"There are no homosexuals in . . ." More Common a Sentiment than you Might think
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bigotted statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran derived from his rightwing religious commitments. What he said is very serious. He erased gays right out of existence. The ultimate in denying people their rights is to deny they even exist (the nonexistent obviously have no rights.) There could be a debate over whether the gay lifestyle exists in Muslim countries, as a matter of identity politics, of course, but Ahmadinejad is not that sophisticated. He was saying that all Iranians are straight. Of course, gays are punished very severely in Iran, in reality.
It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day. Denying gays the right to marry is a way of erasing them from civil society. It is a way of denying that they really love one another, as straights do. It is a way of asserting that they do not exist.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US military (so unlike the one followed by many NATO allies) is also a way of erasing gays. They don't exist unless they themselves press the case that they exist. In order to remain in their jobs, they are forced to erase themselves by their silence. The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is a way of pretending that there are no gays in the US military. For if it could be proven that anyone is gay, he is immediately expelled. It is just as silly as what Ahmadinejad said, and just as pernicious. That policy is supported by the entire American Right, which is no better than Ahmadinejad in this regard.
Here are a couple of Christian statements resembling the vile ones spewed by Ahmadinejad, just for comparison.
Catholic Ahmadinejads from Hannity and Colmes:
' COLMES: group that is where I am. Let me just show you another quote, and you'll be surprised at who's saying this.
"Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature."
The Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that, Congressman, Dornan.
DORNAN: Did you watch the -- did you watch the debate? I watched six hours of debate, and I had a face-to-face fight with Cardinal McCarrick, who told me to my face there are no homosexuals in our seminaries. This is a discredited bunch of once holy men.
----FOX: HANNITY & COLMES, November 15, 2002 '
For the full irony of Dornan's reported conversation, see this link.
Evangelical Ahmadinejads. Bishop John Shelby Spong observes:
[Conservative] 'commentators have not mentioned the blatant homophobia in both Africa and Southeast Asia. Christian leaders in Africa still maintain that there are no homosexuals in their countries, or if homosexuality is admitted, that it was "caught" from white Europeans. Christians throughout the Third World still assert that homosexuals are either evil people who can be changed if they are converted, or that they are mentally sick people who can be healed if properly treated. Such theories are dismissed as nonsense in Western medical circles today. Homosexual people in Africa have told me that they risk murder if they come out of their closets. They believe that if they were killed, the act would be endorsed by many Christian leaders of that continent, who quote scripture to justify it.'
So if some American Republicans, Catholics and evangelicals want to have the standing to laugh at Ahmadinejad for his prejudice, they have some work to do at home first.
----
PS: to get a sense of what Iran is really like these days, see this slide show.
Labels: Iran
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/26/2007 12:20:00 AM
|
Facebook
13 Comments:
A little of the topic of the post, but it reminded me of a speech by Arundhati Roy, Come September.
"It's being made out that the whole point of the war was to topple the Taliban regime and liberate Afghan women from their burqas, we are being asked to believe that the U.S. marines are actually on a feminist mission. (If so, will their next stop be America's military ally Saudi Arabia?) Think of it this way: in India there are some pretty reprehensible social practices against "untouchables", against Christians and Muslims, against women. Pakistan and Bangladesh have even worse ways of dealing with minority communities and women. Should they be bombed? Should Delhi, Islamabad and Dhaka be destroyed? Is it possible to bomb bigotry out of India? Can we bomb our way to a feminist paradise? Is that how women won the vote in the U.S? Or how slavery was abolished? Can we win redress for the genocide of the millions of Native Americans upon whose corpses the United States was founded by bombing Santa Fe?"
Read the whole thing at:
http://nmazca.com/verba/roy.htm
Those calling for war, morally grandstanding on the backs of the repressed and persecuted minorities, should be reminded that this is who they will be bombing.
Mr. Cole,
Please understand that these Catholic individuals do not represent the church as a whole. The Catechism asserts that homosexuals have the right to a romantic relationship, but not a sexual one (Catholics believe sex is solely for reproductive purposes). The church recognizes homosexuals and discourages any injustice toward them. While "bad apples" have certainly brought the attitude toward the church down in recent years, many journalists fail to recognize true Catholic precepts and beliefs.
Seriously. Is this in the first place a question to ask to a visiting president (wonder why this kind of questions are never asked to western dignitaries) especially with the (real) erasing of a whole population – including gays – that is occurring in Iraq and soon maybe in Iran.
responding to Roy, quoted above:
In the US, slavery was abolished largely due to a very bloody war. Maybe she has heard of it? At the time, aviation technology was not developed enough for much bombing (perhaps there was a hot air balloon incident or two?), but death and destruction were in abundance. And afterwards, the shell of a defeated slaveholding culture collapsed upon itself. This is a simplification of course, however it's not completely outrageous to say that Roy would have been better off with another example.
The problem is you didn't get to hear what he said. What he actually said was "Iran does not have homosexuality like you(in America) do". In Farsi, he said "enya Shoma", which translates to "in the manner in which you do".
His point, and I think it's reasonable, is that nature of homosexual identity in Iran is different then the nature of homosexual identity in the United states. I'd say that the nature of homosexual identity is different in the United States then it was, say, 40 years ago. I'd say the same thing about straight identity.
It's not beyond the realm of reason to argue the position the sexual identity, gay or straight, varies from culture to culture. I wish Bollinger had taken a breath from the personal attacks long enough to pursue that line of questioning.
Yes, Iran has executed gay men and women. Yes, that's horrible. No excuses. None. That's really, really, really fucking crazy shit.
But they're not alone.
until 2003, The most harsh penalties In The United States for Sodomy were in the state of Idaho, where sodomy could theoretically earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment (Repeat offenders got life).
Not as extreme, but not as far off as I'd like to be.
I know that gay rights are near & dear to many hearts: they're near & dear to mine. But I think the real issue here is this: do we need to go to war with Iran, or can we talk to them?
So far, I'm thinking talk is good. Their president has not dissuaded me from that opinion.
In Iran, if four witnesses observed somebody commit an act of sodomy, and if they testified to it in court, then the person could in principle be executed. (Actual executions are extremely rare, and occur in cases of homosexual rape and pedophilia.) Given this reality, to say that there are no homosexuals in Iran can be a good thing. It's Ahmadinejad's version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": By pretending that people are not committing sodomy, you won't have to punish anyone for it. It's one way to be tolerant. Ahmadinejad's statements make more sense when we see that in reality almost nobody is executed for sodomy: thus *legally* speaking, there are indeed no (or very few) "sodomites" in Iran. Thus to call Ahmadinejad's statement a travesty is simply to be oblivious of Iran's legal realities.
There's another thing that makes this reaction of indignation puzzling. The tolerance of homosexuality is a very recent American thing. Today Americans react as if Ahmadinejad is from another planet; but in the 80's his statement would not have become the headline by which to try to dismiss his entire talk as the ravings of a madman. So, what is the standard of right and wrong in a given time--what Americans happen to accept at that time? Some humility is in order, as well as realism about the definition of right and wrong.
The whole world looks aghast at the U.S. people who have been lining up to pompously express their self-righteous indignation about Mr. Ahmadenijad's ignorant statement. You see, the U.S. has no moral credibilty left after the atrocity it let loose on the Iraqi people.
Mr. Cole, you are certainly familiar with eastern ways. A Persian denies something when he finds the subject embarrasing, wants to ignore the subject or wants to put you on the wrong scent. What Mr. Ahmadenijad really thinks will remain a closed book. We have enough experience with such eastern subterfuge in the Bush administration. Mr. Ahmadenijad may be indirectly denying the execution of homosexuals in Iran. Mr. Bush directly denies the relative numbers of dead in Iraq, military and civilian, and most media sit around twiddling their thumbs and looking the other way. That pudding contains a lot of proof.
Mr. Bollinger acted atrociously, very un-Persain of him, and this whole incident is going backfire big time. I'd like to see if he ever answers the very interesting questions the Iranian academics have sent him. Columbia University can hang its head in shame for the whole unpolitic incident.
Nathan--The initial objective of that war was NOT to destroy slavery; rather, it was an unintended consequence of a politically desperate Lincoln. Only the lucky chain of events at Gettysburg enabled the Union victory. Without it, the Anaconda Plan's ultimate success as the key victory strategy wouldn't have the time it needed to work. Remember, up until Gettysburg the South was winning the war.
Coolhappymax-if that is true (and I've no reason to doubt you), that is very interesting. Once again, Ahmadinejad miscontrued (as with his "wipe Israel off the map statement). Yes, if his comments were misinterpreted, he really should have clarified them. If they are inaccurate and he didn't, it says something about his personal integrity, or how he doesn't mind being seen back home in Iran. Either way, very interesting Coolhappymax. Can anyone confirm or refute Max's statement?
T,
I seem to remember that Ahmadinejad came to the speech with his own translator, refusing the two translators proposed by the Americans ? or may be, it's something I have heard concerning another interview he gave to an American TV channel.
This should be verified. If it was true, it would indicate that he is aware of the traps paused by translation. All could also be spinned by his US detractors.
We have to be very carefull with everything we hear or read.
I think its been said above as well but I think that what Ahmednijad meant was that "in Iran we don't have homosexual culture like you have here". I think that statement is true even if it does not adequately answer the question asked i.e about the gay rights. Also because of Muslim beliefs the society on the whole ostresizes homosexual behavior and the indication of some govenmnent backed initiative for gay rights will only be detremental to the government itself. Bottomline, it was clear from the questions being asked of him that the purpose was to mock/demonize him.
I would guess the meaning of Ahmadinejad's comments was not misinterpreted because of translation difficulties. His comments sound rather more akin to the French saying for years (e.g., in the 19th century) that homosexuality was the "English disease." Over the past few decades minority spokespeople in the US have often alleged similarly that it is a "white people's disease," a sentiment often echoed in contemporary Africa.
The possible caginess of Ahmadinejad's comments arises from the fact that Iran is an interesting case today because it is in the minority of countries in which transexuality is more socially acceptable than homosexuality. Khomenei gave a stamp of approval to transexuality shortly after assuming power and surgical sex reassignment is performed there very frequently (though often with poor medical and social results).
There are indications that a considerable number of those undergoing such operations are in fact homosexual and not transexual. After surgery, such people can be conveniently re-defined by the authorities as heterosexual. Obviously this is rarely a desirable outcome for the individuals involved, as they would not want to change their sex except for the fact that they would otherwise be subject to extreme social discrimination and harassment, including imprisonment and ultimately the death penalty.
Juan,
Is it possible that Ahmadinejad was misquoted in reference to gays in Iran? I am deeply indebted to you for correcting the willful mistranslation claiming he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map".
Today I watched an interview with Sy Hersh on "Democracy Now" where he said that Ahmadinejad was misquoted about gays and that a more accurate translation would have been "we don't have a problem with homosexuals in Iran". That made me wonder if some of the claims about executions etc. might be disinformation PSYOPs as part of the demonization of Iran and Ahmadinejad. Did you accept the original translator’s version or did you confirm it. Thanks again for being a voice of knowledge, truth and reason during an insane time of treachery and stealth.
JK
Post a Comment
<< Home