HOW AMERICA'S GAY RIGHTS ESTABLISHMENT IS FAILING GAY IRANIANS

[kweerwolf]

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.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=LvHYIym1ilaKbB1FHudIjm%3D%3D

[boardwalk]

1. Islam has a "take no prisoners" approach to gayness. NT

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. Very good post and link

but I am left wondering what can Americans do about this? I'm sure there are strategies I am not aware of?

[Charlie Brown]

3. It sounds like Anderson is jumping on the War on Iran bandwagon

What other "solution" can Americans offer besides war or sanctions.

I guess we can encourage the populist movements in Iran and the Mid-East, but the article suggests many advocacy groups are already doing this. I don't get what the article is proposing.

[Teaser]

4. To be fair

there is very little that Gay Americans can do to help Gay Iranians. Other than trying to help them flee their mother country.

[enid602]

5. assylum

The problem with addressing lack of Gay rights in Iran is that (to be fair) you also need to protest Iran's treatment of women, lack of separation of church and state, treatment of political dissidents, lack of free press, etc. Still, I think our government could show its concern (and make a strong statement) by defining mistreated Iranian gays as meeting the requirements to seek political assylum and US citizenship.