with their Iranian counterparts, were given more
consideration. The Dutch were assured that the convictions were not
for “homosexual relations” but for “kidnapping, rape and extortion”.
[26] It is worth noting that the Kayhan article makes no mention of
extortion in the list of charges.
The details of the Gorgan case are unclear. The cited string of
charges could refer to past convictions or to convictions at their
trial. Moreover, the article is very badly worded. Either way, this
list of charges is all too familiar in gay cases and needs to be
treated with suspicion.
Paula Ettelbrick, of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights
Commission, said shortly after these executions: “It’s clear that a
pattern is emerging in which young men are executed as couples and
that the crimes they allegedly committed always involve some form of
sexual assault of another male.” [27]
The Kermanshah case
Also in November 2005, three men were hanged in a prison in the city
of Kermanshah. In this case they were accused of kidnapping and rape
(tajaavoz) of a 19 year old. [28]
For more details about this triple execution, and the executions in
the preceding Gorgan case, see Doug Ireland’s expose:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/11/save_usa_gay_ir.html
This report from Doug Ireland also includes an interview with Mojtaba,
a 27 year old gay man from the city of Shiraz. His partner was
arrested and Motjaba narrowly escaped arrest by fleeing to Turkey. The
fate of his arrested partner is unknown.
Two cases in Mashhad
In the city of Mashhad, there have been two relatively recent cases of
pairs of males being executed, at least one of which involved
juveniles. Both instances involved an almost identical string of
charges. There is the hanging of Mahmoud and Ayaz in July 2005. The
other case was at the end of December 2004 and was reported in the
Iranian newspaper Kayhan. [29]
Evidence received from people in Mashhad confirms that the hanged gay
teenagers, Mahmoud ‘Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, were lovers, not rapists
as the regime alleges. Moreover, extensive investigations reveal that
the regime’s claims against the youths are riddled with
inconsistencies, contradictions and implausibilities. A major
investigative report will be released soon, exposing the fabrications
and lies of the Iranian regime concerning these two executed gay
teenagers.
In both the Mashhad cases, sodomy charges appear to have been
embroidered with additional, non-consensual charges, probably in part
to discourage international condemnation and protests. The authorities
presumably reasoned that there would not be much international
sympathy for people executed for sexual assault.
As we have seen in each of these different cases, whenever men are
executed for sodomy, the defendants are invariably accused of the
kidnap and rape of a younger male. Such allegations need to be treated
with extreme scepticism, as they tend to follow a suspiciously
stereotypical formula.
The tactic of defaming the victims
This current tactic of adding charges of rape, child abuse and kidnap
to the sodomy charges against gay and bisexual men is in marked
contrast to the early days of the Islamic Republic. In the 1980s, a
period when even most western democracies were avowedly homophobic,
there was no need to disguise the execution of homosexuals. No one
gave a damn. Even Amnesty International ignored the plight of
terrorised LGBT people.
Since the early days of theocratic rule in Iran, much of world has
moved on, with a growing understanding of LGBT people, and an
increased revulsion against homophobic persecution.
The Iranian dictatorship now realises it is not good PR to execute
people for merely being gay. That risks an international outcry. To
pre-empt condemnation, the Iranians now craftily pin on same-sex
lovers additional charges involving paedophilia, violence and rape. It
is a clever tactic that has hook-winked even some human rights
groups.
There may be a further explanation for the standard Iranian formula of
charges of homosexuality being often accompanied by charges of kidnap
and rape. The regime clearly does not want its people to view same-sex
relations as something a respectable person might engage in with
consent. That could present Lavaat as something desirable and
positive, and this might encourage tolerance – and even curiosity and
experimentation. The clerical regime wants to depict sodomy in the
worst possible light to deter and discourage its practice. To do this,
it needs to present gay and lesbian people as repellent, dangerous
individuals. In these circumstances, the mere charge of Lavaat is not
sufficient. To prompt revulsion and support for executions,
homosexuality needs to be associated in the public mind with violence
and child abuse.
This is a very familiar tactic used by despotic regimes to discredit
and marginalise dissidents. History teaches us that scapegoated and
demonised minorities are often subjected to false smears and slurs,
sometimes of a sexual nature. During the period of segregation in the
southern United States, for example, false charges of rape were often
pinned on young black men, and these charges were then used to justify
lynchings or judicial executions. As we know, the real motive was to
punish black men for consensual interracial sex, while ’saving’ the
reputation of white women.
Comparisons with Saudi executions
As in Iran, it is not uncommon in Saudi Arabia for allegations of
sodomy by force to accompany allegations of consensual sodomy.
There have been at least two cases of multiple executions of
’sodomites’ in the Saudi city of Abha in recent years – six were
beheaded in 2000 and three were beheaded 2002. In one of these cases
we are asked to believe that in a society where homosexuality is taboo
they went round assaulting various people who apparently knew of and
disapproved of their behaviour. In both these cases, it was claimed
they had sodomised young boys in addition to each other. [30]
Such claims must be treated with great scepticism. For a start, Saudi
Arabia is a country that makes liberal use of torture to get
confessions. Furthermore, the motive in fabricating stories of ‘male
rape’ or ‘child abuse’ by ’sodomites’ is almost certainly to neuter
any international outcry over the executions. It is hoped that people
in the West will conclude “it served them right”.
The Arak case
In the city of Arak in Iran, two men were sentenced to death for
Lavaat towards the end of August 2005. [31] Their case seems to have
been under appeal. The rumour that they were due to be executed on 28
August appears to have been false, as they hadn’t even been tried when
that rumour first circulated. [32] It was claimed that they were
attracted to another man who refused their advances. It was further
alleged that they abducted this man and forcibly sodomised him. Some
sources within Iran regard this story as plausible. There was medical
evidence used to prove penetration, although this penetration could,
of course, have been consensual. [33]
Some Iranians are, however, still doubtful and fear that this, too,
may be a trumped up charge. One cause of such suspicions is that the
alleged victim was said to be the son of an officer. [34] Sources
suggest the father was an officer in the regular army, the Artesh. The
allegation of forced sex may have been made to save the family the
shame of having a ’sodomite’ son.
No further information has been forthcoming about the Arak case since
last August. We do not know whether these men have been executed or
are still on death row.
Claims of rape to avoid execution
Claims of sexual assault by the passive partner are not uncommon in
Iranian sodomy cases, as they know this is their only chance of
escaping death. I recall a case about 15 to 20 years ago (the full
details of which I no longer possess), in which two men who lived with
each other were being tried for sodomy. One claimed that the other man
had kept forcing him into sodomy and doing to him all manner of other
same-sex acts, including forcible fellatio. The other man sat
listening to all this impassively, but at one point said words to the
effect: “he was a gay and wanted sex”. The mullahs believed the latter
man and they were both sentenced to death and executed.
Iran’s hypocrisy concerning sexual abuse
It would be a serious mistake to think that the regime is genuinely
concerned about preventing sexual violence and the sexual abuse of
children.
The late ruler of Iran, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, treated lightly the
subject of sex with young girls. He said:
“A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the
girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however, is prohibited
from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual
act such as for[e]play, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man
having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not
co[m]mitted a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not
permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the
man must provide for her all her life.” [35] Khomeini himself married
his wife, Batul, in 1930 when she was aged ten and he was 28 [36]
Rape of both males and females is not uncommon among those held in
custody. Women and girls on death row are often raped by prison
guards the night before the execution to ensure they are not virgins
and do not go to paradise. [37] Sometimes the Mullahs join in with the
prison guards. [38]
Amnesty International has evidence that prisoners are subjected to
“various forms of sexual abuse, including rape of both men and women
prisoners. Many former prisoners interviewed by Amnesty International
became so distressed when asked about sexual abuse that they broke
down and could not describe their experiences.” [39]
Hypocritically, the regime tacitly sanctions this sexual violation of
prisoners. It is a known method of torture, used by the regime to
break the will of detainees and to get them to make confessions to
crimes, both real and imaginary.
It should not, of course, be suggested that such sexual abuse is
unique to Iran or unknown in the supposedly “civilized” West. A gay
asylum seeker aged 17, who had fled to Britain in 2002, was repeatedly
subjected to sexual assaults by staff at a UK asylum reception centre.
[40] This resulted in serious mental trauma.
People of low social status in any country can be abused in this way
because the authorities know they won’t be deemed to be credible
complainants. Just as LGBT people are considered worthless by the
regime in Iran, so are asylum seekers in the UK, especially gay asylum
seekers. The Home Office views them with suspicion and contempt. Most
are refused refugee status.
Another unofficially tolerated form of Lavaat (sodomy) occurs in
religious colleges. Iranians tell me that young trainee mullahs will
often have sex with each other in such places, with impunity. The
rules of Islam are apparently for others, not themselves. It is not
just the Anglican and Catholic churches that are full of sexual
hypocrisy.
On this evidence, many of Iran’s Islamic judges, the Qazis, who
pronounce sentences of death on sodomites, are likely to have engaged
in same-sex relations.
They order the whipping and hanging of men and teenage boys for acts
they have probably done themselves when younger. They are not much
different in this respect from skinhead and other ‘queer bashers’ who
attack obvious ‘queers’ while having guilt-ridden sex within their own
peer group.
Conclusion: The Islamic Republic of Iran is qualitatively more
homophobic than almost any other state on earth. Its
government-promoted and religious-sanctioned torture and execution of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people marks out Iran as a
state acting in defiance of all agreed international human rights
conventions.
REFERENCES
[1] Peter Tatchell in Gay Times October 1995
[2] Johann Hari in Attitude 20th May 2004
http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=395
[3] Amir Taheri 1985 p263
[4] Letter to Outrage! 04th August 2005
[5] E-mail from Iran to Outrage! 05th August 2005
[6] Letter to Outrage! 4th August 2005
[7] Evidence of Ewen Macmillan in asylum appeal of ‘X’ 10th June 2004
[8] Evidence of Ewen Macmillan in asylum appeal of ‘X’ 10th June 2004
p18
[9] Evidence of Ewen Macmillan in asylum appeal of ‘X’ 10th June 2004
[10] Evidence of Ewen Macmillan in asylum appeal of ‘X’ 10th June
2004
[11] Evidence of Ewen Macmillan in asylum appeal of ‘X’ 10th June 2004
& personal communication
[12] Letter to Pink Paper 1st September 2005
[13] RM and BB (Homosexuals) Iran CG [2005] UKIAT 00117 p13
http://www.ait.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1766/
00117_ukiat_2005_rm_bb_iran_cg.doc
[14] RM and BB (Homosexuals) Iran CG [2005] UKIAT 00117 p13
[15] Ettemaad 1383/12/25 (15th March 2005) [7th article in link]
http://www.etemaad.com/aspClinets/view_news.asp?id=125&Val=ÍæÇÏË
[16] Ettemaad 1383/12/25 (15th March 2005)
[17] Doug Ireland in Gay City News, 22nd September 2005
[18] Dr. Hamiz 2004 & Saleha Darani
http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/iranfem.html
[19] Simon Forbes – Place of Martyrdom, April 2006 p3
[20] Dr. Hamiz 2004 & Saleha Darani
[21] Kayhan 1384/08/22 (13th November 2005) translated with input from
Bahram Soroush and Hadi Ghaemi.
[22] E-mail from Payam Shirazi to Simon Forbes, 22nd January 2006
[23] Iran Focus 13th November 2005
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4403
[24] Human Rights News, 22nd November 2005
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm
[25] Amnesty International – AI Index: MDE 13/010/2006, 16th February
2006
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130102006?open&of=ENG-2MD
[26] Letter by Rita Verdonk 5403360/06/DVB, 28th February 2006 p2/5
[27] IGLHRC Press Release 16th November 2005
http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=595
[28] Iran Newspaper 1384/08/30 (21st November 2005)
http://www.iran-newspaper.com/1384/840830/html/casual.htm#s546039
[29] Kayhan 1383/10/12 (1st January 2005)
http://www.kayhannews.ir/831012/15.htm
[30] Planet Out 14th July 2000; Reuters 01st January 2002; Washington
Blade 11th January 2002
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/saudi_arabia/saudinews17.htm
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/saudi_arabia/saudinews07.htm
[31] ISNA Markazi 1384/05/25 (15th August 2005)
http://markazi.isna.ir/mainnews.php?ID=News-870
ISNA Markazi 1384/06/01(22nd August 2005)
http://markazi.isna.ir/mainnews.php?ID=News-962
[32] Samii letter in Michael Petrelis blog 29th August 2005
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_mpetrelis_archive.html
[33] Michael Petrelis blog 15th August 2005
[34] Michael Petrelis blog 15th August 2005
[35] Khomeini trans Parvin Darabi
http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352748
[36] Amir Taheri 1985 pp 89-90
[37] Dr. Hamiz 2004 & Saleha Darani
http://www.geocities.com/richard.clark32@btinternet.com/iranfem.html
[38] Doug Ireland 18th August 2005
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_433/twomoreexecutionsplanned.html
[39] Iran: Briefing (1987, page 10) in Evidence of Ewen Macmillan in
asylum appeal of ‘X’ 10th June 2004 p24
[40] HS (Homosexuals: Minors, Risk on Return) Iran [2005] UKAIT 00120,
page 12
http://www.ait.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1782/
00120_ukait_2005_hs_iran.doc
77 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
And still, even in Iraq, where we are the ruling power, the situation for homosexuals is extremely bad. Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani recently said the punishment for homosexuality should be death… and he is someone we try and work with!
So, what can we do? It’s not like the Administration is rushing to give asylum to homosexuals fleeing Iraq and Iran.
I think I can speak for the left when I say of Islamic fundementalists; We don’t like them either.
Comment by Erik — April 21, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - April 21, 2006
And we might as well add in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan to that list, as well. Since lord knows, those countries aren’t any better.
Comment by Erik — April 21, 2006 @ 5:40 pm - April 21, 2006
Or maybe, just maybe, American’s realize that George Bush is an actual danger to their freedom and lives, while Iran, well, isn’t.
Or do you also long for the days where homosexuality was a imprisonable offense?
Comment by sgt.baker — April 21, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - April 21, 2006
Let’s see, country that has openly threatened the United States with attack, has known and positive links to terrorism, and has nuclear technology sufficient to build a bomb (if they haven’t already), versus sodomy laws.
That’s an easy choice. I’d far rather be locked up for being gay than I would be vaporized, dying of radiation burns and/or poisoning, or watching hundreds of thousands of Americans suffer the same fate.
So tell you what, “Sarge”; why don’t you and your fellow leftists go find the concentration camps for gays that you claim exist and bring us evidence first before you start making these wild claims equating the United States to Iran?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 21, 2006 @ 6:27 pm - April 21, 2006
I read several weeks ago that Al-Sistani’s “death penalty” comment with regards to sodomy actually refered to ephebophilia and pedophilia, which implies a lack of legal consent (rape), rather than consensual adult male-male sex. I don’t remember the source of the article; but it in-part addressed that Al-Sistani is writing in either Arabic, or Persian translated into Arabic, then to English and the nuance was lost. It was all tangled in the side-issue of ancient man-boy homosexuality in contrast to between consentual adults…which apparently isn’t what the word translates into. The issue of “consent” and “rape” was apparently heavily-weighted in his legal arguement…and Islam is a religion of clerical lawyers not philosophers. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the intracacies of Persian and Arabic Islamic writings might be able to clarify.
On the other hand, I have no doubts that “religious” leaders like Sadr and his Wahabiist-opponents are using “gay” as a political and moral wedge to hide or justify extortion and murder both casual and “official”.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 21, 2006 @ 6:32 pm - April 21, 2006
A few years ago I posted on my blog how they executed gays in Egypt also. When all these “progressives” and “multiculturalists” complain about how abusive and unfair America and yet are silent about this stuff, it gives lie to everything they say.
For all the things you can complain about here, the U.S. has been one of the leaders in the human rights movement and has one of the most progressive societies.
When those who call themselves progressive don’t see this, they have no right to use the P word anymore, because they don’t know what it means.
Comment by James Hudnall — April 21, 2006 @ 6:51 pm - April 21, 2006
Any good reason why Islamophobia ought NOT be the default position of any gay man?
Comment by EssEm — April 21, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - April 21, 2006
Frankly, they give Islamic fanatics a pass because they are too stupid to understand the greater threat. Stupid, or cowardly, since Comedy Central censored the Muhammad cartoon in “South Park” out of pure cowardice. Probably both, stupidity and cowardice. Who elected them our leaders and spokesmen anyway? Not me!
Comment by Mannie — April 21, 2006 @ 7:18 pm - April 21, 2006
Sgt (#3) – you cannot provide one specific example of your wild charge. You are showing that your irrational fear of President Bush clouds your judgment. I dare you to give me one example of this Administration being responsible for the arrest and/or murder of one American because they were gay.
You cannot. You are irrational.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 21, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - April 21, 2006
Some lunatic from the Green Party was on FOX last night, again sounding the alarm for how terrible and dangerous America supposedly is. When the host (I think it was Cavuto) asked her what she thought about Iran’s president having denied the Holocaust ever happened, she said something like, “Well, he only said that once.”
HUHHHHH??!?!?!?!
These people lost whatever was left of their minds a long time ago. If they’ll mealymouth away Holocaust-deniers, they certainly have no great concern about gays.
Comment by Lori Heine — April 21, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - April 21, 2006
#0 – “Choosing Islam over America in the War on Terror is the ultimate in being a gay who is self-loathing.”
Hear, hear. Good way of putting it, Bruce.
Comment by Calarato — April 21, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - April 21, 2006
Well, this is what you get from religions that separate people into “us” and “them”. Christianity has sanctioned its share of atrocities through the ages and even today in this country, there are Christians (Reconstructionists) who would put homosexuals to death if they could. No doubt they envy the theocratic Muslim states like Iran, Saudi Arabia and soon probably Iraq that get to act with such barbarity.
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - April 21, 2006
“the ultimate in being a gay who is self-loathing” No, I don’t think that’s it. But I will say this, I do believe that this kneejerk reaction to Bush and his (in my opinion) just and necessary war is purely selfish. It’s as if freedom doesn’t really matter, or it only matters within our own borders, not outside of them. It’s not that I don’t care about gay civil rights in America, it’s that those rights are not at the top of my list of priorities. And I know at least one gay American who is over there in Baghdad fighting the good fight. Her Iraqi workers risk their lives on a daily basis just to show up for work. Most of them are missing fingers from the good old Saddam days. She gets it.
Comment by Rose Cupo — April 21, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - April 21, 2006
Gay people who protest Bush and turn a blind eye to Islamic homophobia are leftists first and gay people second. Like the starry-eyed Marxists who flocked to the Soviet Union from other countries only to be ground under by the wheel of Stalin’s machine, Gay leftists will support “the cause”, whatever it may be, even when it not in the interest of their own self preservation, let alone self interest.
How else to explain such strange fruits as Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) demonstrating against Israel– the only country in the Middle East where gay people can go about without fear of being hanged or having a wall dropped on them?
Take a look at how these lapdogs of Palestinian terrorism excuse the homophobic attacks by their masters against Palestinian gays
http://www.ektaonline.org/~quitpale/actions/gaymen2.html
Comment by Patrick Carroll — April 21, 2006 @ 10:22 pm - April 21, 2006
#13: “It’s as if freedom doesn’t really matter, or it only matters within our own borders, not outside of them.”
Great, then explain what Condi Rice was doing posing recently with the notorious dictator of Equatorial Guinea
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/2006/64465.htm
On the same US Government website as that picture is a 2005 report on Equatorial Guinea that states the following:
“The Government’s human rights record remained poor, and the Government continued to commit serious abuses. Citizens did not have the ability to change their government peacefully. Security forces committed numerous abuses, including torture, beating, and other physical abuse of prisoners and suspects, which at times resulted in deaths. Prisoners often were tortured to coerce confessions.”
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41601.htm
So explain to me why your “good fight” for freedom doesn’t include the oppressed citizens of Equatorial Guinea. Explain to me why our Secretary of State is over there having her picture taken with one of the worst ditators in the world.
“It’s not that I don’t care about gay civil rights in America, it’s that those rights are not at the top of my list of priorities.”
Well, I’d like to know just how far down your “list of priorities” gay civil rights are. I can usually get a pretty good idea from the answer to one question: do you believe gays should have the right to civil marriage? Care to answer?
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - April 21, 2006
#15
then explain what Condi Rice was doing posing recently with the notorious dictator of Equatorial Guinea
So according to that logic, Ian, President Bush shouldn’t have hosted the president of China on the South Lawn?
Comment by John in IL — April 21, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - April 21, 2006
#16: “So according to that logic”
Take it up with the original poster who seems to believe that we are fighting some “good fight” against all tyranny “outside of [our own borders].” That’s a pipedream: we’ve always coddled dictators when it’s been convenient, even Saddam and the Taliban. And, yes, even the PRC.
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - April 21, 2006
I’ll answer for him, O Ian of the Idiotarian Left (not that he needs it).
Patrick is talking about people like you, who do what you are doing now: you change the subject.
The world is full of horrors. It is full of injustice. Patrick isn’t talking about all the world’s problems. He’s talking about a particular kind of dissociation—the kind where a majority of gay people let themselves be talked out of their own interests and into their deaths by an amoral and degenerate Marxism.
(Back in the 1930’s the left used this Siren call, and some of us came, and then they changed their minds, and decided we were criminals after all.)
“So explain to me why your ‘good fight’ for freedom doesn’t include the oppressed citizens of Equatorial Guinea. ”
You deal with tyrants in the world according to the danger they pose to the world at large. The dictator of Equatorial Guinea is not as dangerous as the Loon of Iran. Saddam Hussein was dangerous because of his grand plans to destabilize the area and because of his willingness to use his country as a trade route for terrorists.
I suggest you start at home. You, my little brother, should stay away from groups and organizations that will betray you.
Put it this way: gay people have no business putting too much faith in any political party. The Democrats talk big, but do little; the communists talked big, and did the opposite; the left as a whole will say anything.
It doesn’t follow from this that you should trust any religious right group that expresses hatred for you, but you are disastrously innocent of the left and its nightmare history,
and it will burn you if you follow its lead.
Give up that baby’s trust. Grow up, and become aware.
Comment by Anthony — April 21, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - April 21, 2006
By your post, I think it is you making it an all or nothing fight, not Bruce.
Comment by John in IL — April 21, 2006 @ 11:39 pm - April 21, 2006
#18: Whatever are you blabbering about? My original comment was directed at “Rose” and my response was directed to “John” NOT “Patrick” unless this “Patrick” is using sock puppets.
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 11:42 pm - April 21, 2006
#19: “I think it is you making it an all or nothing fight, not Bruce.”
Why bring Bruce into it? My comment was directed to “Rose”.
Comment by Ian — April 21, 2006 @ 11:45 pm - April 21, 2006
Your comment falls after Patrick’s, so I assumed you were addressing him. I would apologize for that, except that nearly all my points still apply.
Comment by Anthony — April 21, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - April 21, 2006
Comment # 22 refers to Comment # 20.
Comment by Anthony — April 21, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - April 21, 2006
Oh, and Ian—watch what you say about my partner.
Comment by Anthony — April 21, 2006 @ 11:49 pm - April 21, 2006
You said original poster. I thought you meant Bruce. Change Bruce to Rose.
Like Anthony, my comment still stands
Comment by John in IL — April 21, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - April 21, 2006
#22 and #25: See, I make a point of inserting the number of the comment(s) I’m responding to. In Rose’s case, my response ALSO included a quote from her comment. As far as I can tell, you seem to be claiming that international relations are not black and white but nuanced shades of gray. That’s precisely the point I was trying to get across to Rose. Sorry if it was too subtle for you both.
Comment by Ian — April 22, 2006 @ 12:10 am - April 22, 2006
#12 – “Well, this is what you get from religions that separate people into “us” and “them”…continuing on to blah blah blah… ”
A typical TWISTED Ian effort to blame America first – and if possible, Republicans, Christians, etc.
Somehow, in Ian’s hands (or that of any “blame America first” type of person), even Islamo-fascist murders of gays are to be twisted into condemnations of Christianity.
Of course, it makes not the slightest sense whatsoever.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 12:32 am - April 22, 2006
#18 – Of course – “Changing the subject”. That’s what #12 and his other posts are – and the typical Left tactic. That’s one possible name for it.
Bruce, and UK Outrage!: Thank you again for telling the real story.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 12:37 am - April 22, 2006
#27: “A typical TWISTED Ian effort to blame America first”
Well, if you had bothered to READ my comment, you would have understood that I was blaming religion first. As for changing the subject, it sure seemed to me that Bruce posted about Islamic persecution of gay people. Last I checked, Islam was a religion.
Comment by Ian — April 22, 2006 @ 1:32 am - April 22, 2006
Ian:
“As far as I can tell, you seem to be claiming that international relations are not black and white but nuanced shades of gray.”
No, I’m saying that some people are more dangerous than others. Hence one can say, “X is a dangerous world threat and must be stopped without equivocation or qualification”, and still see that the dictator of Equatorial Guinea, however reprehensible, is not a world threat. It’s called making distinctions. It is not the same thing as generalizing a grand theory of international relations, or about how “nuanced” it is or isn’t.
On the other hand, your comments about Equatorial Guinea, and how the United States has “always coddled dictators” will not stand up against comments like this:
“As far as I can tell, you seem to be claiming that international relations are not black and white but nuanced shades of gray. That’s precisely the point I was trying to get across to Rose.”
That is to say, it won’t stand up unless you accept the coddling of dictators.
You use words like the sophist you are.
Comment by Anthony — April 22, 2006 @ 1:35 am - April 22, 2006
#29 – I understood your comment perfectly. But I have seen in other posts of yours that America (in its current state), Christians, Republicans and Reconstructionists are all conflated together.
If you had bothered to READ my post, you would have seen where I talk about you blaming Christians.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 3:06 am - April 22, 2006
P.S. #29 is such a typically worthless response of yours, Ian, that it’s a great example of why I shouldn’t have even taken the time to respond in #31.
Any time you DON’T see me respond to a comment of yours, you may assume by default (until proven otherwise) that I found it too typical and/or worthless, assuming I even read it.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 3:11 am - April 22, 2006
What was described in the original post occurs in just about every islamic nation, including the ones that the American government (under both republicans and democrats) has lovingly embraced for decades to quench our thirst for oil. Where is the outrage against our new friends in Iraq who are killing gays as a means of “sexual cleansing”?
It seems that you bring this topic up when the whole issue of Iran have nuclear capability is now on everyone’s mind (and yes, Iran having nukes is not a good thing for the rest of the world). It seems to me you use these horrific stories of murder and torture to bolster the “why we should hate Iran” position.
Why aren’t you posting reports of treatment of gays in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc? Should we get started on how all of these countries also abuse, torture and murder women and girls as well?
Once again, you equate those who are against Bush in this country as people who automatically put a stamp of approval on murder, torture and rape of people by Islamic countries. That’s a completely false analogy and it just re-hashes the same old Anne Coulter “if you’re not with us, your against us” bullshit. It’s no different than that post earlier this week which made a ludicrously lame attempt to connect all democrats as supporters of Fred Phelps. yuk.
Comment by Kevin — April 22, 2006 @ 6:56 am - April 22, 2006
Any gay “leaders” are morons if they appease the likes of Iran’s bloodthirsty tyrants. Time to trade them in on new leaders.
Comment by Mannie — April 22, 2006 @ 7:28 am - April 22, 2006
We’re at war. So yes, if you’re not with us, you’re against us. There’s no way you can spin your nonsense to avoid that. Either you support your nation, or you do not. And supporting your leftist vision of what you could twist the nation into does not count as supporting your nation. As it is. As it was meant to be.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 22, 2006 @ 10:04 am - April 22, 2006
Change happens over time. Perhaps this a wisdom with which the impatient Left has difficulty. Old habits die hard and pulling the Middle East 700 years into the 21rst century will take a long time. Blaming the current administration for the Left’s lack of instant gratification is shamefully self involved.
Comment by Dave — April 22, 2006 @ 11:40 am - April 22, 2006
Let’s see: there is a world wide group of people advocating for the destruction of:
Democrats
Republicans
Independents
Gays
Jews
Israel
Catholics
Buddhists
Americans
Europeans
Rape Victims
Cartoonists
Authors
Film Makers
Artists
Non-believers
Infidels
And women too old to wear belly shirts, but wear them anyway.
The list continues, but I think you get the point.
Anyone want to guess what the primary, driving force for this group is?
Anyone?
Hint: It’s a ‘religion’ and it’s pretty strict from what I hear.
//Vera doesn’t look good in a burqa
Comment by Vera Charles — April 22, 2006 @ 11:47 am - April 22, 2006
#30: I really don’t understand your comment. However, just because the dictator from Equatorial Guinea may not be a danger doesn’t mean we have to lend him legitimacy by having our Secretary of State meet and be photographed with him. If Rose is correct and we’re on some grand Wilsonian venture to spread freedom and democracy outside our own borders, then we should not be coddling dictators anywhere in the world and indeed they should all be on our list of despots for us to overthrow. I provided the counter-example of our not only tolerating a dictator but lending him legitimacy and there are many more examples throughout the world. Rose is wrong: as I said before “we’ve always coddled dictators when it’s been convenient” – I noticed you left that last important qualifier off – and we continue to do so today.
Comment by Ian — April 22, 2006 @ 11:51 am - April 22, 2006
#32 LOL! What conceit! Like I spend my life checking to see if you respond to my comments.
Comment by Ian — April 22, 2006 @ 12:12 pm - April 22, 2006
I agree with Bruce on this.
But….lol Its not quite that simple.
The “Foundation” of America is not solely or even mostly, “Christianity”. To say this truly ignores and cheapens the rich history of our country.
The ideals and principles of the Enlightenment play just as much, and probably a great deal more, than those of Christianity. Many American ideals are in fact hostile to Christianity in the specific, especially if you want Christianity to be the sole dominating religion in this country.
Those same American ideals are however, welcoming to religion in general. That principle of religious tolerance is not found in the Bible or the Koran, its found in our Constitution, thanks to the wisdom of the men that wrote it. And quite a few of those men, would not be considered “Christian” by the standards of Christians today although they certainly thought of themselves as such.
This is a really important distinction to make. The “Religious Right” continually attempts to re-write the “Enlightenment” out of America’s history when in fact it had a very proud and central place in it.
They view it as the cause of what they feel is their current enemy, “Secular Humanism”. But secular humanism and the ideals of the Enlightenment are really two different things, and they are throwing the baby out with bathwater in the narrow-minded pursuit of their agenda.
The American secular traditions should be celebrated and remembered just as much as the Christian ones. Don’t ignore them, both the GOP and the Dems need to be reminded of them and the value and freedom they have brought to this country more strongly every day.
If you want to read some well-thought out and referenced discussions on this and other topics concerning the intersection of religion, poltics, an American history, start with the archives of Ed Brayton’s blog, “Dispatches from the Culture Wars”.
Bruce, Dan, Caralato, and even Michigan-Matt should be reading it every day.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/archives.php
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 22, 2006 @ 12:21 pm - April 22, 2006
Ian said…
“I really don’t understand your comment.”
I am truly shocked.
Eric in Hollywood
soon to be Eric in Venice, provided his offer meets with the owner’s approval….
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 22, 2006 @ 1:14 pm - April 22, 2006
It saddens me that so many on the left in the West do not understand the ambitions and motivations of our enemy in this struggle. Afterall, they do not exactly hide either from public exposure. Islamists (whether Shia or Sunni) wish to create a worldwide Caliphate under sharia. In this endeavour, they have made impressive headway.
You can rest assured that life for gays in such a world will be utterly miserable, at best. George Bush and the Christian Right are the least of our worries.
Comment by Scott — April 22, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - April 22, 2006
35: Sorry, but supporting our nation, the principles for which it’s supposed to stand and the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as blindly following the leader du jour. That kind of thinking sank many a nation in the past.
Comment by Kevin — April 22, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - April 22, 2006
GP,
Outstanding work.Some reactions to above comments.
Whay can we do?Very litlle.One thing we must do is recognize the fascist /repressive nature of these regimes.And Rose(#13),I think certain people are able to convince themselves there is no real threat to the US,no real enemy.That allows them to Bush-Bash.Since the danger is exagerrated by Chimpy,his eactions to it must also be exagerrated.
Comment by corwin — April 22, 2006 @ 6:29 pm - April 22, 2006
[...] Íránská vláda na základ? falešných obvin?ní ze znásiln?ní a únos? popravuje homosexuály a bisexuály, odhalilo nové vyšet?ování Simona Forbese z britské skupiny pro lidská práva homosexuál? a lesbi?ek OutRage! [...]
Pingback by Islám Info » Blog Archive » Írán popravuje homosexuály — April 22, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - April 22, 2006
Actually, I’m going to deal with Kevin and Ian together, very simply.
Make up your minds.
If you completely oppose the United States supporting or even appearing to support dictatorships of any kind, then shut up about the Iraq war.
If you don’t care if the US supports dictators or not, then shut up about Equatorial Guinea.
If you think the policy is more nuanced than that, then explain why we should not have gotten rid of Saddam, whose behavior made Equatorial Guinea’s activities look like a Sunday picnic in scale, but should immediately set out to destroy Equatorial Guinea’s leader.
Right now your opposition is much simpler to explain; anything that Bush supports is wrong, and anything that is anti-Bush is right. Hence, Saddam should have been perpetuated in power, and Equatorial Guinea should be invaded.
Therefore, Kevin in particular, when you invoke the Constitution, that should be taken in the light of someone who would support a complete violation of the Constitution as long as it was anti-Bush — i.e., a coup d’etat, allowing non-citizens to vote, etc.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 22, 2006 @ 9:38 pm - April 22, 2006
Gryph, you have no business telling anyone what they “should” do.
Aside from the frequent incoherence (not to say insanity) of your views, you have yet to ever even spell my name correctly.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - April 22, 2006
#39 – No Ian, no conceit. Just want to be sure you understand the situation, is all. Good luck with writing an informative or interesting comment.
Comment by Calarato — April 22, 2006 @ 9:42 pm - April 22, 2006
Look at this way Ian (#38):
You say that we coddle dictators. You give an example of Rice visiting the dictator of Equatorial Guinea. But you also say that international relations “are not black and white but nuanced shades of gray.” Yet a nuanced international policy would recognize that one might have to deal with lesser evils over larger ones. Your own point about coddling dictators contradicts you, because the lesser evil of making an oil deal with Equatorial Guinea may be practical in a world where the Loon of Iran makes threats of wiping out Israel.
Clearly, then, it is you who comes on as black and white, and the Administration as “nuanced”.
Once again:
If you really believe in “nuanced” international relations, then you commit yourself to dealing with dictators and other less than exemplary people because you believe that it is realistic. But if you believe that visiting Equatorial Guinea is unacceptable, then you don’t believe in nuanced international relations.
I’m happy to restore your qualifier in the quote “we’ve always coddled dictators when it’s been convenient”, since removing it had no ulterior motive.
If anything, it helps clarify that the Bush Administration does see foreign policy in a complex light, and that you don’t.
Comment by Anthony — April 22, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - April 22, 2006
To 43 – THANK YOU FOR SHOWING YOU TRUE COLORS! God bless America and may we all continue to spot traitors who stare us in the face and bring them down!
You wrote: 35: Sorry, but supporting our nation, the principles for which it’s supposed to stand and the Constitution of the United States is not the same thing as blindly following the leader du jour. That kind of thinking sank many a nation in the past.
Comment by Dave — April 23, 2006 @ 12:11 am - April 23, 2006
[...] Nothing is more Najis than being gay, and Roger Simon and Gay Patriot have that story. Wafa Sultan’s words above about the civilized and the primitive never rang truer. [...]
Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Iran going to the dogs — April 23, 2006 @ 1:39 am - April 23, 2006
#49: I actually DO believe in nuance in our foreign relations even when it comes to dictators. But that’s the problem I was pointing out to Rose who apparently accepts the Bush BS that our foreign policy is all about spreading freedom and democracy around the world. I gave the counter-example that establishes that our foreign policy is more nuanced even to the point of providing legitimacy to dictators like that in Equatorial Guinea and many others. I understand that we can’t effect regime change in every country that might not exhibit the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy. Indeed I will go further and state that I believe that our foreign policy has to look out for number one which is the US. If that means putting up with the odd foreign dictator, then so be it. That’s why I supported going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Taliban who supported them. But I did not support the invasion of Iraq not because I liked Saddam but because I believed in focussing on finishing the job with bin Laden and making sure Afghanistan had all the resources to ensure its survival as a fledgling democracy. It seemed clear to me that the threat of Iraq was in real doubt but that getting the weapons inspectors back in would help sort that out. Certainly there was no immediate need to invade. Now of course I realize I was misled – either intentionally or because of bad intel – and I am loathe to trust pretty much anything the Bush Administration now puts out. You remember the famous Reagan quote: “trust but verify.” Well, that’s not bad advice when dealing with the Bushies.
Comment by Ian — April 23, 2006 @ 2:22 am - April 23, 2006
Ted B.
I am aware that there was some dispute as to whether Al-Sistani was speaking about homosexuality in general, or homosexual pedophilia and homosexual rape. However, considering that Iran uses a similiar ruse, the individuals they hang are always alleged pedophiles and rapists too, I would be leary of any such distinctions coming from Al-Sistani.
You have to remember, Al-Sistani and the hardliners in Iran are two birds of the same feather. Their views on homosexuals is unlikely to differ.
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 3:20 am - April 23, 2006
In short, to be politically incorrect, I think they’re both trash.
Comment by Erik — April 23, 2006 @ 3:34 am - April 23, 2006
Why, thank, you, Dubya.
Shia Death Squads Target Iraqi Gays
Three Years On, Americans Ignore Pleas of Repression Even Worse than Saddam’s
http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_511/iraq.html
Things like this have been reported elsewhere.
(still no live preview)
Comment by raj — April 23, 2006 @ 10:26 am - April 23, 2006
The post at #12 is the reason why left-wing do not see radical Islam as a threat. They believe that if they could, Christians would be doing the same thing to gays.
Comment by joanbob — April 23, 2006 @ 11:36 am - April 23, 2006
#56: “Christians would be doing the same thing to gays.”
You are being disingenuous here. I was quite specific to specify the Christians in this country who would implement the death penalty for gay people as Reconstructionists. If you are ignorant of what these particular Christians believe then you’d be well-advised to educate yourself. Google is your friend.
FWIW, I detest any religion, philosophy or belief system that is intolerant of gay people.
Comment by Ian — April 23, 2006 @ 11:52 am - April 23, 2006
The Reconstructionists are nutballs, like leftists and feminists, and have absolutely nothing to do with any reality that could ever come to pass here.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 23, 2006 @ 2:58 pm - April 23, 2006
Ian — April 23, 2006 @ 11:52 am – April 23, 2006
You are being disingenuous here. I was quite specific to specify the Christians in this country who would implement the death penalty for gay people as Reconstructionists.
It’s nice that you were so specific, but you should be aware that more than a few leaders of conservative christians, particularly conservative evangelicals, have indicated that their goal is to at least imprison gay people for lengthy terms, including life. It is but a slight step to call for their execution.
Comment by raj — April 24, 2006 @ 8:59 am - April 24, 2006
None of which describes liberalism, which despises every principle for which the United States is supposed to stand, and fights the Contitution at every turn in favor of their “interpretation” of it.
And the war is America’s war. Either you support your country in time of war, or you do not. There is no support for the troops if you do not support their mission.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 24, 2006 @ 11:16 am - April 24, 2006
Ian (#52):
You believe the US has to look after itself. You believe this means tolerating dictators. You believe spreading democracy is bullshit. You believe that regime change and spreading democracy in Afghanistan is OK but that to do so in Iraq is to recognize “that we can’t effect regime change in every country that might not exhibit the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy”.
I don’t think your toleration of dictators squares with your support for the invasion of Afghanistan, or that that support for Afghanistan squares with your opposition to Iraq, or that your concern over the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy squares with your belief that spreading democracy is bullshit.
It seemed clear to you that the threat of Iraq was in doubt even though Saddam had a record of seeking nuclear weapons, the inspectors were useless, Iraq had invaded a country ten years earlier, and Saddam was using his country as a trade route for terrorists.
I don’t think this is very nuanced, Ian.
Comment by Anthony — April 24, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - April 24, 2006
#61: “your belief that spreading democracy is bullshit.”
That’s a lie. I never said that. If you wish to engage in a civil discussion, don’t lie about what I said. Re-read my post.
There was a very specific reason we invaded Afghanistan: the Taliban government refused our request to hand bin Laden and his associates over to us and indeed vowed to protect him. We had every right to go after bin Laden and his Taliban protectors. We had real support from many other nations and with the Taliban toppled, it made sense to help the Afghan people establish a democracy. We should have finished that job instead of attacking Iraq. Now we see that the Taliban is resurgent and learning how to attack the coalition troops with deadly results http://tinyurl.com/jzou7 Gee, I wonder where they learned that!
You claim the inspectors were useless but it turns out that after the first Gulf War, they were a major reason that Saddam no longer had a nuclear weapons program http://tinyurl.com/65gr6 :
“The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq’s illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.”
Of course, we know even more today about how we were misled. And the media is finally starting to get the word out – last night’s 60 Minutes was devastating to the “Bush couldn’t help it he had bad intel” argument. But that’s fine, you just keep on clinging to your talking points and touting the Iraq fiasco as a success to the American people and we’ll see what they have to say in November.
Comment by Ian — April 24, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - April 24, 2006
Ah, the famous illiterate misreading of the Dulfur Report. I suggest you read the report for yourself, because it does not support you idiotic position.
Comment by rightwingprof — April 24, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - April 24, 2006
Unfortunately, Ian, the Duelfer report also clearly noted that Saddam was paying UN diplomats and member countries to eviscerate and remove sanctions and inspections for the express purpose of continuing and expanding his weapons programs, including the importation of banned technology to greatly accelerate and facilitate the process.
Hence the FACT that inspections were NOT effective.
As for your “60 Minutes” story, CBS has already faked news to smear the Bush administration; I don’t consider this story any different, especially since we now know that CIA officials linked to the Democratic Party regularly leaked classified information to facilitate said process.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - April 24, 2006
Ian (#62),
At #52 you made these statements:
1. I…believe in nuance in our foreign relations even when it comes to dictators.
2. Rose…apparently accepts the Bush BS that our foreign policy is all about spreading freedom and democracy around the world.
3. I understand that we can’t effect regime change in every country that might not exhibit the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy.
[End of Ian's statements]
Well, if your concept of foreign policy isn’t all about freedom and democracy, if it is “nuanced even to the point of providing legitimacy to dictators”, if we can only effect regime change in countries that do exhibit Jeffersonian democracy, then I think you’ve pretty much qualified (nuanced?) the spreading of democracy out of your foreign policy.
Hence, in the vernacular: You believe spreading democracy is bullshit.
I don’t see what else I can draw from this.
Comment by Anthony — April 25, 2006 @ 7:26 am - April 25, 2006
#64 North Dallas Thirty — April 24, 2006 @ 7:17 pm – April 24, 2006
Unfortunately, Ian, the Duelfer report also clearly noted that Saddam was paying UN diplomats and member countries to eviscerate and remove sanctions and inspections for the express purpose of continuing and expanding his weapons programs, including the importation of banned technology to greatly accelerate and facilitate the process.
Your reference for this being–what? The Duelfer report is at http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html I’m not going to go through almost 200MB of text to verify your claim. Provide the verification, yourself.
Comment by raj — April 25, 2006 @ 8:05 am - April 25, 2006
[...] …en Iran. Sittingbull @ 08:29 Catégorie(s): LIBERTÉS [...]
Pingback by ExtremeCentre.org » Mort aux homos! — April 25, 2006 @ 10:29 am - April 25, 2006
[...] They are correct, of course. There is no middle ground with an ideological and legal system that kills those who stop believing the party line, hangs gay people, lets little girls burn to death for wearing the wrong clothes, calls for beheading people who insult them, all while they haven’t contributed two bits to mankind’s psychological or physical innovations to create greater well-being. They do create more than their fair share of bombings and threats, however, and maybe that’s something. [...]
Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » ‘The simple matter of fact is there is no middle ground’ — April 25, 2006 @ 11:03 am - April 25, 2006
#65: “I don’t see what else I can draw from this.”
Try this: President Bush is always insisting that our mission is to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Yet his administration frequently coddles dictators, an example of which I provided. Therefore the notion, repeated ad nauseum by Bush and the rest of his Administration, that it’s all about spreading freedom and democracy is simply “Bush BS.” Which was the whole point of my response to Rose. I believe our foreign policy has to be and actually is nuanced. It’s the CLAIM that it’s all about spreading freedom and democracy that’s bullshit.
I have no problem with encouraging freedom and democracy anywhere but I am skeptical that lasting democracy can be installed using military force. However, there are times when we don’t have much choice but to at least try and that was exactly the situation in Afghanistan. We had every right to go after bin Laden and those protecting him and his organization. Indeed, we had an obligation to do so for our own protection. Once we had removed the Taliban, we not only owed it to the Afghan people to give them a chance for democracy but it was in our best interest to do so. Once we had decided on the course in Afghanistan, we should have stuck to it and poured the resources in to give the new democracy a fighting chance. We should have nailed not only bin Laden but the head Taliban mullahs as well and destroyed their organiations. The fact that they’re still around and resurgent in Afghanistan is testament to how we have not followed through on what we started there.
Comment by Ian S — April 25, 2006 @ 1:30 pm - April 25, 2006
I have no time for those who cling to the false dichotomy of Left and Right. for those who are interested in Human rights, rights for individuals regardless of identity, I invite you to join me and others at our weekly sessions at the Vancouver Public Library in the atrium on Thursday evenings from 7-9:00 pm. in Vancouver, Canada.
We meet to discuss ways of promoting Modernity and Humanism in the world, and how we might stop the surge of dhimmitude in our nations. We are not Leftists. We are not socialists. We are conservative and boring and private. We work to stop dhimmitude and fascism. That includes protecting the rights of homosexuals and anyone else regardless of their identities as group members. I want you to join us for coffee. I want you to sit with us and tell us what it mens to you to be a homosexual in a world in which you are directly threatened by Islam. And then we want to find a way to fight agianst that threat.
We meet people of all kinds, few of whom are “us.” It doesn’t make a bit of difference. You are at risk from Islam, and your lives, though they might well have little to do with mine, are as valuable as any others. If you decide to be a “victim” of vast Rightwing conspiracies,” please don’t bother us. If you are concerned about Islam and fascism threatening your lives, the lives of your friends and companions, then we wil be happy to do what we can to unite with you in this struggle agianst Islam and dhimmitude.
I look forward to meeting you Thursday.
Regards, Dag.
Comment by dag — April 25, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - April 25, 2006
I think it is important to document the atrocites against gays that are happening in Iran. Also, it should be noted there are strong reports that gays are being targetted for murder in Iraq, and that this is a NEW phenom in Iraq, because Saddam though horrible was no an Islamic fundamentalist. So, please, it is the utmost of folly to think that George Bush is engaging in the “war on terror” to protect Islamic gay people. The issue is irrelevant to him either way.
Comment by Jeffrey — June 10, 2006 @ 11:06 pm - June 10, 2006
I’m surprised by Gay Patriot’s seeming to not read (or understand) the very article he posted, in terms of the charge that the left ignores this issue. Doug Ireland, a prominent left-leaning journalist and blogger, is quoted thruout the article, and the footnotes, and has been one of the leading activists on the subject; many other left-leaning journalists, bloggers and activists have taken up this issue with zeal (as well they should, as should those on the right and in the center.) Americablog, Pam Spaulding, Tatchell, etc.
This is certainly an area where all points on the political spectrum can and are working together, and it shames Gay Patriot to attempt to use it to slur the left, although I admire his role in bringing attention to the overall topic of the post.
Comment by trey — July 16, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - July 16, 2006
[...] I gag. I barely want to waste the energy to respond to it, because she’s really not worth it. So, I’ll simply leave it to Ms. O’Donnell to point out to the rest of us the buildings that have been flown into, the throats that have been slit, the genitals which have been mutiliated, the raped women who have been killed for their victimhood, the countless suicide bombers who have died screaming “Jesus is Lord” as they blew themselves up, the gays who have been hanged for being gay, the raging Catholics who rampaged through the streets burning Andres Serrano in effegy when he submerged a crucifix in urine and called it “art,” the Christian who have murdered filmmakers for making less-than-flattering films about their faith… [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » Oriana and Rosie - two women of the left — September 15, 2006 @ 3:33 pm - September 15, 2006
[...] If you are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, you may not be able dream, or to be able to see the vision. Believing as you do, that the greatest threat to progress and peace on planet Earth is a swaggering Texan who is slow of tongue and unwilling to bend, you cannot – or will not -see the threat that is before you, that your daughters may no longer be free to fulfill their potentials, that they might be expendible if their hair is left uncovered, that your sons – gay or straight – may no longer be who they are, for fear of the noose. That your industry may simply dry up for lack of market and amenable associates, that your entertainments – to which you have given yourself over with inordinate passion – may be outlawed. [...]
Pingback by The Anchoress » Believe the troops who are there or the pols who are not? — November 6, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - November 6, 2006
[...] not forget that among the many atrocities that go unreported about Iran, this regime routinely kills, rapes and tortures people who are or simply alleged as homosexual. Say what you will about Islam as a whole but from what I have seen, this Islamic regime is [...]
Pingback by ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected » Blog Archive » Revolution in Iran — February 26, 2008 @ 1:07 pm - February 26, 2008
[...] factor into what does and doesn’t get published? Why not instead substitute the standards of backward bands of murderous religious [...]
Pingback by A Dark Period in American Higher Education | THE D.C. WRITEUP — August 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm - August 20, 2009
[...] Just ask the Iranians, who stone women and execute gays as prescribed by sharia law. Just ask the Saudis, who whip rape victims. Just ask the Jordanians, [...]
Pingback by Religion of mercy: kill the mother after the baby is born « Public Secrets — November 6, 2009 @ 3:00 pm - November 6, 2009