Gun Dyke
2005-10-07 18:00:56 UTC
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=LvHYIym1ilaKbB1FHudIjm%3D%3D
HOW AMERICA'S GAY RIGHTS ESTABLISHMENT IS FAILING GAY IRANIANS.
The Quiet Americans
by Rob Anderson
In late July, news surfaced that Iran had executed two gay
teenagers--ostensibly for sexual assault, but most likely for
the crime of being gay. As pictures of their executions spread
around the Internet, American gay and lesbian activists
responded swiftly: The president of the Human Rights Campaign,
the country's largest gay and lesbian political organization,
sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice urging her to take action; the
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the
gay and lesbian division of Human Rights Watch both issued
statements on their websites; news outlets like The Washington
Blade and Gay City News uncharacteristically led their coverage
with an international story; and gay journalists like Doug
Ireland and TNR senior editor Andrew Sullivan--who sit on
opposite ends of the political spectrum--publicized the news on
their blogs.
For the most part, however, interest was short lived. Last
month, when Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came
to New York to visit the United Nations, he was greeted by
thousands of Iranian protesters from the United States and
overseas. America's gay and lesbian activists did not join in.
Ireland, who has tirelessly reported abuses against gays and
lesbians in Iran, was livid; he wrote that the failure of gay
activists to protest Ahmadinejad represented the "the death of
gay activism."
But Ireland was only half right. When it comes to the oppression
of gays and lesbians in Muslim countries, gay activism hasn't
died; it never really existed. Gay activists have used two types
of excuses to justify their failure to aggressively mobilize for
the rights of gay Muslims--moral and strategic. The moral
argument is that Americans are in no position to criticize
Iranians on human rights--that it would be wrong to campaign too
loudly against Iranian abuses when the United States has so many
problems of its own. Then, there are two strategic rationales:
that it is better to work behind the scenes to bring about
change in Iran; and that gay rights groups should conserve their
resources for domestic battles.
The strategic rationales are not especially compelling, but it
is the moral argument that is particularly troubling, because it
suggests that some gay and lesbian leaders feel more allegiance
to the relativism of the contemporary left than they do to the
universality of their own cause. Activists are more than willing
to condemn the homophobic leaders of the Christian right for
campaigning against gay marriage; but they are weary of
condemning Islamist regimes that execute citizens for being gay.
Something has gone terribly awry.
Take the moral rationale first. Matt Foreman, executive director
of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), told me that
when George W. Bush was a governor, "there wasn't a peep about
the execution of juveniles in Texas. ... Let's not have double
standards because it's a different part of the world." Foreman,
who worked within the U.S. prison system for ten years, says
that the United States still engages in "barbaric behavior" at
home. "If we think that psychological torture and physical
torture and rape and inhumane conditions are not part of our own
criminal justice system, than people don't have a clue about the
reality of our nation, let alone the conditions of Guantánamo,
let alone the sanctions to keep prisoners in Afghanistan." To
Foreman, it would be hypocritical for U.S. gays and lesbians to
criticize Iran if they haven't been criticizing America's own
prison system all along. Faisal Alam, founder of the Al-Fatiha
Foundation, a U.S.-based non-profit for LGBT Muslims, also used
the news of the Iran hangings to point a finger at the United
States. "While we condemn the executions of gay teens in Iran,
we must remember that until March of this year, our own country
was one of only five in the world that executed juvenile
offenders," Alam wrote in an August Washington Blade column.
Foreman's and Alam's comparisons are specious. America and Iran
may both have flawed systems of punishing criminals; and, to be
sure, juvenile executions are an illiberal practice, whether
carried out in Houston or Tehran. But only Iran convicts those
criminals simply because of their sexual orientation. That's a
pretty important distinction. Furthermore, U.S. gay rights
organizations don't have an inherent responsibility to take up
the crusade for the rights of juvenile criminals; they do,
however, have a responsibility to speak up when gays are
executed simply for being gay. There's nothing admirable about
using one injustice as blinders for another.
Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay
and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), is the most
obvious spokesperson for the gay and lesbian movement on
international human rights abuses. Yet for strategic reasons,
Ettelbrick told me, pressure for gay rights in Iran "can't come
from the West, it has to come from Iranians or perhaps from
countries with close connections to Iran." The IGLHRC,
Ettelbrick said, has chosen to work behind the scenes rather
than organizing protests. If these attempts are publicized,
Ettelbrick fears that the Iranian government would "ignore the
global consensus that these atrocities are gross human rights
violations simply because the message is coming from Western
gays and lesbians." As a result, Ettelbrick wasn't willing
discuss what progress the organization has made; so it is hard
to know whether whatever the IGLHRC is doing is effective or
not. If the IGLHRC truly is doing work under the radar of the
media, then good for the organization. It certainly is necessary
work. But is it sufficient?
I would argue that it is not. Public protest can increase
support and, ultimately, political pressure. Vast social
problems usually don't change through the work of one or two
activists or diplomats. It takes legions. Dissidents in the gay
rights community have already begun to challenge the IGLHRC's
silent strategy: Sullivan termed it "craven"; Michael Petrelis,
a San Francisco-based gay-rights activist, called it
"abhorrent"; and Ireland recently lashed out against the IGLHRC
as well, writing that "A strategy of keeping silent about
oppression, for fear of riling the oppressors, has never worked
at any time in human history."
One historical model for gay-rights leaders to consider is the
anti-apartheid activism of the 1970s and '80s, when students
tried to force their universities to divest from companies doing
business in South Africa. Not only did many groups succeed in
convincing their college administrators to divest, they also
pushed the plight of black South Africans to the forefront of
American attention--on college campuses and beyond. Their
victories may have been mostly symbolic, but protesters can also
plausibly claim credit for having raised awareness of the issue
to the point where Congress imposed sanctions on South Africa
over the veto of President Reagan. The efforts of American
students ultimately benefited black South Africans; perhaps
analogous efforts by gay Americans and their straight allies on
behalf of gay Iranians would yield similar results today.
Of course, there is always the issue of how groups should spend
their resources. Foreman points out that the NGLTF's mission is
national in scope, not international. Michael Cole,
communications manager for the Human Rights Campaign, explains
his group's limited response to the Iran hangings this way:
"Frankly, our purview is not so wide to respond or deal with
international incidents. ... It's a question of resources." I
would argue, however, that any organization premised upon the
universality of inalienable rights and liberties ought to take
as part of its mission the fate of those rights and liberties
everywhere. And the organizations themselves concede this. The
NGLTF's website notes that the group works "to create a world
that respects and makes visible the diversity of human
expression and identity where all people may fully participate
in society." The IGLHRC's site states that the organization is
"a leader in the global movement to demand accountability for
[anti-gay human rights] violations by state and non-state
actors." Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, in his
letter to Condolezza Rice condemning the July hangings, wrote,
"We hope you join us in our belief that every inhabitant of this
world, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has
the inherent right to be free from human rights abuses, and will
take action to highlight these injustices and condemn those
countries that commit such inhumane acts." Gay rights are either
universal or they are not. If gay rights organizations believe
that they are, then they cannot pretend that their missions are
limited to domestic concerns.
It is good to see the gay rights community having this debate.
But gay activists need to come to a consensus sooner rather than
later because, while they argue, Iranian lives are on the line.
For now, mainstream gay organizations have made clear where they
stand. As President Ahmadinejad, a man who is partially
responsible for these brutalities, passed through New York last
month, gay activists failed to confront him. Now he has returned
to Iran, where those who are proven to be gay are thrown in
jail, tortured, and executed on trumped-up charges. When it
comes to the Muslim world, gay and lesbian leaders are evidently
uncomfortable talking in moral absolutes. But if this is not
absolute evil, then what is?
Rob Anderson is a reporter-researcher at TNR.
HOW AMERICA'S GAY RIGHTS ESTABLISHMENT IS FAILING GAY IRANIANS.
The Quiet Americans
by Rob Anderson
In late July, news surfaced that Iran had executed two gay
teenagers--ostensibly for sexual assault, but most likely for
the crime of being gay. As pictures of their executions spread
around the Internet, American gay and lesbian activists
responded swiftly: The president of the Human Rights Campaign,
the country's largest gay and lesbian political organization,
sent a letter to Condoleezza Rice urging her to take action; the
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the
gay and lesbian division of Human Rights Watch both issued
statements on their websites; news outlets like The Washington
Blade and Gay City News uncharacteristically led their coverage
with an international story; and gay journalists like Doug
Ireland and TNR senior editor Andrew Sullivan--who sit on
opposite ends of the political spectrum--publicized the news on
their blogs.
For the most part, however, interest was short lived. Last
month, when Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came
to New York to visit the United Nations, he was greeted by
thousands of Iranian protesters from the United States and
overseas. America's gay and lesbian activists did not join in.
Ireland, who has tirelessly reported abuses against gays and
lesbians in Iran, was livid; he wrote that the failure of gay
activists to protest Ahmadinejad represented the "the death of
gay activism."
But Ireland was only half right. When it comes to the oppression
of gays and lesbians in Muslim countries, gay activism hasn't
died; it never really existed. Gay activists have used two types
of excuses to justify their failure to aggressively mobilize for
the rights of gay Muslims--moral and strategic. The moral
argument is that Americans are in no position to criticize
Iranians on human rights--that it would be wrong to campaign too
loudly against Iranian abuses when the United States has so many
problems of its own. Then, there are two strategic rationales:
that it is better to work behind the scenes to bring about
change in Iran; and that gay rights groups should conserve their
resources for domestic battles.
The strategic rationales are not especially compelling, but it
is the moral argument that is particularly troubling, because it
suggests that some gay and lesbian leaders feel more allegiance
to the relativism of the contemporary left than they do to the
universality of their own cause. Activists are more than willing
to condemn the homophobic leaders of the Christian right for
campaigning against gay marriage; but they are weary of
condemning Islamist regimes that execute citizens for being gay.
Something has gone terribly awry.
Take the moral rationale first. Matt Foreman, executive director
of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), told me that
when George W. Bush was a governor, "there wasn't a peep about
the execution of juveniles in Texas. ... Let's not have double
standards because it's a different part of the world." Foreman,
who worked within the U.S. prison system for ten years, says
that the United States still engages in "barbaric behavior" at
home. "If we think that psychological torture and physical
torture and rape and inhumane conditions are not part of our own
criminal justice system, than people don't have a clue about the
reality of our nation, let alone the conditions of Guantánamo,
let alone the sanctions to keep prisoners in Afghanistan." To
Foreman, it would be hypocritical for U.S. gays and lesbians to
criticize Iran if they haven't been criticizing America's own
prison system all along. Faisal Alam, founder of the Al-Fatiha
Foundation, a U.S.-based non-profit for LGBT Muslims, also used
the news of the Iran hangings to point a finger at the United
States. "While we condemn the executions of gay teens in Iran,
we must remember that until March of this year, our own country
was one of only five in the world that executed juvenile
offenders," Alam wrote in an August Washington Blade column.
Foreman's and Alam's comparisons are specious. America and Iran
may both have flawed systems of punishing criminals; and, to be
sure, juvenile executions are an illiberal practice, whether
carried out in Houston or Tehran. But only Iran convicts those
criminals simply because of their sexual orientation. That's a
pretty important distinction. Furthermore, U.S. gay rights
organizations don't have an inherent responsibility to take up
the crusade for the rights of juvenile criminals; they do,
however, have a responsibility to speak up when gays are
executed simply for being gay. There's nothing admirable about
using one injustice as blinders for another.
Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay
and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), is the most
obvious spokesperson for the gay and lesbian movement on
international human rights abuses. Yet for strategic reasons,
Ettelbrick told me, pressure for gay rights in Iran "can't come
from the West, it has to come from Iranians or perhaps from
countries with close connections to Iran." The IGLHRC,
Ettelbrick said, has chosen to work behind the scenes rather
than organizing protests. If these attempts are publicized,
Ettelbrick fears that the Iranian government would "ignore the
global consensus that these atrocities are gross human rights
violations simply because the message is coming from Western
gays and lesbians." As a result, Ettelbrick wasn't willing
discuss what progress the organization has made; so it is hard
to know whether whatever the IGLHRC is doing is effective or
not. If the IGLHRC truly is doing work under the radar of the
media, then good for the organization. It certainly is necessary
work. But is it sufficient?
I would argue that it is not. Public protest can increase
support and, ultimately, political pressure. Vast social
problems usually don't change through the work of one or two
activists or diplomats. It takes legions. Dissidents in the gay
rights community have already begun to challenge the IGLHRC's
silent strategy: Sullivan termed it "craven"; Michael Petrelis,
a San Francisco-based gay-rights activist, called it
"abhorrent"; and Ireland recently lashed out against the IGLHRC
as well, writing that "A strategy of keeping silent about
oppression, for fear of riling the oppressors, has never worked
at any time in human history."
One historical model for gay-rights leaders to consider is the
anti-apartheid activism of the 1970s and '80s, when students
tried to force their universities to divest from companies doing
business in South Africa. Not only did many groups succeed in
convincing their college administrators to divest, they also
pushed the plight of black South Africans to the forefront of
American attention--on college campuses and beyond. Their
victories may have been mostly symbolic, but protesters can also
plausibly claim credit for having raised awareness of the issue
to the point where Congress imposed sanctions on South Africa
over the veto of President Reagan. The efforts of American
students ultimately benefited black South Africans; perhaps
analogous efforts by gay Americans and their straight allies on
behalf of gay Iranians would yield similar results today.
Of course, there is always the issue of how groups should spend
their resources. Foreman points out that the NGLTF's mission is
national in scope, not international. Michael Cole,
communications manager for the Human Rights Campaign, explains
his group's limited response to the Iran hangings this way:
"Frankly, our purview is not so wide to respond or deal with
international incidents. ... It's a question of resources." I
would argue, however, that any organization premised upon the
universality of inalienable rights and liberties ought to take
as part of its mission the fate of those rights and liberties
everywhere. And the organizations themselves concede this. The
NGLTF's website notes that the group works "to create a world
that respects and makes visible the diversity of human
expression and identity where all people may fully participate
in society." The IGLHRC's site states that the organization is
"a leader in the global movement to demand accountability for
[anti-gay human rights] violations by state and non-state
actors." Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, in his
letter to Condolezza Rice condemning the July hangings, wrote,
"We hope you join us in our belief that every inhabitant of this
world, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, has
the inherent right to be free from human rights abuses, and will
take action to highlight these injustices and condemn those
countries that commit such inhumane acts." Gay rights are either
universal or they are not. If gay rights organizations believe
that they are, then they cannot pretend that their missions are
limited to domestic concerns.
It is good to see the gay rights community having this debate.
But gay activists need to come to a consensus sooner rather than
later because, while they argue, Iranian lives are on the line.
For now, mainstream gay organizations have made clear where they
stand. As President Ahmadinejad, a man who is partially
responsible for these brutalities, passed through New York last
month, gay activists failed to confront him. Now he has returned
to Iran, where those who are proven to be gay are thrown in
jail, tortured, and executed on trumped-up charges. When it
comes to the Muslim world, gay and lesbian leaders are evidently
uncomfortable talking in moral absolutes. But if this is not
absolute evil, then what is?
Rob Anderson is a reporter-researcher at TNR.