Well said, Dave.

I have been on some demos with Peter and he has been with members of Iranian LBGT groups. What seems most worrying about those on the left who think religious groups should have a free pass when it comes to LGBT rights is that they are then abandoning the LGBT in those communities. There are LGBT Muslims , Catholics etc. From what I have seen Peter works with LGBT people who are Muslim.

Interestingly when I cover homophobic issues on my blog, its mainly about Catholicism. Lefties seem OK with that, if I do the same re Islam I get criticised. What about LGBT people then who have their rights attacked under Islamic regimes ? Hung from lampposts by the regime in Iran headed by what some see as some progressive anti imperialist such as Ahmajinedad. Shhh about that seems to be the reaction. Or , well the West are evil blah blah bah. Yes, so. Doesn't excuse that.

I noticed that when Southall Black Sisters were at threat of losing their funding they received little support from the left.

Why do we on the left, not support women such as them? Or LGBT people facing oppression who are muslims ?

Are they Islamaphobic for being critical themselves ?

All perfectly reasonable so far but it is people like Jim Denham who believe our ruling should be bombing countries who have different state religions to us who make the left nervous and defensive. See his views on the Irish for christs sake.

In these days of the war on terror we have to signpost everywhere our hostility to pro imerialism. And that goes for Tatchell.

Obviously as socialist groups we should also signpost our support for lesbian and gay rights.

So what happens when states like Iran hang gay people ?

It is possible to support women, TUists, socialists, women etc who are oppressed in Iran and to oppose attacks on the country. But it means being critical of the regime and not making excuses.

Too often the oppressive nature of the regime is downplayed, handing an own goal to those who want to invade . as we on the left are seen as supporting oppressive theocratic regimes.

We should support those fighting for regime change as well as oppose attacks.

"So what happens when states like Iran hang gay people?"
Can you provide any evidence of people being hanged for being gay in Iran?

"So what happens when states like Iran hang gay people ?"

The same as what happens in states that give lethal injections to minors and the mentally ill!

"It is possible to support women, TUists, socialists, women etc who are oppressed in Iran and to oppose attacks on the country."

Yes it is but some on the 'left' do use it as an excuse to support occupations and invasions. Some people on this blog have supported British troops in Afghanistan for this very reason, we need to distance ourselves from such people. Do you not agree?

Lenins tomb is a great site.

They have a very good article on the killings at Fort Hood.

"Thoughtful progressive Muslims would not for one moment sacrifice it to build an alliance with the secular left. Why should they make it a condition for an alliance with us?"

They don't.

To his credit, Kade stresses the need to challenge homophobia in the Muslim working class

Harsh on the proles that.

I presume, like practically all witless bigotry, it stems from the privileged, the priest caste in this instance, it's an (extremely) rare pogrom that doesn't have the tacit backing of some element of the ruling class.

In these days of the war on terror we have to signpost everywhere our hostility to pro imerialism. And that goes for Tatchell.

That's a big ask mate, you're asking him to back people who'd happily murder him.

A short reply as I'm doing this on my mobile .

Re hanging . Google it , lots of evidence . Go on Stroppyblog and search Iran , mehdi kazemi , there is stuff there . Look on the Hopi website .

Re occupation

This is so boring , I have said it so many times , everytime someone points put the repression of women , socialists , trade unionists etc the reply is thy mist support the occupation .

I do not support occupation of Iraq , Afghanistan or an attack on Iran .

I do not aupport the repressive regime of Iran and support those in struggle trying to overthrow it . I don't support Moussavi , I support those mentiown above when they stand up against the regime .

Gays don't get hanged in Iran for being gay. This is a myth and imperialist propaganda designed to soften people up for an attack on the Islamic Republic in the pretext of bombing gays out of the closet. It is sad that some sections of the left are falling into this trap again.
If you want to condemn regimes who persecute gays and women, please look at that ally of the west, Saudi Arabia, its a lot worse than Iran and call for regime change there instead of supporting the recent the middle class CIA/MI6 initiated protests in Iran which only plays right into the hand of imperialism.

"That's a big ask mate, you're asking him to back people who'd happily murder him."

Theres a sweeping generalisation if ever there was one.

http://www.irqr.net/irqr-news.htm

Any source of info from mod has to be treated with suspicion as he supports Israel and the brutal murder of Afgans by the imperialist occupation forces.
Having said that, even these biased anti Iranian sources do say that these people wern't sentenced to death for being gay but for rape and paedophilia.

Theres a sweeping generalisation if ever there was one.

There's a lot of it about.

In this day and age, I think if someone is so lazy or incredibly stupid that they can't even use Google and find out the facts about Gays in Iran for themselves, then basically they are probably too dense to understand socialism and far too thick to exchange views with, in a civil or comradely fashion....

not that I am being judgmental, of course :)

When "homophobia" started being used, it meant something quite specific: not explicit discrimination or state repression, but the fact that a lot of straight men have or used to have an "eeurgh" factor about gay men and a lot of straight women an "eeurgh" factor about lesbians (straight men don't and didn't seem to have the same reaction to lesbians or straight women to gay men ...)

It was perhaps questionable to call this a phobia, like arachnophobia or agoraphobia, but not wholly out of the question since both in some sense involve sub-rational fears (but the social dynamics behind these different sub-rational fears are radically different).

When people started extending "homophobia" to cover the *conscious* (and often cynically hypocritical) promotion of prejudice and discrimination against gay men and lesbians (etc), on the basis of explicit theorised ideologies of the role of the family in society, by conservative politicians and clerics, the Daily Mail, etc, the word "homophobia" became seriously misleading and tended to degrade political discourse into psycho-babble. One might as well talk of rightists' demophobia (irrational fear of the people) or leftists' plutophobia (irrational fear of wealth).

It is in this badly misleading form that the coinage has been transferred into "islamophobia". The resulting word inherently makes an amalgam between several radically different issues: (1) political and/ or religious disagreement with the tenets of islam; (2) state discrimination against muslims and /or mosques; and (3) the conscious (and cynical) promotion of hostility to islam as an instrument of imperialist state war policy; describing all these as (4) a sub-rational fear of islam or muslims, like the sub-rational fears of spiders or open spaces or homosexuals of the same gender.

This amalgam is totally worthless and does literally nothing to help explain the dynamics of the oppression of muslims globally by the state and locally by the state or by employers, poor-white 'communities' and so on; or, therefore, to suggest how to fight this oppression.

A few quick points of fact:

1) The post on LT that Osler links to was written by a gay activist and discussed the way in which gay oppression was being used as a cover for bigotry toward Muslims. That is what the title referred to, and I suspect Osler knows this very well: it is therefore stupid for him to suggest that there was an effort to ‘out’ Tatchell implicit in the title.

2) When Osler refers to a “few unfunny cartoons in little-read Danish satirical publications” which “supposedly degrade and denigrate religion”, he is really asking to be mocked. The cartoons were published in multiple European publications in a deliberately provocative campaign, and the objection to them was not that they degraded religion. It was that they were uncontroversially racist in exactly the same sense that Tsarist and Nazi depictions of Jews were racist. It would be easier to take Osler’s strictures on the question of challenging homophobia to heart if one could be certain he was as sensitive to the issue of anti-Muslim racism – and particularly, given the topic of the posts he is replying to, to the way in which anti-Muslim racism validates itself with pseudo-progressive language.

3) Osler has indeed appeared on Islamophobia Watch twice. Once, he was praised for a sensible post about the ‘lyrical terrorist’. The other time he featured, he was criticised for implicitly equating violent jihadism with Islam as such (with the jokey title ‘Neither Washington nor Mosque’) and, relatedly, for peddling the absurd claim that some on the left were making an alliance of convenience with Al Qaeda – an idea so preposterous that only the madder elements of the neoconservative belligerati dare utter it these days. Given his propensity for levelling such bizarre accusations at others on the Left, how honest is it for him to evince such sensitivity to a single (apparently justified) charge of indulging in Islamophobic rhetoric?

Lastly, I note that there is a general supposition that somewhere out there are leftists who argue that Muslims should be given a free pass on homophobia. There may be such people, but I have not met them. I get the impression that they are sock puppets for Osler to belabour rather than Actually Existing Socialists.

Should have though that this was a bit of a no-brainer.Nobody much is going to have a phobia about Islam : a phobia about terrorism is another matter.

The selective deployment of 'Islamophobia' is usually a pretty straightforward, cynical piece of political expediency. Tiny and impotent sects with no chance of power and delusions of world historical grandeur, have simply made an unstable electoral alliance with larger and more powerful religous lobby groups.

Simultaneoulsy they've organised a kind of intellectual retreat into cultural relativism. Any advocacy of secularism or universal human rights is denounced as the product of a 'racist' Enlightenment discourse.

It's a combination of the most impoverished and vulgar elements of marxism, political expediency and post modernism.

Anyone who thinks this is an exaggeration should take a look at some of the recent posts on Socialist Unity, where the teaching of creationism is now advocated by The Chairman.

Perhaps the SWP and its members need reminding of their one-time, best ally, George Galloway's contribution on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou1es7fNTpk

I'm used to reading ignorant libel about myself fom liars like "JOHNNO", but I'd be interested to see his evidence for this:

"It is people like Jim Denham who believe our ruling (class) should be bombing countries who have different state religions to us who make the left nervous and defensive. See his views on the Irish for christs sake."

Care to defend any single aspect of that statement, "JOHNNO"? What "views on the Irish", for instance? You'd better explain yourself, pal. When you fail, I'll accept your grovelling apology.

Excellent article, btw, Dave. Lenny Symour's bleating attempt at a reply shows you've got the perennial student element of the SWP rattled. Keep it up!

Of course we should condemn Saudi Arabia but comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia is irrelevant. The development of the means of production in Iran go back to the late 1890s. Over 65% of the population are urban working class, industrialisation has created a well established capitalist class and there is a working class movement, with a radical history, currently in daily struggles against the clerical regime . In Saudi Arabia the majority of the working class is migrant labour. In Iran it is the young working class who are the main force behind the current demonstrations and their complaints are very clear, they are opposing religious interference in their private and social life and they hate political Islam in power. But as Iranian workers keep telling us the main reason the protests continue has nothing to do with Moussavi or reformists or external forces it is because there is an economic crisis in Iran, partly caused by reduction in the price of oil, the fact that at times of economic crises the countries of the periphery face harsher economic conditions and partly because of corruption and mismanagement of the economy by both factions of the Islamic Republic.

Talking of grovelling apologies, here's one from the publishers of the book that was the source for the smaers from "Yoshie" and others on Seymour's Tomb:

Peter Tatchell: Apology and Correction
Raw Nerve Books wishes to make an unreserved apology to the human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell
and to the LGBT human rights organisation OutRage!, regarding untrue allegations published in the book,
Out of Place: Interrogating Silences in Queerness/Raciality, edited by Adi Kuntsman & Esperanza Miyake
(Raw Nerve Books, 2008).
These untrue allegations appeared in the chapter "Gay Imperialism: Gender and Sexuality Discourse in the
'War on Terror'" by Jin Haritaworn, Tamsila Tauqir and Esra Erdem.
We regret that this chapter contains serious, defamatory untruths concerning Peter Tatchell and OutRage! It
casts unjustified doubt on their character, motives and integrity, and involves a fundamental
misrepresentation of their campaigns.
We accept that the human rights work of Mr Tatchell and OutRage! is motivated by a sincere support for
people struggle against tyranny and injustice, and has involved valuable assistance to many LGBT
campaigners in the UK and worldwide.
Raw Nerve Books hereby offers the following correction to the offending erroneous chapter in Out of
Place:
Contrary to the claims made in the book, Out of Place, Mr Tatchell has never “claimed the role of liberator
and expert about Muslim gays and lesbians.” He is not Islamophobic and is not “part of the Islamophobia
industry.” Nor is OutRage!
Neither he nor OutRage! are racist. They have not engaged in “racial” politics. Mr Tatchell has never
described “Muslims as Nazis” and he has never made the equation “Muslim=Nazi” or “Muslim=Evil.” He has
never “collaborated with the extreme right” and never “participated with several racist and fascist groups.”
Mr Tatchell has never “employed tactics of intimidation and aggressive divide and rule”, nor has he
“attempted to discredit those who resist his patronage.” He does not “sling mud onto Muslim communities”.
The Nigerian same-sex marriage bill was not “already defeated.” It was merely dormant and was soon
afterwards revived, as Mr Tatchell, OutRage! and some Nigerian LGBT activists predicted.
The condemnation of Mr Tatchell and OutRage! by a number of African LGBT activists in 2007 was signed
by people who did not know Mr Tatchell and OutRage! and who had never had any connection with them.
They were therefore not making an informed judgement based on their personal experience. The letter of
condemnation resulted from untrue gossip spread by one person who was waging a sectarian political
vendetta. All of the African LGBT activists who have worked with Mr Tatchell and OutRage! refused to sign it.
We accept that Peter Tatchell was one of the first LGBT campaigners to reject a western-centred approach
to LGBT human rights and, from the early 1970s, to campaign for LGBT human rights universally and
internationally, not just in Britain. He has worked in solidarity with many LGBT activists in the global south,
acting to support, empower and publicise their freedom struggles, including J-Flag in Jamaica, GALZ in
Zimbabwe, Iraqi LGBT in Iraq, Blue Diamond Society in Nepal, OLGA and GLOW in South Africa, the
Persian Gay and Lesbian Organisation, Iranian Queer Rights Organisation and Iranian Queer Railroad in
Iran, to name just a few.
In the UK, he has worked with, and has been supported by, Muslim and black rights campaigners, including
Adnan Ali, Valerie Mason-John and Ali Hili, who are cited favourably in the same chapter of the book that
condemns Mr Tatchell. Indeed, Mr Hili has been a long-standing member of OutRage! and its Middle East
spokesperson – yet the authors did not mention this in their citation of his work for Iraqi LGBT.
Several UK LGBT black and Asian groups have worked and / or continue to work with Mr Tatchell and
OutRage!, including the Black Gay Mens‟ Advisory Group, Black Lesbians and Gays Against Media
Homophobia, Gay Uganda (UK), Iraqi LGBT (UK) and the Naz Project.
We accept that Mr Tatchell has never criticised Muslims in general, only Muslim fundamentalists – in the
same way that he has also criticised all other forms of religious fundamentalism, Christian, Judaist and so
on. In fact, his criticisms and protests against Christian fundamentalism have been far more numerous and
robust than those challenging fundamentalist Muslims.
The insinuation that he is anti-Muslim is untrue. He has been in dialogue with Muslim community and faith
leaders for many years. He is on record as condemning anti-Muslim prejudice and defending Muslim
communities against racist attacks. He has campaigned to support Muslims seeking asylum, Muslims
abused in prisons and Muslims falsely accused of terrorism.
We accept that Mr Tatchell a long history of anti-racism, dating back to the 1970s, including Rock Against
Racism, the Anti-Nazi League and the Anti-Apartheid Movement. During past and recent elections, he has
written and campaigned against the British National Party (BNP). For many years, he was targeted for violent
attack by the far right because of his anti-racist stance.
At the March for Free Expression in 2006, fascists were not invited. They were told to stay away. Moreover,
Mr Tatchell denounced the far right and racists during his speech from the podium.
We accept that Mr Tatchell has campaigned against imperialism for over 40 years. From the 1960s, he has
been active in anti-imperialist solidarity campaigns, supporting the national liberation struggles of the peoples
of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Oman,
Nicaragua, Palestine, Western Sahara, East Timor and West Papua.
He has received personal thanks for his solidarity work from, among others, Thabo Mbeki, the former
President of South Africa, and Jose Ramos Horta, the President of East Timor.
Mr Tatchell continues to campaign for the independence of the Western Sahara, Palestine and West Papua.
He supports the struggles for democracy and human rights in Iran, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Burma,
Turkey, Columbia, Somaliland, Baluchistan, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Belarus and elsewhere. As well as opposing
the war in Iraq and the western occupation, he has spoken out against US threats to attack Iran.
Raw Nerve Books very much regrets the unfounded, baseless allegations against Mr Tatchell and OutRage!,
and invites our readers to visit Mr Tatchell‟s website to judge his record for themselves:
www.petertatchell.net
August 2009

SWP readers might have forgotten their one-time political leader's statement on the topic:

“I’m in favour of defending gay rights, but I am not prepared to have it as a shibboleth.”

Lindsey German, SWP central committee member at Marxism 2003

http://communiststudents.org.uk/2007/09/gay-rights-end-the-silence/

Jim Denham,

I wouldn't call Lenny Seymour's contribution 'bleating,' and I think it's grossly offensive to imply that the SWP's student activists are like a flock of domesticated sheep.

Black Welsh Mountains - among many other UK breeds - are renowned for their hardiness, independence and self reliance, not to mention their alert and lively characters.

Don't come round 'ere insulting sheep.

It's a poser for the left, isn't it? What to do when a religious group gets it in the neck from the imperialist ruling class and its media minions in the name of progress, but when members of that group claim their god-given right to persecute those whom they think are acting in a devilish way, thus giving excuses for the imperialist ideologues to claim the moral high ground.

One can either go towards Harry's Place and the 'Decents', a openly pro-imperialist course that sees the big imperialist powers as the custodians of progress; or do the modern version of Third Worldism, and consider that one must soft-pedal or excuse acts of backwardness on account that the practitioners of such acts, be they nation states or religious/ethnic groups, are oppressed by imperialism, and that criticising them is thus lining up with the imperialists.

Peter Tatchell's old chum Brett Lock has taken the former course (I did on the UK Left Network warn him about Harry's Place, but did he take any notice...?); and Tatchell himself is currently being accused of taking this course by people of the latter persuasion.

Whilst it is imperative to avoid 'Decency' on the one hand and Third Worldism on the other, working out a tactical response to fit the above principles is extremely difficult.

I think that Tatchell has been trying to do this, trying to navigate between the Scylla of Harry's Place and the Charybdis of cheer-leading Third World dictators to defend gay rights, something that all socialists should do. As for whether his tactics are effective, however, I can't say. One thing is for sure, he or anyone else tackling this and other similar fraught issues will cop it from one side or the other.

It's a tactical minefield. So I imagine that we could be in the position of defending a mosque against fascist hooligans one day, then having a picket outside the same mosque in defence of gay or women's rights on another...

Fake-Lenin is wrong about the cartoon. It only appeared in multiple European publications as a response to the campaign of intimidatation by Muslims in Sweden. How many people would ever have knowdn about it, if it hadn't have been used in a acampaign to whip up hysteria? The imam who kicked off the row was telling people outrageous lies about the cartoon, things like it depicted Mohammed (pbuh)as a pig. (By the way, has Fake-Lenin got a contract with Press TV yet?).

Also, in answer to Dr Paul, shouldn't Marxism be our guide? well, those of us who are still Marxist. Yassamine Mather provided the beginnings of an answer.

I've found ti very amusing by the way, how everyone is bending over backwards to say that the Major who killed 13 people at Fort Hood was just having a bad day. As a psychiatrist, surely he should be aware of mental stresses and how to minimize them. Suggests he was rubbish at his job, or maybe not.

"Leave me alone to drink until my liver packs up, sleep with whom I choose, listen to blues and jazz and follow a cranky health food diet, and don’t tell me what books I can and cannot read. And I’ll cut you the same kind of slack. Deal? Deal."

You may think you have a deal. Are you sure the counterparties to said 'deal' feel the same way ?

Maybe the street-girls of Brum and Bradford thought they had a deal, too.

The Mohammed cartoons were a deliberate attempt by right-wingers in Denmark to provoke an angry response by Islamicists; and it worked, as we can see. The Islamicists' calls for the cartoons to be banned and the riots and demonstrations that accompanied the call allowed the Danish newspaper concerned, which had a long history of supporting the far right, as far back as the 1930s, to bang on about censorship; an old far-right trick. It was a nasty provocation.

I saw the cartoons, some were inoffensive, some were mildly critical of Islam, one especially was nasty as it made out all Muslims to be bomb-throwing terrorists. The last cartoon was on the same level as the scurrilous anti-Jewish cartoons that appear in some Middle East papers.

As for the issue of censorship, I think that the cartoons should have been published in Britain and elsewhere to enable people to make up their own minds about them. Nonetheless, I feel that the main point to make about the cartoons was that they were a deliberate and insidious attempt by the Danish far right to raise a hostile and (hopefully) violent response by Islamicists, and thereby increase hostility to Muslims as a whole -- and it worked very well, as the Islamicists rose to the bait.

Paddy Garcia, IRQR is a good source of info but you would have to be a delusional fool or an apologist of the Islamic Republic to believe that LGBT people are not hanged in Iran. As Stroppy pointed out there is plenty of evidence, look on the HOPI site.

"In dealing with male homosexuality, sodomy is a crime, for which both partners (passive and active) are punished. The castigation is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind, judgment and consent-the method of execution is reliant on the Shar'ia judge's decision. "
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2005/December/Homosexuality/index.html

Maybe the strikes at Wagon Pars, Iran Khodro and Haft Tapeh are also CIA inventions, or maybe your just a reactionary idiot? I am convinced it is the latter.

As co-proprietor of Islamophobia Watch can I say that due consideration is given to every post and I can't say there's a single one that we have regretted in the now near 5 years since we started.
In regards the Tatchell controversy that is raging on Socialist Unity, take a look at
the documented evidence on Islamophobia Watch

In my experience, people in politics (or blogging) without any form of regret are either 1) politically perfect 2) totally insular 3) completely lacking in self awareness 4) so one sided that they wouldn't notice if a bus hit them. 5) British Lefties, without a sense of history or 6) smug beyond belief.

But naturally, in a spirit of unity, I wouldn't dream of commenting about Islamophobia Watch, who are obviously beyond reproach :)

"In dealing with male homosexuality, sodomy is a crime, for which both partners (passive and active) are punished. The castigation is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind, judgment and consent-the method of execution is reliant on the Shar'ia judge's decision."

Of course, this omits to mention that four independent witnesses to the sexual act are required, which makes it impossible to secure a conviction. Indeed, the whole point of this aspect of Sharia law (which applies to adultery, of which gay sex is treated as a subsection) was to reduce the draconian punishments to a symbolic status by raising the evidential requirements so high that nobody could actually be sentenced to them.

That's not to say that gay men have not been executed in Iran. But if the Iranian state does this, it has to charge them with some offence other than having consensual sex in private.

"What seems most worrying about those on the left who think religious groups should have a free pass when it comes to LGBT rights is that they are then abandoning the LGBT in those communities."

Perhaps stroppybird should ask the opinion of Muslim LGBT organisations like Imaan and the Safra Project, who have repeatedly criticised Tatchell for making their efforts to combat homophobia in their own community more difficult.

This is a point repeated by the authors of the article that Dave claims (without any attmpt to justify the accusation) contains "smears" against Tatchell. They write:

"Rather than help, politics such as Tatchell's have worsened the situation for the majority of queer Muslims. It has become increasingly difficult for groups such as the Safra Project, who are forced into the frontline of the artificially constructed gay v. Muslim divide, to contest sexual oppression in Muslim communities. The more homophobia is constructed as belonging to Islam, the more anti-homophobic talk will be viewed as a white, even racist, phenomenon, and the harder it will be to increase tolerance and understanding among straight Muslims.

"The dialogue which Safra and other queer Muslim groups have long sought over this is more often than not ignored or disregarded, and white gay activists such as Tatchell have proved indifferent to the fact that the mud which they sling onto Muslim communities lands on queer Muslims themselves."

Anon

my point :"What seems most worrying about those on the left who think religious groups should have a free pass when it comes to LGBT rights is that they are then abandoning the LGBT in those communities."

Yours :Perhaps stroppybird should ask the opinion of Muslim LGBT organisations like Imaan and the Safra Project, who have repeatedly criticised Tatchell for making their efforts to combat homophobia in their own community more difficult.

Does your point negate the fact that some on the left do not always challenge homophobia re religious groups ?

Having been involved in LGBT politics for for nearly 30 years, some on the left have been luke warm on fighting for LGBT rights for all, over that time.

re your points on law. The four witnesses also mitigates against women getting rape convictions .

It seems that often rather than a conviction for gay sex , trumped up charges of rape or paedophilia are made instead. Sadly some like Paddy naively trust the legal system in Iran (the same system that imprisons Trade Unionists btw).

When Medhi Kazemi was fighting for the right to stay here , rather than face execution in Iran, he received patchy support on the left. His boyfriend was executed and his father had informed on him to the authorities, yet galloway went on TV and said gay people are executed for sex crimes not being gay.

Perhaps Paddy thinks Medhi should have gone back to face his fate ?

more on executions, Yassamine sent me these links

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/11/21/iran-two-more-executions-homosexual-conduct

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050815/kim

I doubt though this will make much difference to Paddy the Fuckwit, a man who seems to wank over the taliban and excuse the throwing of acid in girls faces . Well they are anti imperialist !

More on Medhi

http://stroppyblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/tatchell-on-iran-galloway-and-lgbt.html

"Does your point negate the fact that some on the left do not always challenge homophobia re religious groups?"

No, my point is that challenging homophobia in faith communities from outside those communities is usually counterproductive and makes things harder for LGBT organisations who are working within those communities.

Which is one reason why some on the left think it's not always a good idea to attack homophobia in faith communities.

Another is that they are reluctant to criticise non-white communities that are already under attack, for fear of reinforcing racism and bigotry.

Both of which strike me as entirely admirable motives, and show that some on the left do have some sensitivity to such issues.

On the other hand, you have a self-indulgent prat like Tatchell who claims to be on the left but concentrates on attacking homophobia in vulnerable non-white faith communities without the slightest concern for the damaging impact his actions have on those communities or on the position of LGBT organisations within them.

People like that, in my opinion, are beneath contempt.

My point about anti-gay laws in Iran was a response to Chris S. It was not intended as a defence of Paddy Garcia's views.

It's easy to see why the Middle East is such a stagnant, moribaund society when you read the comments from the anti-Tatchell supporters on this thread. As Tatchell made the point on the laughably named 'Socialist Unity' blog, 'what's with the principle of internationalism?'. Can those people bending over backwards to defend the murder of gay people in sunny climes, tell us why they don'ta ccept internationalis?

Anon

What about organisations like Southall Black Sisters that have asked for support, such as when they risked losing their funding, and some on the left seemed pretty silent ? Or groups like Women against Fundamentalism , who speak out , but some on the left again seem uncomfortable .

Various groups look like losing their funding for supporting victims of honour killings, groups that have members from the communities affected. Apart from feminist blogs, I havent seen mention of support for their petition to the govt ?

And I also suspect, like the left, LGBT groups from Muslim (and other faith communities , lets not forget religion generally is pretty reactionary when it comes to women and LGBT people) is divided. I have been on demos when Peter has been with members of LGBT Iraq ( I think that was the group).

Another issue, the burqa. My view, much like Daves in this post, is people should wear what they like. The left defend the right to wear the burqa. Fine. Do they also support women who argue against it, that say they have been coerced?

If we defend communities who are under attack from the state, what about those even more marginalised. What about women or LGBT people who argue that they feel under attack by the state, but also feel constricted by their religion ?

re Paddy, apologies. I was sort of answering your point re the law and also bringing Paddy into it at the same time. Should have answered him seperately. I wouldn't want to imply you were such a fuckwit as Paddy. I have argued so often with him on these issues , I really should just ignore him as it goes nowhere !

Strop, no-one who is really left defends the 'right' to wear the Burqua. It is an oppression, and we don't defend oppressions - such as any aspect whatsoever of whatever kind of religous based dress code, and any part or any form of a religious 'law', such as the the Sharia. The burqa wearing women in my area rarely go out. When they do they trail obediently a respectable distance behind their lords and masters which just about sums up what it's about.

The issue is whether we oppose this claim to oppression by legal rules or by restrict fighting it to persuassion in civil society. Clearly when the oppression, which equally says to every woman who is not so clad that they are impure, and every man that they are impure if they look at an uncovered woman, is carried into the public sphere there are plenty of cases where it should be prohibited. Such as when the wearer has authority over others. That a school teacher or, say, someone with power towards the public (police, social worker etc) should display this oppression can only be dealt with by laws, similar to thsoe banning racism. Other forms of the veil should be prohibited in education where overt religous signs also set up oppressive standards of purity.

Religious racism of this kind has a long history of being tolerated, and indeed encouraged in the UK. From educational segregation to laws protecting religious bigotry this continues. The left that supports this is no left at all, but an adjunct of oppression.

If I read it these days I'd consider an entry (to add to my past ones) on Islamophobia Watch and honour.

"It’s called freedom of speech. Thoughtful progressive Muslims would not for one moment sacrifice it to build an alliance with the secular left. Why should they make it a condition for an alliance with us?"

Aghhh, David! What a tangled web you do weave etc. That juxtaposition and opposition of "them and us". The inference that the exotic Muslims cannot be, and are not, simply part of the Hackney-teriat project, (prop,. D. Osler), but their space must be mediated. Your clock is really striking thirteen and the chirping cuckoo is crapping on the carpet.

And look, here comes little Modernity and Winston Smith (sic), joined at the hip. They always arrive just in time on "Muslim Days" like the Lone Ranger and Tonto (or the British Army), silver guns blazing, pre-prepared Decent-onian rhetoric spewing. Ever seen ‘em together? NO? It’s positively Orwellian.

"What about organisations like Southall Black Sisters that have asked for support, such as when they risked losing their funding, and some on the left seemed pretty silent ?"
How precisely is this silence measured? I ask because an alleged "shameful silence of the left" is a constant theme of Tatchellites and I would like to know the metrics by which this silence is assessed.

"I've found ti very amusing by the way, how everyone is bending over backwards to say that the Major who killed 13 people at Fort Hood was just having a bad day"
Could be they are worried about the danger of anti-Muslim pogroms in an atmosphere of hysteria, Sue. Not something that would worry you, of course.

What amuses me about the plight of far leftists like Dave is that two of their most cherished shibboleths, unrestricted mass immigration and "gay rights" come into conflict and they can't handle it. While the Tebbits of this world are derided for their "cricket test", the left has no compunction in subjecting communities of immigrant origin to the "gay test" in order to test their loyalty to the liberal consensus.

Pharisee

Well one measure, not scientific of course, would be Left groups going on their pickets, writing about it in their papers and websites. Facebook campaigns, blog publicity.

I'm not saying all on the left were silent, but I sense some uncomfortableness around groups like SBS or WAF, who are critical of the impact of religious fundamentalism on women and LGBT groups. And when I say religion , I mean ALL religions.

Out of curiosity, what do you think the left should do re the conflict you highlight?

Is it not possible to support LGBT people and women who do not want to follow, or follow in the way their familes might expect, religious codes ?

This applies to all religions by the way. I think religion generally is reactionary when it comes to women and LGBT. On my blog I criticise Catholic teaching re abortion rights for example. I know of gay male friends who were ostracized by their catholic families. This is a wider issue than Islam, its just no one seems to mind if I highlight the Catholic Church and homophobia.

I am critical of the state attacks on Muslims , I am not in favour of an attack by the West (or anyone else) on Iran. That does not stop me lending support to women who go to groups for support around honour violence. In the same way I highlight on my blog the way women in the west face domestic violence, judgements about their clothes re rape etc etc.

You've gotta love Eddie Truman for his 'due consideration' and carefully 'documented evidence' of Peter Tatchell's alleged 'Islamophobia.'

Unfortunately for the fast Eddie the evidence adduced woundn't convince a four year old. It's a farcical series of non sequiturs and false syllogisms, that often don't get past the level of:

"BNP members eat food; Peter Tatchell seen eating food, ergo, Tatchell is a fascist."

It's farcical rubbish that doesn't even rise to the level of McCarthyism. It tells us nothing about Peter Tatchell, but speaks volumes on the moral and intellectual universe inhabited by Truman and his mates.

I too confess an interest in gay politics, having been told many times, years, many years ago, that it was a bourgeois deviation from "real" socialism, and everything would be sorted out after the revolution.

Which, all in all was a poor deflection, then as now it failed to address the issue and it doesn't much work nowadays, even if the word socialism is swapped out for "anti-imperialism"

As for the treatment of Gays in Iran, there are many links, it would serve socialists well if they educated themselves on these matter as they are only a click away with the mouse and there is no real excuse for such profound ignorance of the topic.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/10/shocking_new_ph.html

and http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/09/theyll_kill_me_.html

"Out of curiosity, what do you think the left should do re the conflict you highlight?"
Well I am not really a leftist, so it is not really my dilemma. It does seem odd to spend half your time agitating for mass immigration, and the other half denouncing the cultural backwardness of the people you have actively encouraged to come here. And incidentally citing the fact that you also rail against Catholicism does not absolve you, since Catholics are also outsiders in British society and the product of mass immigration. It does strike me that none of the legislation that has actively discriminated against gays over the past century or so has originated due to pressure from the Catholic church, or for that matter from Muslims - it has been the product of white Anglo Saxon Protestant morality. So perhaps you should choose your targets more carefully.

Poor old Richard Harris, his imagination must be teeming with 'Muslim days' the horrors of orientalism, rhinestone cowboys, colonial armies wielding defecating cuckoo clocks, mediated spaces, contextualised narratives, contested discourses, intertextuality and Decent-Oxonian cluster bombers reaching for his virtue.

It's your trip me old son and you enjoy it. It's just all a bit 80's retro, anglo-centric, SWP - Swindon Polytechnic-teriat (prop,.Dickie Harris) focused to be of much use to the rest of.

Anon, There have been thousands of convictions without four independant witnesses in Iran. It is worrying that you think the judiciary in Iran sticks to the letter of law, torture is banned under the constitution yet it is happening to tens of students who have been arrested this week as I write this comment. Just because it is written in the constitution does not mean it is enacted. The right to assembly (without arms) is also in the constitution, the Islamic Republic is clearly sticking to the constitution isn't it. Idiot.

Another case that received good coverage by sections of the Left and anti-deportation campaigns was that of Pegah Emambakhsh a lesbian from Iran whose lover was arrested, tortured and stoned to death. This was because of her relationship with Pegah. Idiots like anon, and Paddy Garcia are happy to ignore what is actually happening by hiding behind the Iranian constitution or CIA conspiracy theories. Such people need to be ran out of our movement. Maybe the British state could deport these morons instead of our comrades to Iran so they can see what LGBT people are facing.

Just calling someone an idiot or a moron, Chris S, is no substitute for rational thought - an ability you evidently lack.

You were the one who selectively quoted the Iranian law on homosexuality in order to claim that there is a legal basis for the execution of gay men. My point was that there is no legal basis, so the authorities have to ignore the law in order to secure convictions.

Paddy Garcia may deny that gay men are executed in Iran, but that's not what I'm arguing at all.

Idiot. Moron.

Pharisee: If I rmember aright, 'pharisee' is the Biblical term for 'Farsi' which was the contemporary name for Iran therefore 'Pharisee' equals 'Iranian'. If also remember aright, Jesus was rather down on the Pharisees in the Bible, reckoning they were pompous, gospel twisters, although, to be fair, I have read that that is an unfair assessment of the Pharisees. You're wrong about the Catholic Church. The original Church in these lands was the Roman Catholic, until the Crown snatched their wealth and lads. By Islamic logic, the true religion should still be Catholicism and it is not therefore, alien to our shores. Are you really saying that homosexuality is NOT illegal in Muslim or Catholic countries? In Muslim countries surely the temporal law rests upon sharia law in which same sex hanky-panky is definitely out of order. I believe that homosexuality is 'tolerated' in Muslim societies as long as you are the active party and not the recipient. But even so, one could not build a life and home on it, it must still be subservient to the main business of life. As for Catholic countries, given so many of them have a cult of machismo, I can't see them easily allowing that sort of thing. I remember Johng once writing a long article on one of the socialist sites about how homosexuality was perfectly acceptable in India until the Brits loused it up with tehir Christian morality. No doubt it was practiced, whenever there is restricted access to women men will relieve their tensions in other ways, but that is not the same as Gay Liberation, which is about democratic freedom to express one's sexuality however one wants to.

Execution of anybody for gay sex is abominable. And of course any form of discrimination against anyone for same sex preferences is to be fought against and,of course, this fight was first taken up by communists.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if men do die in Iran for their gay sexuality, sometimes at the hands of the state; men are also occasionally beaten to death my mobs in Britain for the same thing.

But there is a tremendous amount of naivety being expressed here by the dupes of imperialism who swallow anything they read in the Guardian about Iran.

Let’s look at the numbers. The population of Iran is 74M. So sexually active males = 25M (probably more)?

How many take part in gay sex (and as opposed to other forms of sexual activity between men)? Can only guess but will be very conservative indeed – say 2%, which would mean 500,000 men have had gay sex in the last year in Iran.

Now let’s say it is very unlikely you will get caught, and if so get the death sentence, let’s say only 1% of those 500,000 men do. 1% of 500,000 = 5,000.

Which means each week, 100 men would be executed in Iran for gay sex. So where are the bodies; the news reports? Where the photos of this number of men hanging from the cranes?

And Iran prides itself on being an Islamic state. It doesn’t apologise, for example, in executing drug dealers but boasts that it is carrying out God’s will. So surely it will also do the same if it kills men for having gay sex. Where are the Iranian official (not exile, etc) sources reporting like ‘Praise be to Allah, we hung 10 sodomites yesterday for their sins?’??

So how many do die in Iran. Let's use the Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/31/iran.international

"Around 300 executions were carried out last year (2007), compared with less than 200 the previous year.

Sixty men convicted of a range of capital offences, including murder, rape and drug trafficking have been hanged from cranes in public since last July, in scenes usually witnessed by large crowds. Several executions have been screened on state television, including one on Monday of two men convicted of raping and murdering several women in the central city of Arak. Armed robbery, apostasy, drug trafficking and homosexuality are also punishable by death in the Islamic republic."

So where are the bodies - whether the executioners follow the law or get round it - of these men being executed for having gay sex in Iran?

I don't know why but I am reminded of a sadly not untypical woman I met in the US with no knowledge of the world beyond her horizon and a childish way of extrapolating the worst.

She said to me she was never going to visit Britain and I asked her why? Because you eat squirrels there, she replied and I called her an idiot. Annoyed, she got a clipping that did appear to faithfully report that some pub in Shropshire had once served squirrel stew. And so, to her mind the yeomen of olde England supped mead and dined on squirrels and foxes before a spot of Morris dancing.

She would have benefited greatly from a trip outside the USA.

Some of you will never be Lefts but you would benefit greatly by at least thinking critically.

Does Peter Tatchell still want to fuck children up the arse?

http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/consent%20at%2014.htm

Southpawpunch you ask:

"So where are the bodies - whether the executioners follow the law or get round it - of these men being executed for having gay sex in Iran?"

Now if you had applied those much valued critical thinking skills and taken the trouble to read the links that I provided, then you might be all the wiser.

Above you will see two young blokes being hung from a crane.

Also, if you bothered to read Doug Ireland's site you would see:

"Amir is a 22-year-old gay Iranian who was arrested by Iran’s morality police as part of a massive Internet entrapment campaign targeting gays. He was beaten and tortured while in custody, threatened with death, and lashed 100 times (see photos). He escaped from Iran in August, and is now in Turkey, where he awaits the granting of asylum by a gay-friendly country.

In a two hour telephone interview from Turkey, Amir -- through a translator -- provided a terrifying, first-hand account of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s intense and extensive anti-gay crackdown, which swept up Amir and made him its victim."

Applying that critical thinking in this case just means being able to use Google, or click on a few links, all rather easy :)

Southpaw: "So where are the bodies - whether the executioners follow the law or get round it - of these men being executed for having gay sex in Iran?"

Southpaw: as these executions never happened, I feel no qualms in sincerely wishing you an identical fate.

"Are you really saying that homosexuality is NOT illegal in Muslim or Catholic countries?"
Catholic countries, for sure - it has been legal in Italy and Spain since the 19th century and I am pretty sure that would be the same in most other Catholic countries. Most Catholics I know are not particularly hung up about the issue, you may be surprised to learn.
There are a vast number of Muslim countries and most don't have Sharia law so the situation would vary - I am only familiar with north Africa and many people there have a fairly relaxed attitude to sexuality in general. Indeed you may recall that Morocco was once regarded as something of a paradise for British gays when homosexuality was illegal here.
But my point was in relation to British anti-gay legislation, which has not been impelled by Catholics or Muslims.

I don't see what's wrong with denigrating Islam if you're prepared to defend Muslims both here and internationally against Islamophobia. After all, at least the Jewish and Christian Gods had the sense of dictate their musings to someone who could read and write.

@Modernity and Denham.

The answer is in the numbers. If men are executed for having gay sex then, as I demonstrate, at least thousands would be killed. Where are the official Iranian media reports on this; they would have no wish or need to cover it up?

And I haven't said men haven't been executed for this, I am asking whether they have and what is likely? You will be aware that it is said that those men were executed for gay rape and/or paedophilia and it also said that is a lie and they were indeed executed for consensual adult gay sex. I have no idea which is true and I'm sure you don't either.

Anyone can say anything on a blog or other websites - Martians have landed in Basingstoke - it doesn't make it necessarily true.

Remember Laura Bush and other women behind the campaign called something like 'Women for Women of Afghanistan - supporting the occupation for the right of women; and the regime that passed the right of men to rape their wives into law.

Think critically. Don't be a dupe all your life.

Everyone is bending over backwards to say that the Major who killed 13 people at Fort Hood was just having a bad day.
I thought they said that he's stable. More seriously, if he were not a Muslim, would people still be looking primarily for a religious explanation for his behaviour, rather than thinking that it is the war and the prospect of being sent there that drove him to it?
I do think there's some truth in what you've said to Lenin about the genesis of the cartoon dispute, though perhaps he's right about how offensive they are.

SPP you wrote:

" If men are executed for having gay sex then, as I demonstrate, at least thousands would be killed. "

You have demonstrated nothing other than a wish to explain away the facts.

You have employed literalistic nitpicking and not engaged with the overall thrust of the argument.

The argument is not "that the state of Iran kills every gay person in Iran, every day without exception"

Rather that Gays are killed in Iran.

Again, that does not mean that Gays can't exist or live in Iran rather that they are persecuted, jailed and occasionally killed, for various reasons.

btw, have you even troubled to look at *any* of the links?

I would recommend looking at the Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees' news page

http://www.irqr.net/irqr-news.htm

Slackjawlunch couldn't demonstrate a proposition if it bit him in the arse and handed him a short course in logical analysis.

It takes about two seconds to check out the latest Amnesty reports on Iran. It's not a very pretty picture, but none of the criticism offered has anything do with advocacy of imperialism.

I think most people (Southpaw excluded) are able to hold at least a couple of ideas in their mind at the same time, and can support dissidence in Iran without supporting US intervention.

Stick to the numbers, Modernity and Smith. Anyone with access to a calculator can see your case is complete flim-flam.

I made no claim whatsoever that "that the state of Iran kills every gay person in Iran, every day without exception". I stated that even if as few as 2% of the male population had gay sex; the killing of just 1% of that group (not every gay person!) would mean the killing of thousands each year.

I think my estimate of men having gay sex in Iran - 500,000 i.e. 2% of all sexually active men is actually very conservative. And how many do you claim are executed for this each year - the Guardian claimed 300 for all crimes. Maybe 50 for gay sex?? (but maybe a lot less or even not at all) so even on this figure - 50 - you have a between a 0% and 0.1% chance of being executed for having gay sex in Iran; probably the numbers are similar for being killed for having gay sex in Britain.

Am sure there are miscarriages of Justice in Iran, are they not any here and in the USA where the poor and opprssed get banged up for life and get executed by barbaric means?
For the record I oppose the death penalty and condemn any state who carries it out, whether its Iran, Saudi Arabia, China and possibly the most barbaric of all, the USA.
Also for the record I am a no borders man and do not support immigration controls, so do not advocate the deportation of anybody.
As far as homophobia, why don't you who demonise Iran on this, look closer to home? We have recently had to vicious homophobic attacks in public one of which resulted in the victims death, in do the cases the perpetrators where drunken white young men and women, not Muslims nor Iranians. I very much doubt that this kind of violence is as common in Iran. It is decadent western society that is the main problem not necessarily Islamic ones.

Nah, SPP, let's stick to the evidence.

That is what critical thinking is about.

The method that you are employing, is to reach a conclusion and then dismissed any evidence that doesn't suit your predetermined view.

That is fundamentally irrational, I should add that it is fairly common, but it has little to do this critical thinking.

What you need to do is look at the evidence and then draw a preliminary conclusion.

Again, have you looked at the links?

These people who deny that youths have been executed in Iran for boing gay:

1/ *either* these denyers are a bitn thick and posssibly come under the DDA (I think Paddfia Garcia might qualify)...
OR...

2/ They're just plain evil fascists, who must be fought and destroyed (eg: Southpaw)

Denham

There is only one road to revolution in Britain.The one that goes directly through your bloated and decaying corpse.

That's strange Backdoormunch, I thought the only path to 'revolution' was the one that involved endlessly selling crap papers, lobbying the TUC and Labour Party leadership, and passing endless resolutions at meaningless conferences. Oh, and listening to Tony Benn at Trafalger square.

Shit, things must really have changed in the SWP/Respectoid universe recently!

Is Mr Punch telling us that if he lived in Iran, he would inform on homosexuals to the authorities?

Not before calling George Galloway.

Now considering that David argued a few months back argued that the struggle for LGBT rights is over, I find David’s sudden concern a tad suspicious. Indeed what I find most interesting about David contribution is that he forgets to mention that the whole hoo-hah stems from Peter Tatchell blocking of the distribution of a book called ‘Out of Place’ there by censoring of three Muslim lesbians that had the audacity to criticise him. (There we are freedom of speech is ok for Danish male cartoonist but not for British women).

However to move the debate along perhaps David or any other apologist for Tatchell would care to address my concerns with remarks he said at lecture at Gallery of Modern Art, in Glasgow last month. Peter Tatchell said: “All peoples possess a culture, but this does not mean all cultures are equally valid and commendable. Some values and ideas are better than others. The Enlightenment was better than the Dark Ages. Freedom is better than slavery. Democracy is better than fascism. Scientific knowledge is better than superstition.” I would be grateful if Peter Tatchell would explain what he means by this.

Is he really suggesting that concepts such as the Enlightenment, Democracy or Science are the preserve of some cultures and not others? And what about cultures that has a history of both good things and bad – such as our own (fascism is a very, very European phenomena). And if some cultures are all bad, what should be done with them? And by whom?

If some was to write or say: “All peoples possess an ethnicity, but this does not mean all races are equally valid and commendable. Some values and ideas are better than others. The Enlightenment was better than the Dark Ages. Freedom is better than slavery. Democracy is better than fascism. Scientific knowledge is better than superstition.” They would be called a racist. Does changing ethnicity for culture really change the central thrust? And if so how?

Nah, Richard. Think it through. I'd say, for instance, that the political culture of New Zealand in the 1930s & 40 was superior to Nazi Germany because it was eg democratic rather than fascist and humane rather than genocidal. You can say that without casting any racial aspersions y'know. You can similarly compare cultures in specific instances over geography as well as over time.

Though of course for all I know you may not think that:-

The Enlightenment was better than the Dark Ages. Freedom is better than slavery. Democracy is better than fascism. Scientific knowledge is better than superstition.

Chief of defence staff has just claimed on the Andrew Marr show that we are not there to help the Afghans but purely for our ‘national interests’. So no thought out long term plan that even a neo liberal could hang on! What a shock!

So support the Afghan resistance!

Karzai has recently talked of sitting down with his Taliban brothers.

Which isn’t that surpising considering his history,

“Karzai was involved in helping to provide financial and military support for the Mujahideen during the 1980s Soviet war in Afghanistan. The Mujahideen were secretly supplied and funded by the United States, and Karzai was a contact for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency at the time”

Care to comment professional pro imperialists.

Looking through this thread, it seems very clear that those who consider themselves to be "anti-imperialist" or somehow knowledgeable on Islam, should read more Trotsky.

I would imagine that Eddie Truman, Bob Pitt and even some SWPers have managed to read the occasional piece on Trotsky.

If that is so, I would refer them to Trotsky's work on the rise of fascism in Germany and what mistakes the Left made.

Uppermost of those mistakes was the German Communists' (KPD) aggressive attitude towards the social Democrats (SPD).

The official Comintern policy of the third period, meant that KPDers would abuse SPDers and called them "social fascists".

Now I hope anyone with an interest in politics can see the parallels, in calling SPDers "social fascists" the KPD was making the point that there was no effective difference between the Social Democrat and a Nazi, they were, rather crudely put, much of a muchness in the mind of the third period KPDer.

Trotsky highlighted this major error, which effectively split the Left in Germany and allowed the rise of the Nazis.

Trotsky's overall point is as valid today as it was in the 1930s.

But instead of calling people "social fascists", and completely alienating them what happens today is people (socialists, Greens, Lefties, etc) are abused by being called "Islamophobe", with much similar results.

I realise that many readers will not have read Trotsky, and in their desire to be "anti-imperialists" they might feel that they should highlight all and anything untoward that they see, but the consequence of their actions is to alienate themselves from the wider political community that should be their home, and in the process limiting their effectiveness, because if you abuse people, call them "Islamophobe" or "racist" then they will effectively switch off to whatever you say.

Again, short version, calling people "Islamophobe" or "racist" is the most effective way to isolate yourself and piss people off, comrades who should be your natural allies.

The puzzled "anti-imperialist" reader might ask why is this a problem, well, if you can't differentiate between the green lefty (Peter Tatchell), a libertarian socialist-Marxist (Dave Osler) and the hard core BNPer, then probably you will make the same mistake that the KPD did and allow the fascists (the BNP) to gain ground.

It would be far better if "anti-imperialists" and their allies got out of the sectarian habits which have dogged the British Left for 40 years, try to read a bit of history, think about what it tells us and re-think their disastrous approach to others. I think it is perfectly possible to disagree with Peter Tatchell and Dave Osler, politically on these issues, but it should be done in a comradely fashion and not become a shouting match.

Again, these mistakes had been made before and if you truly wish to oppose the BNP in Britain, then you should take a slightly different approach, less confrontational, less in your face and less self righteous. That's been done before, and it failed.

Southpaw: "Denham

There is only one road to revolution in Britain.The one that goes directly through your bloated and decaying corpse.

Posted by Southpawpunch | 18:03, 7 November 2009 "

As my commitment to anti fascism demands, I'll say: try it you fascist scum. I'll glady deal with you.

I don't think there's anyone else who combines pomposity and ignorance in quite the same way that modernityblog does.

It was never Trotsky's view that either the communists or the social democrats should abandon an "aggressive attitude" towards one another and refrain from sharp criticisms of each other's policies. He argued that ideological differences should be debated openly and forcefully but should not be used as an excuse to avoid united action against the fascists on the practical level.

To take an example, at one point in the 1920s the KPD did undoubtedly make concessions to Nazi antisemitism. They were severely criticised by the SPD for doing so. Does modernityblog think that the SPD should have kept quiet about that, or perhaps toned down their criticisms of the KPD, in the interests of anti-fascist unity?

One obstacle to a united campaign against fasscism today is the concessions that sections of the left make to anti-Muslim bigotry.

However, I'm certainly prepared to have an alliance with people like that against the BNP, even though they have a crap position on Islam - just as I'm ready to ally against fascism with Iqbal Sacranie even though he has a crap position on homosexuality or participate in an antiwar alliance with Bruce Kent even though he has a crap position on abortion.

It's the leftist Islamophobes who adopt a sectarian position and refuse to form alliances with mainstream anti-fascists because of differences on other issues. So Tatchell refuses to cooperate with UAF because he rejects their alliance with Muslims who think homosexuality is a sin, even though Muslims are currently the main victims of fascist propaganda.

Tatchell is only prepared to participate in an anti-fascist alliance with Muslims who have a progressive view on homosexuality. On the other hand, he was quite happy to form an alliance with hard-right racists to demonstrate in support of the Jyllands-Posten anti-Muslim cartoons.

'It's a tactical minefield. So I imagine that we could be in the position of defending a mosque against fascist hooligans one day, then having a picket outside the same mosque in defence of gay or women's rights on another.'

I think we will be waiting till hell freezes over, too many apologists on the far left with a cod 'third worldism' and a mixture of naivety and cynical political expediency.

The assumption that people disagree with you because they are racist, or because they are deliberately arguing in bad faith is a rather typical ultra leftist ploy, as Bob demonstrates.

This tactic is typically use to avoid engaging with the arguments being put forward,

Contrary to Bob's assertion, accusing people of being a "racist" or an Islamophobe doesn't actually bring about the United Front, quite the opposite it just pisses people off, as Dave remarked:

"TO DESCRIBE someone as an ‘Islamophobe’ is effectively to brand them an ugly and virulent racist, which is no small accusation for one leftist to throw at another."

Trotsky didn't reject the term "social fascist" because it offended social democrats. He opposed it because the theory of social fascism led the communists to reject an anti-fascist alliance with the social democrats on the grounds that the latter were just the left wing of the fascist movement.

Trotsky never argued that the United Front required that the KPD should refrain from pointing out that the SPD's policies opened the door to fascism.

Similarly, a common front against the BNP doesn't require that we should remain silent about the way in which a section of the left, by making concessions to Islamophobia, contributes to the general atmosphere of anti-Muslim bigotry in which the BNP thrives.

As Richard Seymour notes above, Islamophobia Watch has criticised Dave on one occasion, for a post in which he equated Islam with terrorism, failed to distinguish between violent and non-violent trends in political Islam and accused the left of forming a bloc with Al-Qaeda.

Our point was not that Dave was "an ugly and virulent racist" but rather that he was echoing and endorsing the arguments of the worst sort of right-wing Islamophobes.

In any case, the idea of modernityblog lecturing anyone about falsely accusing their opponents of racism is laughable, given his own record of flinging around baseless accusations of antisemitism.

If I understand SPP's argument it is among the most bizarre I have ever encountered. You could use the same logic to show pretty much no oppression existed anywhere at any time short of massacres by the state.

"In any case, the idea of modernityblog lecturing anyone about falsely accusing their opponents of racism is laughable, given his own record of flinging around baseless accusations of antisemitism."

Bob,

I wondered when we get to that, not that you can provide any significant evidence to substantiate that stupid comment.

Not that you would be constrained by evidential reasoning or the necessity to back up your ridiculous comments.

Bob, I have never accuse you of being an antisemite nor would I, as clearly you are not.

As far as I can remember, I have never accused you or your political associates of being antisemite, that would be clearly ridiculous.

I have however pointed out when people use anti-Jewish racism, most inadvertently and mostly because they can't think about the issues.

But please do provide readers with evidence to back up your rather predictable mudslinging.

Ed,

Then clearly you don't understand it as it does no such thing.

It attempts to put oppressions into proportion. Gay men suffer oppression in Iran. That oppression is worse than in, for example, the UK; the state won't kill you for gay sex in Britain but death is on the statue book in Iran for such.

But what happens in practice? In Aceh, Indonesia the legal penalty for adultery is stoning. No-one has been stoned there. How many gay men are executed for having gay sex in Iran - guesses range from none to a small proportion of annual executions.

My analysis shows the lie to those who would argue that these executions are the punishment or common punishment or anything other than either a non-existent or incredibly extremely rare (I took 2% as a very conservative guess on who has gay male sex, if the figure was say 10%, then there would be between a 0% and 0.02% chance of execution for having gay male sex in Iran - although the fear etc that just a potential penalty would cause should also be considered).

Which makes you wonder about how big are the dupes, like you, on other matters?

As Islamaphobia is just a made up name and no condition exists I can only guess that it was probably made up by some looney leftie or religious nutter. Maybe both are the same!

Bob,

I doubt you will return and contribute meaningfully, so I’ll try to finish with two broad points, the problem of shouting “Islamophobe” and dealing with anti-Muslim bigotry.

1. I think if you want to see the discord brought about by unjustified accusations of “Islamophobia”, then you only have to read the recent thread at Socialist Unity blog*** and the problems raised by previous entries, which relate to attacks on Peter Tatchell.

If you take the trouble to read those threads then you will see that Derek Wall and the Green Lefts were justifiably annoyed about accusations of Islamophobia.

Contrary to all the above assertions by Bob Pitt, rather than improve relations they have actually worsened the situation between socialists, Greens and posters at SU blog, etc

And surely that should be obvious to anyone capable of reasoning, or maintaining relationships?

If you go up to your partner and accused them of something that they don’t feel guilty of, then they will often be extremely indignant. If you continue to do that, without a valid reason and on spurious evidence, then the relationship will falter and probably fail. That particular approach doesn’t work either in life or politics.

The finger jabbing school of politics as so amplified by the Workers Revolutionary Party and Gerry Healy demonstrated that in-your-face accusations only increased tension between people and make it less likely that they will find common ground. The threads on SU blog are an example of that.

Finally, if it wasn’t clear by now that such accusations of Islamophobia are offensive, then why would Dave Osler indicate such in his opening paragraph of this post? I would assume that Dave Osler (and he can correct us) is still a bit annoyed, so if Islamophobia Watch’s approach was meant to win him over, then it hasn’t succeeded, has it?

Maybe it’s time for Islamophobia Watch to reconsider their tactics?

2. Dealing with anti-Muslim bigotry.

As many other people have pointed out elsewhere, putting out bogus accusations of Islamophobia do not assist the fight against anti-Muslim bigotry.

Quite the opposite.

So if you are sincere in opposing anti-Muslim bigotry (and other forms of racism) then the first step is to carefully choose your words.

The second step is to differentiate between rabid right-wingers and Daily Mail types, and those who feel they have a legitimate concern, a legitimate criticism (now you might not agree with that criticism but you would have to acknowledge that other people are allowed to think other things and see the world from their own prospective, from their experiences.)

Thirdly, avoid using the complaint of Islamophobia too often, when you mean something else, such as xenophobia, etc

Fourthly, don’t shout “Islamophobia” as a political battering ram against your perceived political opponents.

Finally, make an effort to read up on struggles against sexism and racism, there are many lessons to be learnt from those historical successes and failures, and they can apply when dealing with anti-Muslim bigotry.

-----

*** I thought that these threads were a very good attempt by Andy Newman to look at the issues, however by the nature of the topic that’s not how it turned out. http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4868

What a pompous git modernityblog is.

Nobody at Socialist Unity accused Derek Wall or the Green Left of being Islamophobes.

If anything obstructs political discussion, it's people shouting that they're the victim of "smears" in order to avoid addressing legitimate political criticisms. That's what Derek Wall was guilty of.

There really is no point debating modernityblog.

Very Interesting, but stupid, Mr Punch. You argue that the absence of gays swinging from canes in Iran, is proof that it is not an anti-gay regime. I asked you whether you would be prepared to inform on a homosexual, and you did not answer the question. If someone had asked me that I would have issued a furious refutation and be extremely upset that anyone could think that of me, but maybe that's just me. Did you ignore my question because I am female? Are you forbidden from conversing with unrelated females, perhaps? Or maybe, you are just superior. Isn't the whole purpose of law and punishment and religious policing to enforce social order? Perhaps people in Aceh don't commit adultery because they know they will be stoned. No doubt prostitues are easily available there anyway, due to the underdeveloped economy.

Bob you write:

Nobody at Socialist Unity accused Derek Wall or the Green Left of being Islamophobes."

NO??? If you think that isn't the case, then why does Derek Wall state the contrary ?

"Andy you smeared me as an Islamphobe as a member of Green Left which you described as Islamaphobic.

Frankly as I have a life and am finishing a book manuscript I find it difficult to keep up with what you may or may not be saying about me.

My impression is for reasons you alone know you want to undermine the progress made by Green Left in encouraging the Green Party not to stand against Salma Yaqoob.

Comment by Derek Wall — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:09 pm">

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4866

Bob, Please do try and keep up :)

Let me say in one more time:

If anything obstructs political discussion, it's people shouting that they're the victim of "smears" in order to avoid addressing legitimate political criticisms. That's what Derek Wall was guilty of.

Bob,

It should be perfectly plain to readers by now that you are neither sincere or honest in your approach, an example of this problem is your post just now.

You state clearly and without equivocation:

"Nobody at Socialist Unity accused Derek Wall or the Green Left of being Islamophobes."

I then produced Derek Wall's own words, which contradict your assertion:

"Andy you smeared me as an Islamphobe as a member of Green Left which you described as Islamaphobic.
..
Comment by Derek Wall — 9 November, 2009 @ 9:09 pm"

Yet Bob, you lack the basic character to either admit that you are wrong, or that you might have misread it.

But I suspect that's your approach to other things as well, 'you're right everyone else is wrong' even when the facts don't bear out your side of the argument, you'll simply ignore facts and carry on regardless.

In politics, where you need to persuade others of your case, that isn't a particularly smart tactic or approach and it achieves very little in the long run.

"Nobody at Socialist Unity accused Derek Wall or the Green Left of being Islamophobes."

I then produced Derek Wall's own words, which contradict your assertion:

If somebody accused, provide the accusation.

Morality (re Bob):

"You state clearly and without equivocation:

"Nobody at Socialist Unity accused Derek Wall or the Green Left of being Islamophobes."

I then produced Derek Wall's own words, which contradict your assertion:

"Andy you smeared me as an Islamphobe as a member of Green Left which you described as Islamaphobic."

OK Morality, Bob denies making accusations of Islamophobia against Derek Wall. To 'prove' that accusation wrong you cite Derek's claim to have been smeared as such.

I'm sure you can see your faulty line of reasoning, can't you, Morality?

Motes and beams, Morality, motes and beams.

It is a pity that those with the Internet and the opportunity to read Socialist Unity threads don't draw their own conclusions from the points I've made above.

The essential point that I am making, is that the accusation of "Islamophobia" doesn't have to be proven, merely stated.

It is that accusation that is the problem.

It is the perception by the other person of being called a "racist", directly or indirectly that is the issue.

It is people's perception of how others relate to them, as in politics not everything is stated starkly, many things are inferred, many things are deduced and sometimes people even get the wrong end of the stick, but if you keep shouting "Islamophobe" at the likes of Dave Osler or Peter Tachell, etc you make the situation much worse and people that should be your natural allies won't want to be, you'll just piss people off.

If that wasn't too clear I apologise but I'd suggest reading my comment of 19:16, 10 November 2009 once more.

Again, shorter version, if you attack people, by whatever method, directly, indirectly, etc with unjustified accusations, as they perceive it, then your relationship with those people will more likely deteriorate, a consequence is that the Left will become more and more isolated, more and more fragmented, more useless and less able to counter the rise of the BNP.

Yeah, Morality, I've often been called an anti-Semite, or insufficiently attuned to rising anti-Semitism.

It's a dog, isn't it?

Not to mention, a bit cheeky for someone who's been blowing smoke over Jim Denham's Hibernophobia. But I suppose we can expect little better from someone whose views on Israel/Palestine are identical to those of Nick Griffin.

Just one more time.

Nobody at Socialist Unity has accused Derek Wall of being an Islamophobe or Green Left of being Islamophobic.

If they had, then modernityblog would be able to produce a quotation or two to back up his claim. But he can't.

What a total plonker.

Again, Derek Wall ***thinks*** he was accused of "Islamophobia", he stated it so.

As a result he was very annoyed, which is what happens in such cases. It splits people, it divides them, etc.

[PS: Bob, you are perfectly capable of searching SU blog and doing your own research, so go ahead and do it, and even *if* I took the trouble to provide reams on this topic you'd ignore them, that's your way, you are contemptuous of others and can't debate these issues honestly, and that's why you shouldn't be taken too seriously.]

Advice from Modernity to Bob,

"PS: Bob, you are perfectly capable of searching SU blog and doing your own research"

But his advice to me on the Chris Harman thread was,

“My point, if it wasn't blindingly clear, is that if you're going to make an accusation you should provide evidence to back it up, that's the rational way to do things.”.......
“Incidentally, you should read my comments again, *my* advice is that *you* provide evidence, not that others search it out….. Failure to do so suggests bullshitting.”

As I said right back at the beginning of this thread we should be very wary of people like Denham and his idiot ventriloquist dummy, Modernity.

Johnno,

I don’t want to engage with you on this matter too much as you've problems understanding what I’ve written before, but I’ll make a few final comments.

I tried as best I could, to use argument and reason to make the point that shouting “Islamophobia” at Dave Osler and Peter Tatchell was a very bad idea, not only because it is false, but it means that unnecessary political strife increases on the Left in Britain.

I think that is a bad idea.

I think the rise of the BNP necessitates a rethinking of how we deal with them, and one part of that is to ensure the degree of intellectual unity on the Left, or at least some form of pluralism.

Now I suspect you won’t understand what unity means in the real world, as your contributions here indicate that you have a problem dealing with argumentation and reason, but what it means is avoiding unnecessary disputes, accepting that other people justifiably have their own opinions and perspectives, and that the defeat of the BNP should be the primary goal.

That’s my view.

So I think attacking Peter Tatchell and Dave Osler is wrong on so many levels, and I am astonished none of those points sink home, but there is a lot of student/ex-student (petty Trot) politics about, which dominates a part of the Left in Britain, and they and you are very set in your ways, rather conservative in your thinking, unwilling to engage in thought and argumentation, you prefer abuse.

That is not the traditional way socialists handle disputes, argumentation is.

Sadly, ultraleftists and political cranks aren’t really interested in argumentation, which is why they fragment the Left and make things worse, the above thread is an example of that disastrous approach.

The problem, Johnno, is that you and others can’t detach yourself from the crowd long enough to see what difficulties that ultraleftism and false insinuations of “Islamophobia” have created, and how they weaken the Left.

Morality,

Do you think accusations of stupidity, inability to read, being middle-class,failure to understand racism etc etc have a tendency to muddy the waters?

Motes and beams.