Gay Rights vs. Arab Spring
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/05/27/gay.rights.arab.spring/
"The uprisings bringing political change and demonstrations across much of the Arab world have given millions of people hope of greater freedom. But some gay people in the Middle East fear exactly the opposite."
...
"It seems commonly accepted that the foundational sacred sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) ban homosexuality," he added. "I do know there are Muslims who take exception to that, it's not black and white, but the dominant standing pretty clearly condemns homosexuality."
...
"For example, in Egypt and Tunisia there was a lot of hope initially that there would be a more tolerant civil society. Now it seems that the impetus for change will be hijacked by conservative forces who will make the situation worse for gay people and other minorities."
How does posting this piece of right-wing garbage without comment advance rabble's pro-human rights, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist agenda?
The point of the article was to suggest that gays would be better off with the Arab oligarchs and dictators in control, and that the Arab Spring uprisings are a sinister threat to human rights.
And of course, the point of quoting this article, without comment, to start a thread is pure and simple trolling and baiting.
This POS doesn't belong here.
@Eyes Only Homosexuality is illegal in most of the Arab world, pre-revolution. I do not detect that in a revolution which is breaking down a great many artificial hatreds a particularly islamist, as opposed to islamic, bent. Those chants of Allahu Akbar you're hearing can be as prefunctory and subversive as "God Bless America" being thrown in the face of radical right-wing theocrats.
@M. Spector I think if Tommy Douglas in the 1968 leaders' debate can say that homosexuality is a sin but that government cannot legislate it and Real Caouette said that said decriminalization could one day lead to gay marriage that the very frequent screeds demanding one 'consider the source' as it were. The piece is admittedly bad, but I don't see how one can consider it right-wing... Alarmist, perhaps, but I don't think the tone advocates repression, just an undue (in my view) amount of caution.
Also interesting, while the activists wanted to mention trans rights, CNN wanted this to be a cis only article... Ah well, could think of a few BC MLAs who feel the same way.
Some Further Thoughts on Pinkwashing
from the blog A Gay Girl in Damascus
That is the choice proposed by those who I accuse of pinkwashing Assad (and Mubarak and Netanyahu and George Bush and Saddam). They give us the ‘choice' of gay rights achieved only by denying entire peoples of their right to choose to live as they want. Their supposition is that the only way to protect ‘gay rights' in the Middle East is by denying whole sectors of the population autonomy and basic liberties. Either support gay rights by defending brutality or unite with the oppressive evils of your wicked and damned society.
I reject that. I reject the notions that lie behind these thoughts, that westerners know what is best for the Arabs, better than any Arab does; that my culture and my religion are made up of evil and wicked people who are nothing but vile brutes who can only be constrained by force; that the Arabs are not ‘ready' for democracy.
And, we believe, that when we win freedom from dictatorship and occupation, we will not have things easy; we know that. Then, we must not cease from struggle. In a free Syria, we will still struggle to change society but we will not repeat the mistake of the past, the mistake common to everyone from Allenby to Assad to Saddam to Nasser to Ben Gurion to Netanyahu to George Bush to Ousama Bin Laden and on to everyone who accepts the hopelessness of the pink-washers' narrative:
We will believe in the Arab people and believe that change doesn't come at the barrel of a gun or on the heel of a boot. Change comes from persuading others.
That is what we will do; I for one am willing to stake my life and my freedom on the wisdom of the people of Syria.
Here's her previous blog post: Pinkwashing Assad?
@ Maysie:
This. Right here.
Ugh... so, "A Gay Girl in Damascus", is actually a man named Tom MacMaster, an American university student living in Scotland. After his story started to unravel he finally admitted to the hoax on his blog.
http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/new-evidence-about-amina...
File this under "How NOT to be an ally".
Good catch, F55!
From the hoax blog
Hmmmmmm... it's been a while since I've read Said, but I wonder if "white male pretending to be Syrian lesbian" falls under orientalism?
delete
Turns out that GGID's partner in lesbian blogging, "Paula Brooks", was in reality a 58 year old retired male US Air Force colonel. The colonel says that GGID tried to flirt with him, but he kept it "strictly business". Though one can wonder why he felt so compelled to play a lesbian on the internet(he claims humanitarian reasons, sez he wanted to give lesbians a sympathetic space).
This really is the troll to end all trolls.
can't get the paste function to work on my computer. The information about LezGetReal is from MSNBC.
This thread should be moved to the "media" section. It's all about how the media falls for right-wing hoaxes without proper fact-checking.
My apologies for posting the blog here without questioning it. I feel silly for having believed it.
In all fairness, there must be other reasons.
I don't see any need for apologies or feeling silly.
The fact is if it had not been for several people in the media doing their jobs properly and NOT falling for hoaxes none of us would have been the wiser for a good while longer.
And "right-wing" hoax? A vain, privileged and thoughtless hoax perhaps, but not every destructive act is right-wing.
After all, based on the words posted above he knew how to talk the talk, in part anyway, even if the fallout from his actions did not help anyone's cause.
Your defence of all things right wing fails once again.
This was propaganda pure and simple, designed to show how the Arab Spring forces are backward and barbaric, and unworthy of support in their struggle to overthrow their western-backed regimes.
Ask yourself why the MSM swallowed it wholesale: It suits their agenda of building consensus for repressive measures against the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, etc.
The MSM is strangely pro-women and pro-LGBT when it comes to covering US foreign policy. Their track record on the domestic front not so good.
Your defence of all things right wing fails once again.
This was propaganda pure and simple, designed to show how the Arab Spring forces are backward and barbaric, and unworthy of support in their struggle to overthrow their western-backed regimes.
Ask yourself why the MSM swallowed it wholesale: It suits their agenda of building consensus for repressive measures against the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, etc.
Yup, I guess you got me pegged - defender of all things right-wing.
You should put a disclaimer at the beginning of posts like that against drinking coffee.
But if we are talking conspiracies and media manipulation, the question is really why some of the same media which fell for the story ran with the hoax as soon as questions arose. Or indeed, why one of the main sources was the U.S. Embassy, which was quite forthcoming with the fact tha whatshername was not a real person. - or at least not an American citizen, as was claimed.
Ooooooo... The Evil Main Stream Media! I wonder what it eats for lunch, besides right wing hoaxes.
My first question is how much of this was good intent (because I think he might possibly have had good intent) and how much was bone-headed arrogance and stupidity, because he clearly also liked the attention and the chance to pretend to be a person of another race, gender and orientation (and to flirt while doing so). And clearly he didn't think through just how much shit he could cause by crying wolf with a fake kidnapping in a country which is in a state of civil war, where a lot of the fallout is going to come down on vulnerable people who live there. And clearly he didn't think that journalists might do their job and actually ask questions.
And stealing the picture of a real person without thinking that it might actually come back on that person?
If it was a right-wing conspiracy, clearly they were a bunch of first-years, and did not have their shit together as well as the ones looking after the controlled detonation of the twin towers.
My apologies for posting the blog here without questioning it. I feel silly for having believed it.
If it's any consolation, I fell hook line and sinker for Bonsai Kitten. I was new to the internet at the time, and someone sent me a well-signed petition against the "practice". It included a link to the BK website. It seemed pretty crazy, but at that time I figured that if someone went to the trouble of making a whole website, well, that couldn't be a hoax, could it? Also, there was the petition, and I assumed that all those people woudn't have signed if it was fake.
And actually, despite the awkward name, LezGetReal isn't a half-bad website. "Paula" seems to have developed a bit of a following, and there seems to be some talk about the participants keeping the site alive now that Graber is out of the picture.
My first question is how much of this was good intent (because I think he might possibly have had good intent) and how much was bone-headed arrogance and stupidity, because he clearly also liked the attention and the chance to pretend to be a person of another race, gender and orientation (and to flirt while doing so).
Well, for more on those subjects, read this piece from slate.com: How to be a Lesbian Blogger
Good article.
Which brings us back to Archie Delaney, one of the modern (though by no means the first) originators of the form.
My apologies for posting the blog here without questioning it. I feel silly for having believed it.
You're hardly alone in that. I became aware of the blog because so many of my FB friends had been following and posting links to it for a long time. I don't think very many people questioned the existence of "Amina" or the veracity of "her" postings until after the "kidnapping".
And I'm inclined to agree with 6079_Smith_W's take on this being an extremely misguided and self-centred project, rather than deliberate right-wing propaganda.
But if we are talking conspiracies and media manipulation, the question is really why some of the same media which fell for the story ran with the hoax as soon as questions arose. Or indeed, why one of the main sources was the U.S. Embassy, which was quite forthcoming with the fact tha whatshername was not a real person. - or at least not an American citizen, as was claimed.
Ooooooo... The Evil Main Stream Media! I wonder what it eats for lunch, besides right wing hoaxes.
Who's talking conspiracies? Did I suggest the US Embassy was in on the media manipulation?
Are you the last person on earth who doesn't understand how the corporate media operates in knee-jerk fashion every time an opportunity comes up to demonstrate evil on the part of those who rebel against the Washington consensus? They don't need to conspire; their commitment to the cause of sustaining western imperialist rule predisposes them to believe and repeat anything that confirms their own biases and prejudices.
When the hoax was pointed out, it's no surprise that they didn't stamp their feet and insist that the story was true, given that they knew they had no confirmation. Suddenly the hoax itself became the story, and the lying media were able to blame their own dishonesty and laziness on mischief-makers.
But why am I wasting my time explaining this to you?
But why am I wasting my time explaining this to you?
My guess is because you can't resist the a oportuniry to promote your position, even if posting here doesn't display quite as much chutzpah (and disregard for others feelings and safety) as whatshisname who perpetrated this hoax in the first place.
6079
Here is a link to a great documentary. If you haven't seen it maybe it will help you understand how most of the rest of the posters on this board view the media and the manner in which it operates. If you have seen it then watch it again and tell us what you don't agree with.
Your views on the MSM are completely status quo and thus out of step with most people who post here. I wil note that Snert seems to share your views on the media. Just so you don't think I believe your views are unique even on this board.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#
NS
THanks for the link.
I worked in the media for almost 20 years. and I don't think I have many illusions when it comes to its biases, gross and subtle, nor its role in propping up the powers that be. On the other hand, I know well enough that it is far from the monolithic arm of the dark side that a lot of people like to see it as. There were no hot lines to the Bilderbergs or the Skull and Bones club in any of the newsrooms where I worked.
More importantly, when it comes to this specific case, if it were not for members of the media doing their jobs there would probably still be people hanging on "gay girl in Damascus"'s every word.
There are plenty of things in which some members of the media are complicit. As I see it, this is one case where they helped clear the air.
And as for this specific issue, and what one does or does not agree with, If you have evidence of some members of the media actively trying to cover up this hoax after it broke - I would be quite willing to read it.
If you don't have that, then I have to question what point you are trying to make.
And as for this specific issue, and what one does or does not agree with, If you have evidence of some members of the media actively trying to cover up this hoax after it broke - I would be quite willing to read it.
If you don't have that, then I have to question what point you are trying to make.
Sorry but we seem to be talking past each other. I was trying to understand your reverence for the media. Now I get it.
I was trying to understand your reverence for the media. Now I get it.
You mean because I have a bit of an undertanding of how that profession actually works, in contrast to how it fits into the mythos of The Revolution, in which it seems everyone is the enemy?. Maybe if you knew how much I was paid or who I worked for you might not leap to the same conclusion,
In any case, I'll say it again.
if you have any actual evidence that the media were a party to covering up this hoax (or indeed, that there was anything here worth covering up) , rather than one of the main instruments of exposing it, I am all ears.
Otherwise, I would submit that you are talking nonsense.
If this was all a "right-wing hoax", as has been alleged here, wouldn't the hoaxer have pretended to be a PRO-western lesbian in Syria, and posted stuff like "Yes, most lesbians I know are all in favour of the western-backed regimes, because they're better for gay rights than the Arab Spring would be"?
You might have had a point if the person in question was blogging as "A Gay Girl in Riyad", VOTD.
Otherwise, I would submit that you are talking nonsense.
FOOD
You might have had a point if the person in question was blogging as "A Gay Girl in Riyad", VOTD.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. And that's not a rhetorical statement, I'm sure you have a point you're making, I'm just a bit slow on the uptake here. Would you care to expand?
Syria is in the US crosshairs for regime change while Saudi Arabia is not. LGBT rights are barely existant throughout the region and beyond but this guy decides to raise awarenss by pretending to be in a hot topic country. Of course the media wanted to run with it.
Perhaps a better example might have been Kabul because it is obvious that the MSM don't like reporting on the abject failure the US-led invasion has been in bring more freedom in Afghanistan. I'm not suggesting a media conspriacy, just the fact that they like to cherry pick stories that support their POV. (The most embarrassing of these non-fact checked hoaxes being the National Post publishing that article on Jews in Iran being required to wear arm bands.)
Hey, can we start a thread calling Silence Dogood as appropriation, or shall we perhaps understand that authors write under pseudonyms and that the message is often more important than the 'authenticity' of the messenger.
Hey, can we start a thread calling Silence Dogood as appropriation, or shall we perhaps understand that authors write under pseudonyms and that the message is often more important than the 'authenticity' of the messenger.
As I said above, I think whatshisname may have actually had good intentions, so I do cut him some slack on that, and I agree with you in part. Archie Delaney and Ward Churchill (among others) are good examples of your point.
The problem is once he pretended that "she" was kidnapped. Clearly he had no understanding of the effects of that kind of game-playing in a de facto war zone, and how much it would endanger and discredit people in that country.
No argument here. I'd twinkle as well but I think that practice robs a vocal minority of one of their most important tools, so I will just nod my agreement.
And now to bed.
Well let's see if we can get back to at least the vicinity of the OP:
New Tunisian Government Promises 'Dignity' For Gays
Just a brief article, and it does confuse the geographical region the country is located in (I guess the distinction between North Africa and the Middle East is confusing to some), but it does seem to return some of the optimism to the discussion of the Arab Spring.
[ETA: although I do wonder about the source of article requiring you to access through (and only through) Facebook, Yahoo, AOL or Hotmail to comment]