MSNBC.com
Newsweek.com
Interview: On Being Gay in Iran
A gay Iranian discusses Ahmadinejad’s ‘no gays’ comment and what it’s like to live in a country that refuses to accept homosexuality.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Patrick Falby
Newsweek
Sept 28, 2007
Sept. 28, 2007 - To be gay in Iran means a life of fear. Shortly before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won his country’s presidential election in 2005, Iranian authorities hanged two teenagers officially charged with raping a 13-year-old boy—but whom gay activists say were executed for their sexual orientation. Life for Iranian gays has not improved since then. Even though Iran’s senior religious figures have made statements calling for the whipping or killing of homosexuals, the country’s authorities continue to deny that they prosecute gays. Against this backdrop it’s hardly surprising that the community is outraged over Ahmadinejad’s glib comment to his Columbia audience this week that “in Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country.”
Indeed, so great is the insecurity of Iranian gays that even the few who have found a safe haven in the United States are still afraid of speaking out about their old lives. NEWSWEEK’s Patrick Falby spoke with Reza, a gay Iranian man who would identify himself only by his nickname. Reza, who received asylum four years ago, talked about his life in his home country in the pre-Ahmadinejad era—and what it’s like for those still living there. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: What was your reaction when you heard Ahmadinejad’s statement?
Reza: It was embarrassing, the ignorance that he had. He could have said it a different way; he could have said we have no concept of being gay in our culture. He could have meant we have no gay phenomenon in our culture. Many Iranians don’t understand homosexuality. If today I went to my mother and told her I’m gay, she wouldn’t understand what I mean, because there’s nothing in the media. They don’t talk about it. It might sound strange, but that’s the way it is over there. There are basically places for gay people to go in Iran; they’re public places, like parks. Places to meet people; you could also call them cruising parks. When I was watching Ahmadinejad’s speech, I wanted to tell him if you don’t think there are gay people in Iran you should go to [one of these parks] and you will see many of them. It’s a matter of the government not wanting to acknowledge that these people exist.
What’s it like being gay in Iran?
You would be the unluckiest person in the world, I guess, to be gay in Iran. No one can relate to you. You always have to hide your beliefs. You have to live a lie. You either have to get married and live a double life or you just have to commit suicide. If you’re single for a long time you can be [asked] why you’re not getting married and get forced to do that.
I chat with people online every now and then, and they say it’s getting harder for them because there’s more control under Ahmadinejad. If you go to Internet chat rooms and chat with them you will see how miserable and disappointed and how sad they feel because of living there. It’s not easy for everybody to get out of that situation. Especially right now, it’s very difficult for Iranians to leave Iran: they cannot get visas to different countries. They just have to deal with the situation, lead a secret life and tell lies all the time to keep themselves away from all the troubles they may get into because they are homosexuals living in that country.
When did you realize you were gay?
I accepted it in my 30s. It took a long time. I started to get open-minded from the Internet. I knew I liked men since I was a kid. You always know, because this is the way you are born. You can’t do anything about it.
Did anyone ever find out?
Not really. The only people who know about me right now are my gay friends. Nobody else knows. I don’t wave a rainbow flag, but if people ask I won’t lie about it.
Nobody in your family knows you’re gay?
They don’t understand. That’s the thing: if you go and tell your mother, “I’m gay,” she’d say, “What’s that? What does that mean?” They’d still expect you to get married if you were attracted to men. They believe if you like to fool around with another man it’s that you’ve got a high sex drive—not because of your sexual orientation.
How were other homosexuals and lesbians treated?
In Iran the punishment for sodomy is death. There are two ways it can be proven: it needs to be witnessed by four people, or if the judge believes that you did it they can execute you.
Why do you think these attitudes exist in Iran?
Over there religion rules the [country]. It’s like one hundred years ago here, when laws were quite different. I guess we’re one hundred years back in Iran right now. If you look at women’s rights in this country, 150 years ago women were part of the property of men. It changed through the years. Iran is still backward because of the religion—that’s what rules the laws and rules the jurisdiction system and rules the whole country.
How did you end up applying for asylum in the U.S.?
I would prefer not to answer specific questions about myself, only general questions. Because of my profession, which I don’t want to disclose, I have advertisements in various gay publications. Every now and then I get hate phone calls and hate e-mails from Middle Eastern Muslims that threaten me and say stupid things. I’m happy to live in a free country. I believe that here I’m safe.
Do you think you’ll ever return to Iran?
I have no plans [to return]. It’s a matter of where you’re safe. I don’t feel safe over there.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21033858/site/newsweek/page/0/
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
"When evil men plot..." - The Vilification of Ahmadenijad
September 28, 2007
“When evil men plot…” – The Vilification of Ahmadinejad
By Faisal Alam
“When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love. Where evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice.”
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
“Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.” – Albert Einstein
Not long ago most Americans did not even know how to pronounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name, let alone who he might be. Today, with the help of media conglomerates, no one seems to be able to stop talking about him.
Ahmadinejad is no stranger to controversy. Already condemned for his denial that the Holocaust ever happened and for his statements calling for Israel to be wiped “off the face of the map” the grim mood was set even before Ahmadinejad arrived. Adding fuel to the fire he was invited to speak at Columbia University as part of their world leaders’ lecture series. If that wasn’t enough to get everyone’s blood boiling, Ahmadinejad requested to visit the site of the World Trade Center to offer a prayer and lay a wreath.
Ahmadenijad’s visit to New York was not the first time that he has visited the United States. He has come twice before, both times to attend and speak at the opening session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. But this diplomatic visit caused an uproar that few anticipated. Jewish organizations took out full page ads condemning his visit and thousands of people attended protests outside the United Nations and Columbia University. Signs calling for him to “go to hell” and comparing him to Hitler were distributed amongst the crowds.
Media networks were already buzzing about his controversial visit, but his speech at Columbia University was the stroke that broke the camel’s back. Demonized and disparaged by the President of Columbia University who called him a “petty and cruel dictator,” Ahmadinejad set out to redeem himself in front of the 700 faculty and students. After a long-winded speech beginning with many verses from the Quran and concluding with his passion for new scientific endeavors and his wish to promote world peace, Ahmadinejad was confronted with a series of questions about his beliefs and the political ambitions of Iran.
When questioned about his countries abysmal human rights record and the execution of many men suspected of being gay, Ahmadinejad’s response would become headlines around the world. Through a translator Ahmadinejad stated that “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it.” The audience burst out in laughter, which was followed by a handful of “boos” denouncing his declaration that no queer people existed in Iran. The statement caused such a ruckus that even before Ahmadinejad had ended his talk, those few words spread like wildfire across the blogosphere.
Queer groups were quick to condemn his statement reminding Mr. Ahmadinejad of the many cases of men arrested, tortured and even executed for conducting “liwat” or homosexual activities. Many were simply appalled and mystified that as a leader of a nation he could be in such denial about a segment of Iran that is persecuted under his regime.
The roots of Ahmadinejad’s denigration are clear to any one who can step back from the raw emotions expressed this week. There are four things that are most unsettling and most disturbing.
Firstly, the way the media monopoly manipulated and fed the story to the American people is shocking. Hundreds of newspapers around the world ran the same articles, sent by a handful of news wires including Reuters, the Associated Press and United Press International. This is a clear illustration of the power of media and the control of information that is communicated to the American public.
While the world was quick to snicker and joke about his assertion, within 48 hours bloggers discovered that perhaps his words were mistranslated. After careful analysis of the original Farsi, some discovered that perhaps what he meant to say was that “no (openly gay) people existed in Iran; these people only exist in your country.” In spite of the recognition that the meaning and context of Ahmadinejad’s response were possibly misconstrued, not one major television network or newspaper has reprted anything about this new revelation.
Let’s also not forget that Iran is a “sponsor of terrorism” fueling Islamic radicalism and anti-Americanism across the Muslim world. This only added to the already impassioned assault on President Ahmadinejad. But as much as President Bush and his cohorts would like us all to be “with us or against us,” the world we live in is much more complex.
John F. Kennedy once said that “the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” It is simply easier and more convenient for us to condemn a man whose viewpoints seem bizarre, silly and sometimes fanatical – without any objective or independent analysis.
Secondly, the laughter from the audience that immediately followed Ahmadinejad’s claim that no homosexuals existed in Iran is a case in point where the topic of homosexuality became the fodder for comedy. College campuses across this country can attest to the rising homophobia and conservative viewpoints that more and more students are displaying every day. Homophobia reared its ugly head this week at Columbia University.
Thirdly, our ego and pride have blurred our view of the world around us. Do we really think that the rest of the world thinks and acts the same way we do? Has ethnocentrism rooted itself so deeply in our psyche that we have no room to understand the lives of others on this planet? Do we really live in such a bubble that we have no concept of what cultural relativism is or how and why the lived experiences of a person from another culture or religion might differ from our own?
To many, it may come as a surprise to learn about Ahmadinejad’s personal background and his upbringing. Born into a family of blacksmiths, Ahmadinejad has lived most of his life as a religious and frugal man. As the director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland stated to the Washington Post, “he is a premodern man in a postmodern world.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views on both the holocaust and the gay people are most likely the result of his economic status and educational upbringing.
As someone who grew up abroad, I can attest to not learning about the atrocious acts committed against the Jewish people until my mother recounted in my early teens the horror she witnessed in touring the remnants of a concentration camp in Germany. It was only in college where I learned that Hitler not only set out to eradicate Jews but also other marginalized and oppressed communities of the time (including LGBT people).
Just as Mr. Ahmadinejad may not have been taught about the holocaust, the majority of Americans probably know very little about the Cambodian genocide in the 1970s in which 21% of the country’s population (1.7 million people) lost their lives. Similarly the people of Malawi or Iceland probably know little if anything of the genocide committed in this country against Native Americans. While ignorance is no excuse and while we must hold Mr. Ahmadinejad accountable for his anti-Semitic beliefs, disparaging him is not the answer.
The last troubling fact was the unprecedented outcry at Ahmadinejad's request to visit the site of the World Trade Center attack. A popularly elected leader of more than 71 million people wanted to pay his respects to the tragedy that our country endured. Presidential candidates were in uproar and New York city officials were horrified. Senator Joe Leiberman even declared that Ahmadinejad comes to New York “literally with blood on his hands.” The outrage was so intense that one would have thought Osama bin Laden had released another video, announcing his emergence from the mountains of Afghanistan and requesting a personal tour of ground zero! Do we now think that Iran was involved in the attacks? Or has the Bush administration succeeded in making us all delusional?
American foreign policy in the 21st century is riddled with hypocrisy and double-standards. A friend can become a foe as quickly as a foe can become a friend. This was demonstrated clearly in April of this year when Rep. Nancy Pelosi paid a visit to Syria and met with President Bashar Al-Assad. It was only in November 2001 that President Bush infamously branded Syria as a member of the “axis of evil” together with Iran and North Korea. But with hidden pretense Syria overnight has become a potential ally in our “war on terrorism.” And North Korea will soon enjoy the economic benefits of opening its nuclear facilities to inspection and succumbing to the “new world order” where the United States is the only remaining superpower. While we are now quick to condemn Iran, mysteriously countries including Egypt and Uzbekistan (who are some of the worst state-sanctioned human rights’ abusers) continue to be closely allied to the United States. But for how long? We are as quick to sleep with the enemy as we are to kick them out of our beds.
I am continuously appalled at how easily our society succumbs to tactics that perpetuate terror and fear by those that seek to further cultivate corporate greed, poverty, environmental degradation, empire-building, militarization, and the privatization of natural resources. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk, author and advocate of peace articulated once that “in order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.” Unfortunately for President Ahmadinejad, he was just another pawn in this scheming plot.
It is unfortunate that we lost another chance at opening dialogue and creating peace with Ahmadinejad and with Iran. Instead of assailing Ahmadinejad and further alienating the Iranian people, we should have invited him to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and see for himself the death and destruction caused against the Jewish people; or attend a dinner with survivors of the holocaust who can describe first-hand their miraculous escape. And while we’re at it, Mr. Ahmadinejad should also meet with some of the gay men and lesbian women who have fled their homeland due to his country’s ongoing persecution of sexual minorities.
While the Bush administration increases its war-mongering against Iran and continues its unending war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must all work together harder than ever to fight back and ensure that our country become a source of peace and stability instead of our current path of “shock and awe” matched with death and destruction.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's visit to New York this year was a missed opportunity, but we can still look to the future to engage those that we have traditionally denounced. The future also presents us prospects for us to continue fighting homophobia, ethnocentrism and xenophobia that has permeated our society. And together we will get there.
Martin Luther King Jr. once stated that “I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.”
I hope President Ahmadinejad's next visit to New York will be an opening to facilitate cross-cultural dialogue, mutual understanding and an opening to a world where we can achieve true peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faisal Alam is a queer Muslim activist of Pakistani descent. As the founder of Al-Fatiha, an organization dedicated to supporting and empowering LGBT Muslims, Faisal managed the organization as a volunteer director from 1998-2005. Contrary to what many may think after reading this article he is not a supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or George W. Bush. :-)
Active in the struggle to promote peace and justice, Faisal currently resides in Atlanta, GA. His blogs and other writings can be found at http://queermuslimrevolution.blogspot.com and at http://myqueerificworld.blogspot.com. He can also be reached by email at FaisalAlam@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When evil men plot…” – The Vilification of Ahmadinejad
By Faisal Alam
“When evil men plot, good men must plan. When evil men burn and bomb, good men must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men must commit themselves to the glories of love. Where evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men must seek to bring into being a real order of justice.”
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
“Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.” – Albert Einstein
Not long ago most Americans did not even know how to pronounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s name, let alone who he might be. Today, with the help of media conglomerates, no one seems to be able to stop talking about him.
Ahmadinejad is no stranger to controversy. Already condemned for his denial that the Holocaust ever happened and for his statements calling for Israel to be wiped “off the face of the map” the grim mood was set even before Ahmadinejad arrived. Adding fuel to the fire he was invited to speak at Columbia University as part of their world leaders’ lecture series. If that wasn’t enough to get everyone’s blood boiling, Ahmadinejad requested to visit the site of the World Trade Center to offer a prayer and lay a wreath.
Ahmadenijad’s visit to New York was not the first time that he has visited the United States. He has come twice before, both times to attend and speak at the opening session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. But this diplomatic visit caused an uproar that few anticipated. Jewish organizations took out full page ads condemning his visit and thousands of people attended protests outside the United Nations and Columbia University. Signs calling for him to “go to hell” and comparing him to Hitler were distributed amongst the crowds.
Media networks were already buzzing about his controversial visit, but his speech at Columbia University was the stroke that broke the camel’s back. Demonized and disparaged by the President of Columbia University who called him a “petty and cruel dictator,” Ahmadinejad set out to redeem himself in front of the 700 faculty and students. After a long-winded speech beginning with many verses from the Quran and concluding with his passion for new scientific endeavors and his wish to promote world peace, Ahmadinejad was confronted with a series of questions about his beliefs and the political ambitions of Iran.
When questioned about his countries abysmal human rights record and the execution of many men suspected of being gay, Ahmadinejad’s response would become headlines around the world. Through a translator Ahmadinejad stated that “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it.” The audience burst out in laughter, which was followed by a handful of “boos” denouncing his declaration that no queer people existed in Iran. The statement caused such a ruckus that even before Ahmadinejad had ended his talk, those few words spread like wildfire across the blogosphere.
Queer groups were quick to condemn his statement reminding Mr. Ahmadinejad of the many cases of men arrested, tortured and even executed for conducting “liwat” or homosexual activities. Many were simply appalled and mystified that as a leader of a nation he could be in such denial about a segment of Iran that is persecuted under his regime.
The roots of Ahmadinejad’s denigration are clear to any one who can step back from the raw emotions expressed this week. There are four things that are most unsettling and most disturbing.
Firstly, the way the media monopoly manipulated and fed the story to the American people is shocking. Hundreds of newspapers around the world ran the same articles, sent by a handful of news wires including Reuters, the Associated Press and United Press International. This is a clear illustration of the power of media and the control of information that is communicated to the American public.
While the world was quick to snicker and joke about his assertion, within 48 hours bloggers discovered that perhaps his words were mistranslated. After careful analysis of the original Farsi, some discovered that perhaps what he meant to say was that “no (openly gay) people existed in Iran; these people only exist in your country.” In spite of the recognition that the meaning and context of Ahmadinejad’s response were possibly misconstrued, not one major television network or newspaper has reprted anything about this new revelation.
Let’s also not forget that Iran is a “sponsor of terrorism” fueling Islamic radicalism and anti-Americanism across the Muslim world. This only added to the already impassioned assault on President Ahmadinejad. But as much as President Bush and his cohorts would like us all to be “with us or against us,” the world we live in is much more complex.
John F. Kennedy once said that “the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: deliberate, continued, and dishonest; but the myth: persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” It is simply easier and more convenient for us to condemn a man whose viewpoints seem bizarre, silly and sometimes fanatical – without any objective or independent analysis.
Secondly, the laughter from the audience that immediately followed Ahmadinejad’s claim that no homosexuals existed in Iran is a case in point where the topic of homosexuality became the fodder for comedy. College campuses across this country can attest to the rising homophobia and conservative viewpoints that more and more students are displaying every day. Homophobia reared its ugly head this week at Columbia University.
Thirdly, our ego and pride have blurred our view of the world around us. Do we really think that the rest of the world thinks and acts the same way we do? Has ethnocentrism rooted itself so deeply in our psyche that we have no room to understand the lives of others on this planet? Do we really live in such a bubble that we have no concept of what cultural relativism is or how and why the lived experiences of a person from another culture or religion might differ from our own?
To many, it may come as a surprise to learn about Ahmadinejad’s personal background and his upbringing. Born into a family of blacksmiths, Ahmadinejad has lived most of his life as a religious and frugal man. As the director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland stated to the Washington Post, “he is a premodern man in a postmodern world.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s views on both the holocaust and the gay people are most likely the result of his economic status and educational upbringing.
As someone who grew up abroad, I can attest to not learning about the atrocious acts committed against the Jewish people until my mother recounted in my early teens the horror she witnessed in touring the remnants of a concentration camp in Germany. It was only in college where I learned that Hitler not only set out to eradicate Jews but also other marginalized and oppressed communities of the time (including LGBT people).
Just as Mr. Ahmadinejad may not have been taught about the holocaust, the majority of Americans probably know very little about the Cambodian genocide in the 1970s in which 21% of the country’s population (1.7 million people) lost their lives. Similarly the people of Malawi or Iceland probably know little if anything of the genocide committed in this country against Native Americans. While ignorance is no excuse and while we must hold Mr. Ahmadinejad accountable for his anti-Semitic beliefs, disparaging him is not the answer.
The last troubling fact was the unprecedented outcry at Ahmadinejad's request to visit the site of the World Trade Center attack. A popularly elected leader of more than 71 million people wanted to pay his respects to the tragedy that our country endured. Presidential candidates were in uproar and New York city officials were horrified. Senator Joe Leiberman even declared that Ahmadinejad comes to New York “literally with blood on his hands.” The outrage was so intense that one would have thought Osama bin Laden had released another video, announcing his emergence from the mountains of Afghanistan and requesting a personal tour of ground zero! Do we now think that Iran was involved in the attacks? Or has the Bush administration succeeded in making us all delusional?
American foreign policy in the 21st century is riddled with hypocrisy and double-standards. A friend can become a foe as quickly as a foe can become a friend. This was demonstrated clearly in April of this year when Rep. Nancy Pelosi paid a visit to Syria and met with President Bashar Al-Assad. It was only in November 2001 that President Bush infamously branded Syria as a member of the “axis of evil” together with Iran and North Korea. But with hidden pretense Syria overnight has become a potential ally in our “war on terrorism.” And North Korea will soon enjoy the economic benefits of opening its nuclear facilities to inspection and succumbing to the “new world order” where the United States is the only remaining superpower. While we are now quick to condemn Iran, mysteriously countries including Egypt and Uzbekistan (who are some of the worst state-sanctioned human rights’ abusers) continue to be closely allied to the United States. But for how long? We are as quick to sleep with the enemy as we are to kick them out of our beds.
I am continuously appalled at how easily our society succumbs to tactics that perpetuate terror and fear by those that seek to further cultivate corporate greed, poverty, environmental degradation, empire-building, militarization, and the privatization of natural resources. Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk, author and advocate of peace articulated once that “in order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.” Unfortunately for President Ahmadinejad, he was just another pawn in this scheming plot.
It is unfortunate that we lost another chance at opening dialogue and creating peace with Ahmadinejad and with Iran. Instead of assailing Ahmadinejad and further alienating the Iranian people, we should have invited him to visit the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC and see for himself the death and destruction caused against the Jewish people; or attend a dinner with survivors of the holocaust who can describe first-hand their miraculous escape. And while we’re at it, Mr. Ahmadinejad should also meet with some of the gay men and lesbian women who have fled their homeland due to his country’s ongoing persecution of sexual minorities.
While the Bush administration increases its war-mongering against Iran and continues its unending war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must all work together harder than ever to fight back and ensure that our country become a source of peace and stability instead of our current path of “shock and awe” matched with death and destruction.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's visit to New York this year was a missed opportunity, but we can still look to the future to engage those that we have traditionally denounced. The future also presents us prospects for us to continue fighting homophobia, ethnocentrism and xenophobia that has permeated our society. And together we will get there.
Martin Luther King Jr. once stated that “I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.”
I hope President Ahmadinejad's next visit to New York will be an opening to facilitate cross-cultural dialogue, mutual understanding and an opening to a world where we can achieve true peace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faisal Alam is a queer Muslim activist of Pakistani descent. As the founder of Al-Fatiha, an organization dedicated to supporting and empowering LGBT Muslims, Faisal managed the organization as a volunteer director from 1998-2005. Contrary to what many may think after reading this article he is not a supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or George W. Bush. :-)
Active in the struggle to promote peace and justice, Faisal currently resides in Atlanta, GA. His blogs and other writings can be found at http://queermuslimrevolution.blogspot.com and at http://myqueerificworld.blogspot.com. He can also be reached by email at FaisalAlam@aol.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet Mr. Gay Iran
From the Advocate.com.
At least one group is disproving Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that there's no such thing as a gay Iranian. Ahmadinejad said Monday at Columbia University, ''In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country.''
Actually, there's at least one. The 2006 International Mr. Gay competition included 25-year-old Kia Shirazi, who represented Iran. He was born in Tehran and, at the time of the competition, was a student in Canada. (The winner of the 2007 competition happened to be Israel's representative, Nathan Shaked from Tel Aviv.
"He was very courageous," Mr. Gay organizer Don Spradlin said of Shirazi. Living in Canada made the handsome student less vulnerable than if he'd been in Iran, but risk remained. A winner in a Mr. Gay contest in Poland in 2005 was expelled from college when his story appeared in a local newspaper, according to Spradlin. A Serbian candidate resigned just last week, Spradlin added, because a photo of him in the contest appeared in a Balkans journal.
The field of contestants vying for the 2008 crown does not yet include an Iranian candidate, although one early entry looked like a strong contender. That "very handsome" young man was a resident of Iran at the time, which may explain why he backed out without explanation.
Since the Iranian president's remarks yesterday, Mr. Gay Iran's story has circulated widely, Spradlin reports, to enlightening effect. Many people still don't imagine gays and lesbians can look like anybody else, because they've never seen anyone who was openly gay and mainstream-looking. The mass media tend to show gays only when they're dressed up in leather or drag, Spradlin said. Mr. Gay contestants, by contrast, are handsome "boy next door" types, often young professionals. "It's all about presenting non-stereotypical gay men to confront prejudice in the straight press."
Spradlin enjoyed hearing the sound of Columbia students laugh at Ahmadinejad's absurd remark that Iran has no gays. He's concerned, however, that other groups would see things very differently. "I think if (Ahmadinejad) had given that speech at some Baptist college in Kansas, most of the students would have just nodded their heads and said, 'Yeah, he probably doesn't have any gays in Iran,'" Spradlin said.
Thanks in part to Ahmadinejad's comments at Columbia, it's likely that more people will see many gay boys-next-door from around the country at the three-day U.S. Mr. Gay competition next month. The event takes place Oct. 27 in Los Angeles, and will be hosted by out gay comedian Alec Mapa.
Candidates from around the world will compete in the International Mr. Gay finals over the Jan. 19, 2008, weekend in Hollywood, CA. Some of those delegates will likely be Muslim, as they hail from such countries as Egypt, Morocco (pictured, bottom left), Nigeria and Syria (pictured, right), in addition to the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, India, Brazil, Russia, the Philippines and many other nations.
At least one group is disproving Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that there's no such thing as a gay Iranian. Ahmadinejad said Monday at Columbia University, ''In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country.''
Actually, there's at least one. The 2006 International Mr. Gay competition included 25-year-old Kia Shirazi, who represented Iran. He was born in Tehran and, at the time of the competition, was a student in Canada. (The winner of the 2007 competition happened to be Israel's representative, Nathan Shaked from Tel Aviv.
"He was very courageous," Mr. Gay organizer Don Spradlin said of Shirazi. Living in Canada made the handsome student less vulnerable than if he'd been in Iran, but risk remained. A winner in a Mr. Gay contest in Poland in 2005 was expelled from college when his story appeared in a local newspaper, according to Spradlin. A Serbian candidate resigned just last week, Spradlin added, because a photo of him in the contest appeared in a Balkans journal.
The field of contestants vying for the 2008 crown does not yet include an Iranian candidate, although one early entry looked like a strong contender. That "very handsome" young man was a resident of Iran at the time, which may explain why he backed out without explanation.
Since the Iranian president's remarks yesterday, Mr. Gay Iran's story has circulated widely, Spradlin reports, to enlightening effect. Many people still don't imagine gays and lesbians can look like anybody else, because they've never seen anyone who was openly gay and mainstream-looking. The mass media tend to show gays only when they're dressed up in leather or drag, Spradlin said. Mr. Gay contestants, by contrast, are handsome "boy next door" types, often young professionals. "It's all about presenting non-stereotypical gay men to confront prejudice in the straight press."
Spradlin enjoyed hearing the sound of Columbia students laugh at Ahmadinejad's absurd remark that Iran has no gays. He's concerned, however, that other groups would see things very differently. "I think if (Ahmadinejad) had given that speech at some Baptist college in Kansas, most of the students would have just nodded their heads and said, 'Yeah, he probably doesn't have any gays in Iran,'" Spradlin said.
Thanks in part to Ahmadinejad's comments at Columbia, it's likely that more people will see many gay boys-next-door from around the country at the three-day U.S. Mr. Gay competition next month. The event takes place Oct. 27 in Los Angeles, and will be hosted by out gay comedian Alec Mapa.
Candidates from around the world will compete in the International Mr. Gay finals over the Jan. 19, 2008, weekend in Hollywood, CA. Some of those delegates will likely be Muslim, as they hail from such countries as Egypt, Morocco (pictured, bottom left), Nigeria and Syria (pictured, right), in addition to the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, India, Brazil, Russia, the Philippines and many other nations.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Immigrant Rights Summit To Discuss Impact on LGBT Community
Immigrant summit Sat. | |
Published 09/13/2007
by Kris Larson
 | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
| Amos and Mickey Lim. Photo: Jane Philomen Cleland | |||||||||
| |||||||||
In keeping with its reputation as a "sanctuary city," San Francisco will host an all-day Immigrant Rights Summit Saturday, September 15 to address issues facing the immigrant communities in America. According to the Immigrant Rights Commission, the purposes of the summit are to share best practices with other sanctuary cities, to develop the local immigrants' rights movement, and to discuss how a federal immigration reform bill might affect local resources.
The summit also will address the ways in which the LGBT community is affected by current immigration policies. Under current immigration law, a foreign national can be awarded citizenship by marrying an American citizen. But because the law does not permit same-sex partners to marry, a same-sex binational couple can be torn apart, even if they share custody of a child.
Continued...Statement by Columbia Coalition Against the War
September 22, 2007
Open Letter to Progressive Opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
by The Columbia Coalition Against the War
As Columbia only very recently announced, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be speaking in Roone Arledge auditorium this Monday. A number of students and student organizations have already announced plans for a protest rally the same day. We are not among them. We do not endorse Ahmadinejad or his views, many of which are inexcusable. However, as opponents of a US military strike against Iran, we have serious concerns with the content of some of the hostility that has been expressed to his presence, and specifically with the planned protest.
We fear the demonization of Ahmadinejad, because we think this demonization contributes to the likelihood of war. In the current climate, with many on the political right in the U.S. and Israel pushing for air strikes, a campaign against Ahmadinejad is dangerous, regardless of the intentions of most involved. A call to action, unless it prominently rules out war, implies military action.
A rally where each speaker denounces Ahmadinejad's reactionary policies and just a few call explicitly for military action will still be perceived, on campus and around the U.S., as pro-war. The right-wing media, from Fox News to the New York tabloids, has already jumped on the event, and will spin it to favor their cause. Conservative organizations with no affiliation to Columbia's campus, such as the David Project, have already signed on to the rally on Facebook, and are likely to distribute hundreds of warmongering flyers and picket signs. The rally will seem to be a sea of pro-war demonstrators -- and the more people who attend it and the more organizations that endorse it, the more powerful this disastrous message will be.
A U.S. attack on Iran, which is not an inevitability but is a real possibility, would have consequences just as terrible as the invasion of Iraq. Thousands would die in initial air strikes, and more in the resulting backlash and regional conflagration. The work of Iranian campaigners for free speech, women's rights, and lesbian and gay liberation, and against racism and anti-semitism, would be set back immeasurably. As Iranian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi has pointed out, "Human rights are not established by throwing cluster bombs on people. You cannot introduce democracy to a country by using tanks."
There are other means for engagement with Iran than war, and other means for disagreement with Ahmadinejad than the planned protest. We call on those who do not support a war with Iran to be wary of the vilification of Ahmadinejad, to avoid Monday's rally, and to express vocally their opposition to military intervention.
Columbia Coalition Against the War
Mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's Statement?
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): In
TODD: An Iranian official later told CNN Ahmadinejad meant to say
Persian Culture, Young Boys and Homosexuality as an Orientation
The Washington Post reports that, according to Iranian American scholars, "Persian culture has historically included the practice of powerful men who keep young boys for sex but are not considered gay." Moreover, "younger Iranian Americans [say] there is a gay culture in today's Iraq, although it is suppressed by Shiite authorities."
According to Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, director of the Persian Sutdies Center of the University Maryland, "he probably meant to say that there are pedophiles in Iran but that the country does not recognize homosexuality as an orientation."
Iranian Jews condemn Columbia University president
September 27, 2007
Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN -- The Society of Iranian Jews here Wednesday issued a statement condemning Columbia University President Lee Bollinger’s insult to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad delivered a speech on Monday at New York’s Columbia University where the school’s president used disrespectful epithets in his introduction of the Iranian president.
The impolite behavior that was shown toward Iranian president proved that those who claim freedom of speech and democracy are only using these terms as a tool, the statement said.
Creating any kind of chaos and tension is in contrast with the Jewish ideology, and according to the teachings of Prophet Moses, the Jews believe in holding negotiations in a peaceful atmosphere, it added.
As the president is legally the representative of the Iranian nation, Iran’s Jews strongly condemn such misbehavior, the society said in the statement
Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN -- The Society of Iranian Jews here Wednesday issued a statement condemning Columbia University President Lee Bollinger’s insult to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad delivered a speech on Monday at New York’s Columbia University where the school’s president used disrespectful epithets in his introduction of the Iranian president.
The impolite behavior that was shown toward Iranian president proved that those who claim freedom of speech and democracy are only using these terms as a tool, the statement said.
Creating any kind of chaos and tension is in contrast with the Jewish ideology, and according to the teachings of Prophet Moses, the Jews believe in holding negotiations in a peaceful atmosphere, it added.
As the president is legally the representative of the Iranian nation, Iran’s Jews strongly condemn such misbehavior, the society said in the statement
CNN Segment on Gays in the Middle East
Gays in the Middle East 4:09
CNN's Hala Gorani talks to gay men who live in a society that doesn't accept homosexuality.Includes interview with gay men in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and members of Helem, an LGBT community center based in Beirut, Lebanon.
CNN Interviews Arsham Parsi About Being Iranian and Gay
Being Iranian and gay 3:15
CNN's Colleen McEdwards interviews Arsham Parsi about
the obstacles and prejudices of being both Iranian and gay.
CNN's Colleen McEdwards interviews Arsham Parsi about
the obstacles and prejudices of being both Iranian and gay.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Ahmadinejad Talks to CNN; Calls for Cross Cultural Dialogue
Christiane Amanpour sits down with Iranian President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a CNN exclusive interview.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a CNN exclusive interview.
CNN Segment on Homosexuality in Iran; IGLHRC Spokesperson Interviewed
Iran's leader denies there's homosexuality in his nation.
CNN's Brian Todd looks at attitudes about homosexuality there.
CNN's Brian Todd looks at attitudes about homosexuality there.
LGBT Religious Groups Urge Senate to Pass Hate Crimes Legislation
“In the United States today, the sad truth is that intolerance, oppression and even violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are cloaked in Judeo-Christian theology. However, many religious voices like ours are proclaiming that it is immoral to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
— Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, Institute for Welcoming Resources and National Religious Leadership Roundtable Member
Full press release
— Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, Institute for Welcoming Resources and National Religious Leadership Roundtable Member
Full press release
Sex Change Funding Undermines No Gays Claim
From the Guardian
Sex change funding undermines no gays claim
· Ahmadinejad account rejected in Iran
· Homosexuality illegal but transsexuals tolerated
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday September 26, 2007
Guardian
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's combative president, provoked his latest controversy in New York this week by asserting that there were no homosexuals in his country, he may have been indulging in sophistry or just plain wishful thinking.
While Mr Ahmadinejad may want to believe that his Islamic society is exclusively non-gay, it is a belief undermined by the paradox that transsexuality and sex changes are tolerated and encouraged under Iran's theocratic system.
Iran has between 15,000 and 20,000 transsexuals, according to official statistics, although unofficial estimates put the figure at up to 150,000. Iran carries out more gender change operations than any country in the world besides Thailand.
Sex changes have been legal since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, passed a fatwa authorising them nearly 25 years ago. Whereas homosexuality is considered a sin, transsexuality is categorised as an illness subject to cure.
While the government seeks to keep its approval quiet, state support has increased since Mr Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. His government has begun providing grants of £2,250 for operations and further funding for hormone therapy. It is also proposing loans of up to £2,750 to allow those undergoing surgery to start their own businesses.
Maryam Khatoon Molkara, leader of the country's main transsexual organisation, said some of those undergoing operations were gay rather than out-and-out transsexuals. "In Iran, transsexuals are part of the homosexual family. Is it possible that a phenomenon exists in the world but not in Iran? Transsexuality is a real disaster. It's a one-way street. But if somebody wants to study, have a future and live like others they should go through this surgery."
At Columbia University on Monday, Mr Ahmadinejad said homosexuality did not exist in Iran. "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he told a questioner who accused his government of executing gay people. "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you that we have it."
But Ms Molkara - who persuaded Khomeini to issue the fatwa on transsexuality - said his stance was inconsistent with the state's sex-change policy. "They are saying homosexuality doesn't exist, but they have never given me a chance to use my influence among transsexuals to prevent transsexuality from happening," she said. "You could change the culture but the press and state TV are not allowed to write or say anything about transsexuality."
The president's claim was an eye-opener to Iranian human rights lawyers, who said the country's Islamic legal code made draconian provision for homosexual offences by men and women.
It also outraged international gay rights activists, who recalled numerous executions under Iran's sodomy laws. When legal officials announced the execution of 12 prisoners at Tehran's Evin prison in July, they said the condemned included several "sodomites". According to campaigners, several gay men have been caught up in a wave of hangings over the summer, although the claims are hard to verify.
There have been other high-profile cases in recent years, including that of two teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, who were publicly hanged in the north-eastern city of Mashhad in the summer of 2005 after admitting having sex. This summer, Pegah Emambakhsh, an Iranian lesbian, was granted permission to take her case to the court of appeal in Britain after claiming she would be in danger of execution if the Home Office implemented its ruling to deport her to Iran.
"Homosexuality is defined both for men and women in law. There is a section devoted to homosexuality," Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel peace prize-winning human rights lawyer, said. "There is one part for homosexuality in men, which is called lavat [sodomy], which is punishable by death. There is another for women, which is called mosahegheh. If the crime is committed up to three times, the penalty is 100 lashes. On the fourth, it is execution."
Sex change funding undermines no gays claim
· Ahmadinejad account rejected in Iran
· Homosexuality illegal but transsexuals tolerated
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday September 26, 2007
Guardian
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's combative president, provoked his latest controversy in New York this week by asserting that there were no homosexuals in his country, he may have been indulging in sophistry or just plain wishful thinking.
While Mr Ahmadinejad may want to believe that his Islamic society is exclusively non-gay, it is a belief undermined by the paradox that transsexuality and sex changes are tolerated and encouraged under Iran's theocratic system.
Iran has between 15,000 and 20,000 transsexuals, according to official statistics, although unofficial estimates put the figure at up to 150,000. Iran carries out more gender change operations than any country in the world besides Thailand.
Sex changes have been legal since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic revolution, passed a fatwa authorising them nearly 25 years ago. Whereas homosexuality is considered a sin, transsexuality is categorised as an illness subject to cure.
While the government seeks to keep its approval quiet, state support has increased since Mr Ahmadinejad took office in 2005. His government has begun providing grants of £2,250 for operations and further funding for hormone therapy. It is also proposing loans of up to £2,750 to allow those undergoing surgery to start their own businesses.
Maryam Khatoon Molkara, leader of the country's main transsexual organisation, said some of those undergoing operations were gay rather than out-and-out transsexuals. "In Iran, transsexuals are part of the homosexual family. Is it possible that a phenomenon exists in the world but not in Iran? Transsexuality is a real disaster. It's a one-way street. But if somebody wants to study, have a future and live like others they should go through this surgery."
At Columbia University on Monday, Mr Ahmadinejad said homosexuality did not exist in Iran. "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he told a questioner who accused his government of executing gay people. "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you that we have it."
But Ms Molkara - who persuaded Khomeini to issue the fatwa on transsexuality - said his stance was inconsistent with the state's sex-change policy. "They are saying homosexuality doesn't exist, but they have never given me a chance to use my influence among transsexuals to prevent transsexuality from happening," she said. "You could change the culture but the press and state TV are not allowed to write or say anything about transsexuality."
The president's claim was an eye-opener to Iranian human rights lawyers, who said the country's Islamic legal code made draconian provision for homosexual offences by men and women.
It also outraged international gay rights activists, who recalled numerous executions under Iran's sodomy laws. When legal officials announced the execution of 12 prisoners at Tehran's Evin prison in July, they said the condemned included several "sodomites". According to campaigners, several gay men have been caught up in a wave of hangings over the summer, although the claims are hard to verify.
There have been other high-profile cases in recent years, including that of two teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, who were publicly hanged in the north-eastern city of Mashhad in the summer of 2005 after admitting having sex. This summer, Pegah Emambakhsh, an Iranian lesbian, was granted permission to take her case to the court of appeal in Britain after claiming she would be in danger of execution if the Home Office implemented its ruling to deport her to Iran.
"Homosexuality is defined both for men and women in law. There is a section devoted to homosexuality," Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel peace prize-winning human rights lawyer, said. "There is one part for homosexuality in men, which is called lavat [sodomy], which is punishable by death. There is another for women, which is called mosahegheh. If the crime is committed up to three times, the penalty is 100 lashes. On the fourth, it is execution."
Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1
From Salon.com
Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.
By Juan Cole
Sep. 24, 2007 | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.
The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.
Continued...
Juan Cole is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and the author of "Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East."
Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.
By Juan Cole
Sep. 24, 2007 | Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.
The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.
Continued...
Juan Cole is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and the author of "Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East."
Columbia Queer Alliances Statement on President Ahmadinejad Visit
COLUMBIA QUEER ALLIANCE
"These are the views of the Columbia Queer Alliance executive board and those members present at the meeting in which this matter was discussed. CQA is not the collective voice of the queer community; we do not claim to be expressing the views and opinions of all queer-identified individuals affiliated with Columbia University. However, as student leaders of a progressive activist organization, it is our responsibility to be a part of this discussion.""We condemn the human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian government under the administration of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We admonish the policies that make same-sex practices punishable by torture and death, as well as those that restrict the freedoms and self-determination of women."
"We stand in solidarity with our peers in Iran, but we do not presume to speak for them. We cannot possibly claim to understand the multiple and diverse experiences of living with same-sex desires in Iran. Our cultural values and experiences are distinct, but the stakes are one and the same: the essential human right to express our desires freely."
"Moreover, we would like to strongly caution media and campus organizations against the use of such words as "gay", "lesbian", or "homosexual" to describe people in Iran who engage in same-sex practices and feel same-sex desire. The construction of sexual orientation as a social and political identity and all of the vocabulary therein is a Western cultural idiom. As such, scholars of sexuality in the Middle East generally use the terms "same-sex practices" and "same-sex desire" in recognition of the inadequacy of Western terminology."
Columbia University Student Groups Issue Statements on Ahmadinejad's Visit
MSA - Muslim Student Association
Having also experienced direct attacks upon our community and faith beliefs post 9/11, the MSA empathizes with the student groups who are offended and outraged by the presence of the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Columbia's campus. As an organization, we will continue to strengthen our relationship with as many of Columbia's religious, cultural, and political organizations so that Islam can be fairly represented on this campus and so that the MSA can maintain its role as a vital organization for Columbia student life.
LUCHA - Latino Student Group
Lucha believes that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presence at Columbia University is a chance to engage in conversation with one of the world's most important political leaders. As the occupation of Iraq continues to destroy lives, generals and politicians blame the escalating violence on Iranian interference. As in Iraq, we fear that the American people will be misled into an unjust war with Iran. We see Ahmadinejad's presence as a crucial opportunity to open dialogue, leading to diplomacy with Iran instead of invasion.
Lucha is concerned with the hypocrisy much of the media and Columbia Administration has displayed in discussing Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at Columbia. A self serving description of "freedom of speech" was used to condemn the non-violent protesters who unfurled banners onstage while Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen Project was speaking on October 4th, 2006. The same ideologues who denounced Columbia when Minutemen supporters shut down their own event by attacking the student protesters, now criticize Columbia for opening a dialogue with one of the most important world leaders and for attempting to promote an exchange of ideas and diplomacy at a time when war with Iran seems ever more imminent. The Columbia Administration has shown incredible inconsistency. They have successfully created an environment in which Ahmadinejad's positions will be forcefully critiqued, while the University did nothing to acknowledge how deeply offensive and threatening Gilchrist's views and actions are to Latinos and people of color. We appreciate the University's efforts in bringing Ahmadinejad to Columbia amid
considerable controversy and providing a forum for his views to be challenged, but feel it necessary to highlight their inconsistency.
We believe that Jim Gilchrist and Ahmadinejad are incomparable. For the Minutemen Project, speaking at Columbia represented a chance to bring tactics and ideology pioneered by the Ku Klux Klan into mainstream American politics. The consequences of Ahmadinejad speaking on the other hand, are entirely different. We believe it necessary to prevent an invasion of Iran, and Ahmadinejad speaking can only lead to further understanding and dialogue. We stand with the people of Iran in their struggle against anti-Semitism, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, but we fear that these issues have been exploited by those who wish to promote a Zionist and imperialist American invasion of Iran.
PRO-Israel PROgressives
Within our group, there are varying opinions on whether Columbia University should have extended an invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Given he will be on campus tomorrow afternoon, we support the efforts of student groups who voice their opposition to Ahmadinejad's opinions. As well as being appalled by Ahmadinejad's statements concerning Israel, PRO-Israel PROgressives is also deeply opposed to Ahmadinejad's support of international terrorism, his denial of the Holocaust, his suppression of political dissidence, and his oppression of minority groups.
Although we clearly disagree with the repugnant views of Ahmadinejad, we hope his presence will begin a constructive conversation on campus, one that is in stark contrast to his own views. We hope future discussions on the Middle East are respectful and inclusive, reflective of a progressive vision, and focused on peace.
Having also experienced direct attacks upon our community and faith beliefs post 9/11, the MSA empathizes with the student groups who are offended and outraged by the presence of the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Columbia's campus. As an organization, we will continue to strengthen our relationship with as many of Columbia's religious, cultural, and political organizations so that Islam can be fairly represented on this campus and so that the MSA can maintain its role as a vital organization for Columbia student life.LUCHA - Latino Student Group
Lucha believes that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presence at Columbia University is a chance to engage in conversation with one of the world's most important political leaders. As the occupation of Iraq continues to destroy lives, generals and politicians blame the escalating violence on Iranian interference. As in Iraq, we fear that the American people will be misled into an unjust war with Iran. We see Ahmadinejad's presence as a crucial opportunity to open dialogue, leading to diplomacy with Iran instead of invasion.
Lucha is concerned with the hypocrisy much of the media and Columbia Administration has displayed in discussing Ahmadinejad's invitation to speak at Columbia. A self serving description of "freedom of speech" was used to condemn the non-violent protesters who unfurled banners onstage while Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen Project was speaking on October 4th, 2006. The same ideologues who denounced Columbia when Minutemen supporters shut down their own event by attacking the student protesters, now criticize Columbia for opening a dialogue with one of the most important world leaders and for attempting to promote an exchange of ideas and diplomacy at a time when war with Iran seems ever more imminent. The Columbia Administration has shown incredible inconsistency. They have successfully created an environment in which Ahmadinejad's positions will be forcefully critiqued, while the University did nothing to acknowledge how deeply offensive and threatening Gilchrist's views and actions are to Latinos and people of color. We appreciate the University's efforts in bringing Ahmadinejad to Columbia amid
considerable controversy and providing a forum for his views to be challenged, but feel it necessary to highlight their inconsistency.We believe that Jim Gilchrist and Ahmadinejad are incomparable. For the Minutemen Project, speaking at Columbia represented a chance to bring tactics and ideology pioneered by the Ku Klux Klan into mainstream American politics. The consequences of Ahmadinejad speaking on the other hand, are entirely different. We believe it necessary to prevent an invasion of Iran, and Ahmadinejad speaking can only lead to further understanding and dialogue. We stand with the people of Iran in their struggle against anti-Semitism, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, but we fear that these issues have been exploited by those who wish to promote a Zionist and imperialist American invasion of Iran.
PRO-Israel PROgressives
Within our group, there are varying opinions on whether Columbia University should have extended an invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Given he will be on campus tomorrow afternoon, we support the efforts of student groups who voice their opposition to Ahmadinejad's opinions. As well as being appalled by Ahmadinejad's statements concerning Israel, PRO-Israel PROgressives is also deeply opposed to Ahmadinejad's support of international terrorism, his denial of the Holocaust, his suppression of political dissidence, and his oppression of minority groups.
Although we clearly disagree with the repugnant views of Ahmadinejad, we hope his presence will begin a constructive conversation on campus, one that is in stark contrast to his own views. We hope future discussions on the Middle East are respectful and inclusive, reflective of a progressive vision, and focused on peace.
Don't ask, don't tell, Iranian style
From Salon.com
Why did Ahmadinejad claim Iran has no homosexuals? It has to do with a quilt.
By Sandip Roy
Sep. 26, 2007 | At Columbia University Mahmoud Ahmadinejad established himself as the Great Denier -- of nuclear weapons, the Holocaust and homosexuals. "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he told the audience (see video below). "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."
Perhaps it was the ghosts of Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari.
On July 19, 2005, Marhoni and Asgari, both teenagers, were hanged publicly for homosexual sex in the Iranian city of Mashad. That was the year Ahmadinejad became president. Maybe what he meant to say is that in Iran we have no more homosexuals.
The loud, skeptical laughter from the audience showed that while some might still believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes, no one bought his homosexual-free zone.
But the problem lay in the question. Ahmadinejad was asked why his country denies women and homosexuals rights. If the questioner had asked the Iranian president about homosexual acts instead of a class of people known as "homosexuals," maybe Ahmadinejad would have conceded the existence of such a "phenomenon."
Iran is not alone in refusing to acknowledge homosexuals. From Uganda to India, many countries, especially ones with colonial histories, try to disown this Western import. (Cricket, Marxism, washing machines, are apparently OK despite their Western roots.)
This thing of darkness, Ahmadinejad seemed to say, I do not accept as mine.
The West always wants to label, classify, order. In the East, to label, classify, order, reveal or name can invite conflict. In 1944, in one of the first obscenity cases in India, famous Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai was hauled before the court for a short story about lesbianism called "The Quilt." It was clear to any reader what was going on under the quilt when a noblewoman and her favorite maid pulled it over themselves at night. "Begam Jan's quilt was once more swaying in the dark like an elephant ... The elephant was making sounds as if it was trying to squat. The sound of someone smacking his lips as if savoring a delicious sauce."
But the court absolved Ismat Chughtai because she never named the act that happened under the quilt. She never took the quilt off. Safely hidden under it, Begum Jan could do whatever she wanted.
Five decades later, Indian-Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta pulled the covers off lesbian sex in the film "Fire," where two Delhi housewives are shown not only making love but also wondering what name to call themselves. Theaters were ransacked, screenings disrupted, questions were raised in Parliament. And not just by homophobic religious fundamentalists. "There is a danger that many of those exposed to this controversy will learn to view all such signs of affection through the prism of homosexuality. As a consequence many will feel inhibited in expressing physical fondness for other women for fear of being permanently branded as lesbians," worried Madhu Kishwar, the editor of one of India's most famous feminist magazines, Manushi.
The protection of the quilt was gone. The act of naming is dangerous.
The act of showing is even more so. The soon-to-be-released film version of the bestselling novel "The Kite Runner" is causing a ruckus in Afghanistan for showing the rape of a young boy. The family of the 12-year-old boy actor wants the scene cut. "This is against Afghan culture," the boy's father told the Associated Press.
Yet if there is one country whose culture is imbued with boy-love, it's Afghanistan. Nineteenth-century British explorer Richard Burton wrote in his accounts of travels through the region about "lads almost in women's attire with kohl'd eyes and rouged cheeks." "The cities of Afghanistan and Sindh are thoroughly saturated with Persian vice," wrote Burton, in a blow to both Iran and Afghanistan.
A famous Pathan marching song goes, "There is a boy, across the river with a bottom like a peach. But alas, I can't swim." The Taliban even had an injunction against their fighters taking boys without facial hair into their private quarters.
But when an act is shown on film, it moves from private quarters to the public sphere. It gets a name. It gets an identity. It gets a marker on the Kinsey scale. And you cannot avert your eyes from it. It becomes real.
"The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film," the boy's father told the Associated Press. "They think it has actually happened."
And it has. It has happened thousands of times, hundreds of thousands of times. But now it's been dragged into the light, pinned down like a butterfly on an entomologist's table, available to dissect, label, name and even post on YouTube.
There are men having homosexual sex in Iran. Ahmadinejad knows that. His questioner knows that. The questioner tried to shame the Iranian president. The Iranian president retreated into blind denial. The real failure of the interrogation at Columbia University was in not being able to find a way to talk about that obvious truth without completely stripping off the quilt.
Once we figure out how to do that, we might even be able to discuss nukes.
A version of this story was originally published by New America Media.
-- By Sandip Roy
Sandip Roy is an editor with New America Media and host of its radio show "UpFront" on KALW (91.7 FM) in San Francisco.
Why did Ahmadinejad claim Iran has no homosexuals? It has to do with a quilt.
By Sandip Roy
Sep. 26, 2007 | At Columbia University Mahmoud Ahmadinejad established himself as the Great Denier -- of nuclear weapons, the Holocaust and homosexuals. "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he told the audience (see video below). "In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it."
Perhaps it was the ghosts of Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari.
On July 19, 2005, Marhoni and Asgari, both teenagers, were hanged publicly for homosexual sex in the Iranian city of Mashad. That was the year Ahmadinejad became president. Maybe what he meant to say is that in Iran we have no more homosexuals.
The loud, skeptical laughter from the audience showed that while some might still believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes, no one bought his homosexual-free zone.
But the problem lay in the question. Ahmadinejad was asked why his country denies women and homosexuals rights. If the questioner had asked the Iranian president about homosexual acts instead of a class of people known as "homosexuals," maybe Ahmadinejad would have conceded the existence of such a "phenomenon."
Iran is not alone in refusing to acknowledge homosexuals. From Uganda to India, many countries, especially ones with colonial histories, try to disown this Western import. (Cricket, Marxism, washing machines, are apparently OK despite their Western roots.)
This thing of darkness, Ahmadinejad seemed to say, I do not accept as mine.
The West always wants to label, classify, order. In the East, to label, classify, order, reveal or name can invite conflict. In 1944, in one of the first obscenity cases in India, famous Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai was hauled before the court for a short story about lesbianism called "The Quilt." It was clear to any reader what was going on under the quilt when a noblewoman and her favorite maid pulled it over themselves at night. "Begam Jan's quilt was once more swaying in the dark like an elephant ... The elephant was making sounds as if it was trying to squat. The sound of someone smacking his lips as if savoring a delicious sauce."
But the court absolved Ismat Chughtai because she never named the act that happened under the quilt. She never took the quilt off. Safely hidden under it, Begum Jan could do whatever she wanted.
Five decades later, Indian-Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta pulled the covers off lesbian sex in the film "Fire," where two Delhi housewives are shown not only making love but also wondering what name to call themselves. Theaters were ransacked, screenings disrupted, questions were raised in Parliament. And not just by homophobic religious fundamentalists. "There is a danger that many of those exposed to this controversy will learn to view all such signs of affection through the prism of homosexuality. As a consequence many will feel inhibited in expressing physical fondness for other women for fear of being permanently branded as lesbians," worried Madhu Kishwar, the editor of one of India's most famous feminist magazines, Manushi.
The protection of the quilt was gone. The act of naming is dangerous.
The act of showing is even more so. The soon-to-be-released film version of the bestselling novel "The Kite Runner" is causing a ruckus in Afghanistan for showing the rape of a young boy. The family of the 12-year-old boy actor wants the scene cut. "This is against Afghan culture," the boy's father told the Associated Press.
Yet if there is one country whose culture is imbued with boy-love, it's Afghanistan. Nineteenth-century British explorer Richard Burton wrote in his accounts of travels through the region about "lads almost in women's attire with kohl'd eyes and rouged cheeks." "The cities of Afghanistan and Sindh are thoroughly saturated with Persian vice," wrote Burton, in a blow to both Iran and Afghanistan.
A famous Pathan marching song goes, "There is a boy, across the river with a bottom like a peach. But alas, I can't swim." The Taliban even had an injunction against their fighters taking boys without facial hair into their private quarters.
But when an act is shown on film, it moves from private quarters to the public sphere. It gets a name. It gets an identity. It gets a marker on the Kinsey scale. And you cannot avert your eyes from it. It becomes real.
"The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film," the boy's father told the Associated Press. "They think it has actually happened."
And it has. It has happened thousands of times, hundreds of thousands of times. But now it's been dragged into the light, pinned down like a butterfly on an entomologist's table, available to dissect, label, name and even post on YouTube.
There are men having homosexual sex in Iran. Ahmadinejad knows that. His questioner knows that. The questioner tried to shame the Iranian president. The Iranian president retreated into blind denial. The real failure of the interrogation at Columbia University was in not being able to find a way to talk about that obvious truth without completely stripping off the quilt.
Once we figure out how to do that, we might even be able to discuss nukes.
A version of this story was originally published by New America Media.
-- By Sandip Roy
Sandip Roy is an editor with New America Media and host of its radio show "UpFront" on KALW (91.7 FM) in San Francisco.
Op-Ed by Columbia Student: Iran, Sexuality, and Human Rights
From the Columbia Spectator
Iran, Sexuality, and Human Rights
By Aries De La Cruz
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, were two teenagers from the province of Khuzestan, charged with rape and sodomy in a nation where both concepts are frequently conflated by a specious justice system. They were hanged in a public execution in the city of Mashhad on July 19, 2005. Mahmoud and Ayaz were executed for same-sex practices (and deprived of their basic right to exist) as a result of a zealous government that is based not on the principles of reason but rather the tyranny of religion: Iran is a nation that has criminalized such acts since 1979, a violation of which is punishable by torture and death, according to Islamic law.
Mahmoud and Ayaz’s case is simply one of many that occur regularly in Iran (and it happened only a month before Ahmadinejad was elected president). Other such violations are broadly distributed and experienced by all sectors of Iranian society, except for the elites. For instance, the status of women in Iran continues to appalling. Such repression is to be expected from a nation in which every resource is mobilized to suppress dissent, smash same-sex practices, and oppress women.
I begin with Mahmoud and Ayaz because it is their story that compellingly illustrates the human rights violations that are regularly perpetrated by Iran. Because we inherited the knowledge of their persecution, we must do honor to their deaths by working towards a diplomatic yet unwavering solution so that others may enjoy a happier outcome.
Many have invoked rhetoric centered on human rights and freedom. Unfortunately, these values have been co-opted by some of the more extreme conservative and reactionary factions within our campus, who use such language to propel their own agendas. Such discussion undeniably comes from a place of privilege, a discourse that is bound up with the advantages of education and status—it is impossible to speak about the lack of something with which all of us have long been accustomed. To be sure, this level of engagement is neither brave nor courageous, for it is expected of our role as student leaders to endeavor to speak truth to power. However, for those factions that seek to cloak themselves in the language of liberty and human rights while pushing an agenda that will deprive many of such benefits requires as much audacity as one that would deny the occurrence of genocide. Indeed, the appropriation of the experiences of the oppressed in Iran in order to agitate for military escalation is a malicious disservice to those who have suffered under the regime. While it is expedient and useful in moments of supposed crisis to unite and come to consensus on common principles (because historically, no group on this campus operates a monopoly on civil discourse and respectful dialogue), progressives must acknowledge that we stand for the core values of liberalism and freedom—values that broadly and robustly defined, would likely earn the vitriol of both Ahmadinejad and factions on this campus, who separately but mutually advocate torture, military escalation, and the suppression of dissent and sexual practices under the banner of moral and religious zealotry.
I am profoundly disturbed by the notion that Ahmadinejad can visit our campus to enjoy the benefits and comfort of liberal society, knowing the entire time that a controversial speaker in his nation would surely be publicly hanged. Giving Ahmadinejad a soapbox from which to air his provocative rhetoric offends many of us, but the grievous denial of freedom and safety to Iranian citizens who engage in same-sex practices are just as offensive. I am immensely privileged to be able to love others and protest freely, while others in Iran have no such blessings to lose. I stand in solidarity with them in the hope that one day they can have the option to practice these desires openly and without fear for their lives.
Although our identities, values, and cultures are decidedly different from our peers in Iran, I am convinced our stakes in this struggle are one and the same.
The author is a student in the School of General Studies and a board member of Columbia Queer Alliance.
Iran, Sexuality, and Human Rights
By Aries De La Cruz
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhoni, 18, were two teenagers from the province of Khuzestan, charged with rape and sodomy in a nation where both concepts are frequently conflated by a specious justice system. They were hanged in a public execution in the city of Mashhad on July 19, 2005. Mahmoud and Ayaz were executed for same-sex practices (and deprived of their basic right to exist) as a result of a zealous government that is based not on the principles of reason but rather the tyranny of religion: Iran is a nation that has criminalized such acts since 1979, a violation of which is punishable by torture and death, according to Islamic law.
Mahmoud and Ayaz’s case is simply one of many that occur regularly in Iran (and it happened only a month before Ahmadinejad was elected president). Other such violations are broadly distributed and experienced by all sectors of Iranian society, except for the elites. For instance, the status of women in Iran continues to appalling. Such repression is to be expected from a nation in which every resource is mobilized to suppress dissent, smash same-sex practices, and oppress women.
I begin with Mahmoud and Ayaz because it is their story that compellingly illustrates the human rights violations that are regularly perpetrated by Iran. Because we inherited the knowledge of their persecution, we must do honor to their deaths by working towards a diplomatic yet unwavering solution so that others may enjoy a happier outcome.
Many have invoked rhetoric centered on human rights and freedom. Unfortunately, these values have been co-opted by some of the more extreme conservative and reactionary factions within our campus, who use such language to propel their own agendas. Such discussion undeniably comes from a place of privilege, a discourse that is bound up with the advantages of education and status—it is impossible to speak about the lack of something with which all of us have long been accustomed. To be sure, this level of engagement is neither brave nor courageous, for it is expected of our role as student leaders to endeavor to speak truth to power. However, for those factions that seek to cloak themselves in the language of liberty and human rights while pushing an agenda that will deprive many of such benefits requires as much audacity as one that would deny the occurrence of genocide. Indeed, the appropriation of the experiences of the oppressed in Iran in order to agitate for military escalation is a malicious disservice to those who have suffered under the regime. While it is expedient and useful in moments of supposed crisis to unite and come to consensus on common principles (because historically, no group on this campus operates a monopoly on civil discourse and respectful dialogue), progressives must acknowledge that we stand for the core values of liberalism and freedom—values that broadly and robustly defined, would likely earn the vitriol of both Ahmadinejad and factions on this campus, who separately but mutually advocate torture, military escalation, and the suppression of dissent and sexual practices under the banner of moral and religious zealotry.
I am profoundly disturbed by the notion that Ahmadinejad can visit our campus to enjoy the benefits and comfort of liberal society, knowing the entire time that a controversial speaker in his nation would surely be publicly hanged. Giving Ahmadinejad a soapbox from which to air his provocative rhetoric offends many of us, but the grievous denial of freedom and safety to Iranian citizens who engage in same-sex practices are just as offensive. I am immensely privileged to be able to love others and protest freely, while others in Iran have no such blessings to lose. I stand in solidarity with them in the hope that one day they can have the option to practice these desires openly and without fear for their lives.
Although our identities, values, and cultures are decidedly different from our peers in Iran, I am convinced our stakes in this struggle are one and the same.
The author is a student in the School of General Studies and a board member of Columbia Queer Alliance.
Op-Ed: Iran, Sexuality, and Intercultural Dialogue
From the Columbia Spectator
By OMAR SARWAR
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
During his speech on Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parried many of our direct questions concerning his denial of the Holocaust, his desire to destroy the state of Israel, and his government’s pursuit of nuclear technology. However, he spoke clearly, if rather inaccurately, about the issue of homosexuality: “In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.” His remarks evoked laughter in the audience. But our amusement pointed to a lack of reflection on whether such a response is underpinned by certain cultural assumptions with which we in the West have yet to fully grapple.
Of course, it is plainly untrue that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Though part of a minority, some Iranians view themselves as queer, have advanced the cause of gay rights, and have consequently had to endure the persecution of their government. The Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) is one manifestation of the efforts of queer Iranians to promote social justice under the banner of international human and gay rights. What we seem to have neglected are the historical significance and cultural specificity of our use of the terms “homosexual” and “queer” in describing same-sex desire and practice. What does it mean to posit that homosexuality has persisted throughout human history? With respect to Iran, do all or most Iranians who experience same-sex desire consider themselves “gay?” Does a history of sexuality in Persia reveal a “gay” identity as we understand it in modern times, one which is at once defended in the name of privacy and publicly expressed through a variety of symbols, images, and accouterments? Our own Professor Joseph Massad would reply in the negative. In his recent book, Desiring Arabs, Massad argues that civilizational worth and sexual desire have been closely interconnected in Orientalist thought, that the category of the “homosexual” is part of the culturally specific vocabulary of international gay rights organizations (the “Gay International”), and that nationalist and Islamist Arab intellectuals have assimilated distinctly European conceptions of the human since the nineteenth century.
Although Massad concentrates on the interface between Europe and the Arab world, his remains a broad commentary on the manner in which a particular penetrative Western discourse has interlaced sexuality, gay rights, human rights, Orientalist convictions, and social Darwinism in confronting the question of same-sex desire and practice in the non-Western world. He avers that “it is the very discourse of the Gay International, which both produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” For Massad, this discourse is oppressive because it brands those who pursue same-sex practices but resist universalist terminology as “homophobic” and because it rigidifies a heterosexual-homosexual binary, a potent tool for state repression.
I mention Massad’s work to underscore the possibility that many Iranians (and many non-Westerners in general) might conceive of sexuality in non-identitarian, non-universalist terms. These conceptions may take a range of forms, some of which betoken a dialectic between religious revivalism and Western norms, particularly in the context of the history of the modern Middle East. A denial of “homosexuality,” then, may indicate not an irrational refusal to accept the fact of same-sex desire and practice but rather a repudiation of a homogenizing albeit culturally distinct discourse on sexuality. I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s curt answer to the question of the persecution of homosexuals evinces such complex considerations. And I personally do not endorse punishing or killing people for their sexual desires and practices irrespective of the historicity and multiplicity of the language employed to articulate these things. Nonetheless, President Ahmadinejad is not the sole representative or arbiter of the aspirations of the Iranian people, with whom we must engage in constructive dialogue on questions of sexuality. It will not suffice to presuppose that Iranians already conduct their sexuality in identitarian, universalist language or that, if they do not, they can somehow be benevolently (or peremptorily) taught how to do so. It is only by maintaining open lines of communication with the Iranians (and other peoples) that we can begin to understand what we share as human beings and what differentiates us. This will be the least we can do if we claim to be more tolerant and compassionate than the present Iranian government.
The author is a history Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
By OMAR SARWAR
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
During his speech on Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parried many of our direct questions concerning his denial of the Holocaust, his desire to destroy the state of Israel, and his government’s pursuit of nuclear technology. However, he spoke clearly, if rather inaccurately, about the issue of homosexuality: “In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.” His remarks evoked laughter in the audience. But our amusement pointed to a lack of reflection on whether such a response is underpinned by certain cultural assumptions with which we in the West have yet to fully grapple.
Of course, it is plainly untrue that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Though part of a minority, some Iranians view themselves as queer, have advanced the cause of gay rights, and have consequently had to endure the persecution of their government. The Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) is one manifestation of the efforts of queer Iranians to promote social justice under the banner of international human and gay rights. What we seem to have neglected are the historical significance and cultural specificity of our use of the terms “homosexual” and “queer” in describing same-sex desire and practice. What does it mean to posit that homosexuality has persisted throughout human history? With respect to Iran, do all or most Iranians who experience same-sex desire consider themselves “gay?” Does a history of sexuality in Persia reveal a “gay” identity as we understand it in modern times, one which is at once defended in the name of privacy and publicly expressed through a variety of symbols, images, and accouterments? Our own Professor Joseph Massad would reply in the negative. In his recent book, Desiring Arabs, Massad argues that civilizational worth and sexual desire have been closely interconnected in Orientalist thought, that the category of the “homosexual” is part of the culturally specific vocabulary of international gay rights organizations (the “Gay International”), and that nationalist and Islamist Arab intellectuals have assimilated distinctly European conceptions of the human since the nineteenth century.
Although Massad concentrates on the interface between Europe and the Arab world, his remains a broad commentary on the manner in which a particular penetrative Western discourse has interlaced sexuality, gay rights, human rights, Orientalist convictions, and social Darwinism in confronting the question of same-sex desire and practice in the non-Western world. He avers that “it is the very discourse of the Gay International, which both produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” For Massad, this discourse is oppressive because it brands those who pursue same-sex practices but resist universalist terminology as “homophobic” and because it rigidifies a heterosexual-homosexual binary, a potent tool for state repression.
I mention Massad’s work to underscore the possibility that many Iranians (and many non-Westerners in general) might conceive of sexuality in non-identitarian, non-universalist terms. These conceptions may take a range of forms, some of which betoken a dialectic between religious revivalism and Western norms, particularly in the context of the history of the modern Middle East. A denial of “homosexuality,” then, may indicate not an irrational refusal to accept the fact of same-sex desire and practice but rather a repudiation of a homogenizing albeit culturally distinct discourse on sexuality. I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s curt answer to the question of the persecution of homosexuals evinces such complex considerations. And I personally do not endorse punishing or killing people for their sexual desires and practices irrespective of the historicity and multiplicity of the language employed to articulate these things. Nonetheless, President Ahmadinejad is not the sole representative or arbiter of the aspirations of the Iranian people, with whom we must engage in constructive dialogue on questions of sexuality. It will not suffice to presuppose that Iranians already conduct their sexuality in identitarian, universalist language or that, if they do not, they can somehow be benevolently (or peremptorily) taught how to do so. It is only by maintaining open lines of communication with the Iranians (and other peoples) that we can begin to understand what we share as human beings and what differentiates us. This will be the least we can do if we claim to be more tolerant and compassionate than the present Iranian government.
The author is a history Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
Amnesty International Says President Bush's Message on Human Rights Would Carry Greater Authority If "War on Terror" Violations Were Halted at Home
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA PRESS RELEASE
September 25, 2007
Amnesty International Says President Bush's Message on Human Rights Would Carry Greater Authority If "War on Terror" Violations Were Halted at Home
Amnesty International issued the following statement in response to President Bush's speech to the United Nations today on human rights around the globe:
The president made a strong statement that placed human rights at the center of his concern. But actions speak louder than words. The president's commitment to human rights would carry greater authority and credibility if the United States was not itself seriously violating human rights in the name of the "war on terror."
President Bush can't talk about protecting human rights abroad on the one hand while the prison at Guantanamo Bay symbolizes U.S. human rights violations committed in the name of the "war on terror." Holding prisoners without charge and without end is a human rights abuse. Disappearing suspects into secret CIA prisons is a human rights abuse. Interrogation techniques that amount to torture are a violation of human rights. Amnesty International has repeatedly urged an end to these practices so that the world will once again recognize the United States as a beacon of hope for human rights.
Amnesty International issued the following responses to other points in the president's speech and/or global rights issues:
AIDS and Africa:
Amnesty International recognizes the significant U.S. contributions to the Global Fund, and funding for PEPFAR, but believes the U.S. government can still do more. We also encourage greater recognition of the rights of young people and other vulnerable populations throughout the world to interventions that provide complete information about HIV prevention. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the hardest-hit by HIV/AIDS, with almost two thirds (63%) of the world's population living with HIV. Of the estimated 4.6 million people needing treatment in Sub-Saharan Africa, only 23 percent receive it. As the primary care providers for those infected and as they are more likely to be infected than men, women continue to suffer disproportionately and make up nearly 60 percent of all those living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Peacekeeping in Africa:
AIUSA welcomes additional U.S. support for capacity building for peacekeeping in Africa, while maintaining significant U.S. contributions to existing and critical regional and U.N. peacekeeping operations, as in Darfur, Sudan (AMIS transitioning to UNAMID) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC).
The Crisis in Darfur:
The administration has invested in progress toward peace and human rights in Darfur, and AI encourages the president to carry through on his promises to provide sufficient funding to peacekeeping operations (and an expected U.N. multidimensional peacekeeping operation with the EU in eastern Chad) and humanitarian assistance to all vulnerable civilians in Darfur, eastern Chad and northeastern CAR.
The United Nations Human Rights Council
Amnesty International is disappointed that President Bush's support for human rights does not match U.S. actions in U.N. forums like the U.N. Human Rights Council. The organization appealed to President Bush to take a positive attitude towards the U.N. Human Rights Council and work with other nations to strengthen it.
Burma
AIUSA welcomes the strong statement on Burma and urges President Bush to use UN mechanisms to advance human rights in Burma.
China
It is disappointing that President Bush did not criticize China for its human rights abuses. AIUSA considers this a missed opportunity to speak out against the fact that 80 percent of the world's executions are taking place in China, that there are over a quarter of a million people imprisoned in labor camps without any charge or trial, and that the Tibetans and Uighur ethnic communities are facing extreme hardship and abuse.
Afghanistan
AIUSA is concerned that President Bush did not address the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan. Even though the situation of women has improved since the fall of Taliban in 2001; there are still reports indicating discrimination.
# # #
Contact: Suzanne Trimel, 212-633-4150
Op-Ed: Iran, Sexuality, and Intercultural Dialogue
From the Columbia Spectator
By OMAR SARWAR
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
During his speech on Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parried many of our direct questions concerning his denial of the Holocaust, his desire to destroy the state of Israel, and his government’s pursuit of nuclear technology. However, he spoke clearly, if rather inaccurately, about the issue of homosexuality: “In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.” His remarks evoked laughter in the audience. But our amusement pointed to a lack of reflection on whether such a response is underpinned by certain cultural assumptions with which we in the West have yet to fully grapple.
Of course, it is plainly untrue that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Though part of a minority, some Iranians view themselves as queer, have advanced the cause of gay rights, and have consequently had to endure the persecution of their government. The Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) is one manifestation of the efforts of queer Iranians to promote social justice under the banner of international human and gay rights. What we seem to have neglected are the historical significance and cultural specificity of our use of the terms “homosexual” and “queer” in describing same-sex desire and practice. What does it mean to posit that homosexuality has persisted throughout human history? With respect to Iran, do all or most Iranians who experience same-sex desire consider themselves “gay?” Does a history of sexuality in Persia reveal a “gay” identity as we understand it in modern times, one which is at once defended in the name of privacy and publicly expressed through a variety of symbols, images, and accouterments? Our own Professor Joseph Massad would reply in the negative. In his recent book, Desiring Arabs, Massad argues that civilizational worth and sexual desire have been closely interconnected in Orientalist thought, that the category of the “homosexual” is part of the culturally specific vocabulary of international gay rights organizations (the “Gay International”), and that nationalist and Islamist Arab intellectuals have assimilated distinctly European conceptions of the human since the nineteenth century.
Although Massad concentrates on the interface between Europe and the Arab world, his remains a broad commentary on the manner in which a particular penetrative Western discourse has interlaced sexuality, gay rights, human rights, Orientalist convictions, and social Darwinism in confronting the question of same-sex desire and practice in the non-Western world. He avers that “it is the very discourse of the Gay International, which both produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” For Massad, this discourse is oppressive because it brands those who pursue same-sex practices but resist universalist terminology as “homophobic” and because it rigidifies a heterosexual-homosexual binary, a potent tool for state repression.
I mention Massad’s work to underscore the possibility that many Iranians (and many non-Westerners in general) might conceive of sexuality in non-identitarian, non-universalist terms. These conceptions may take a range of forms, some of which betoken a dialectic between religious revivalism and Western norms, particularly in the context of the history of the modern Middle East. A denial of “homosexuality,” then, may indicate not an irrational refusal to accept the fact of same-sex desire and practice but rather a repudiation of a homogenizing albeit culturally distinct discourse on sexuality. I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s curt answer to the question of the persecution of homosexuals evinces such complex considerations. And I personally do not endorse punishing or killing people for their sexual desires and practices irrespective of the historicity and multiplicity of the language employed to articulate these things. Nonetheless, President Ahmadinejad is not the sole representative or arbiter of the aspirations of the Iranian people, with whom we must engage in constructive dialogue on questions of sexuality. It will not suffice to presuppose that Iranians already conduct their sexuality in identitarian, universalist language or that, if they do not, they can somehow be benevolently (or peremptorily) taught how to do so. It is only by maintaining open lines of communication with the Iranians (and other peoples) that we can begin to understand what we share as human beings and what differentiates us. This will be the least we can do if we claim to be more tolerant and compassionate than the present Iranian government.
The author is a history Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
By OMAR SARWAR
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
During his speech on Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parried many of our direct questions concerning his denial of the Holocaust, his desire to destroy the state of Israel, and his government’s pursuit of nuclear technology. However, he spoke clearly, if rather inaccurately, about the issue of homosexuality: “In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon.” His remarks evoked laughter in the audience. But our amusement pointed to a lack of reflection on whether such a response is underpinned by certain cultural assumptions with which we in the West have yet to fully grapple.
Of course, it is plainly untrue that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Though part of a minority, some Iranians view themselves as queer, have advanced the cause of gay rights, and have consequently had to endure the persecution of their government. The Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) is one manifestation of the efforts of queer Iranians to promote social justice under the banner of international human and gay rights. What we seem to have neglected are the historical significance and cultural specificity of our use of the terms “homosexual” and “queer” in describing same-sex desire and practice. What does it mean to posit that homosexuality has persisted throughout human history? With respect to Iran, do all or most Iranians who experience same-sex desire consider themselves “gay?” Does a history of sexuality in Persia reveal a “gay” identity as we understand it in modern times, one which is at once defended in the name of privacy and publicly expressed through a variety of symbols, images, and accouterments? Our own Professor Joseph Massad would reply in the negative. In his recent book, Desiring Arabs, Massad argues that civilizational worth and sexual desire have been closely interconnected in Orientalist thought, that the category of the “homosexual” is part of the culturally specific vocabulary of international gay rights organizations (the “Gay International”), and that nationalist and Islamist Arab intellectuals have assimilated distinctly European conceptions of the human since the nineteenth century.
Although Massad concentrates on the interface between Europe and the Arab world, his remains a broad commentary on the manner in which a particular penetrative Western discourse has interlaced sexuality, gay rights, human rights, Orientalist convictions, and social Darwinism in confronting the question of same-sex desire and practice in the non-Western world. He avers that “it is the very discourse of the Gay International, which both produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist.” For Massad, this discourse is oppressive because it brands those who pursue same-sex practices but resist universalist terminology as “homophobic” and because it rigidifies a heterosexual-homosexual binary, a potent tool for state repression.
I mention Massad’s work to underscore the possibility that many Iranians (and many non-Westerners in general) might conceive of sexuality in non-identitarian, non-universalist terms. These conceptions may take a range of forms, some of which betoken a dialectic between religious revivalism and Western norms, particularly in the context of the history of the modern Middle East. A denial of “homosexuality,” then, may indicate not an irrational refusal to accept the fact of same-sex desire and practice but rather a repudiation of a homogenizing albeit culturally distinct discourse on sexuality. I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s curt answer to the question of the persecution of homosexuals evinces such complex considerations. And I personally do not endorse punishing or killing people for their sexual desires and practices irrespective of the historicity and multiplicity of the language employed to articulate these things. Nonetheless, President Ahmadinejad is not the sole representative or arbiter of the aspirations of the Iranian people, with whom we must engage in constructive dialogue on questions of sexuality. It will not suffice to presuppose that Iranians already conduct their sexuality in identitarian, universalist language or that, if they do not, they can somehow be benevolently (or peremptorily) taught how to do so. It is only by maintaining open lines of communication with the Iranians (and other peoples) that we can begin to understand what we share as human beings and what differentiates us. This will be the least we can do if we claim to be more tolerant and compassionate than the present Iranian government.
The author is a history Ph.D. student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Iranians Angered by Treatment of Leader
Excerpt from article:
TEHRAN: Many Iranians reacted angrily Tuesday to the combative introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the president of Columbia University, calling it "shameful" and saying the harsh words only added to their image of the United States as a bully.
In a part of the world where the tradition of hospitality outweighs personal opinions toward a person, many here thought Lee Bollinger's aggressive tone before Ahmadinejad's appearance - including saying that he exhibited the signs of a "petty and cruel dictator" - was over the top.
Article continued...
The chancellors of seven Iranian universities issued a letter to Bollinger on Tuesday saying his statements were "deeply shameful" and inviting him to come to Iran. In the letter, they asked him to provide responses to 10 questions ranging from: "Why did the U.S. support the bloodthirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran?" to "Why has the U.S. military failed to find Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment?"From the Associated Press - September 25, 2007|
TEHRAN: Many Iranians reacted angrily Tuesday to the combative introduction of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the president of Columbia University, calling it "shameful" and saying the harsh words only added to their image of the United States as a bully.
In a part of the world where the tradition of hospitality outweighs personal opinions toward a person, many here thought Lee Bollinger's aggressive tone before Ahmadinejad's appearance - including saying that he exhibited the signs of a "petty and cruel dictator" - was over the top.
Article continued...
Ahmadinejad's visit protested
Ahmadinejad's visit protested
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, facing protests and tabloid headlines calling him "evil" and a "madman," stirred debate on Sept. 24 about free speech ahead of his appearance at Columbia University."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, facing protests and tabloid headlines calling him "evil" and a "madman," stirred debate on Sept. 24 about free speech ahead of his appearance at Columbia University."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, facing protests and tabloid headlines calling him "evil" and a "madman," stirred debate on Sept. 24 about free speech ahead of his appearance at Columbia University. (AP/John Smock)
Arsham Parsi from Iranian Queer Organization on NPR Today
Arsham Parsi from the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) was just interviewed on NPR. The audio for this story will be available at approx. 7:00 p.m. ET
Gays in Iran? Disputing Ahmadenijad
All Things Considered, September 25, 2007 · Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said Monday that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Melissa Block talks with Arsham Parsi, executive director for the IQO, or Iranian Queer Organization. Parsi, who fled Iran in 2005, currently lives in Canada.
Hear the story here.
Messages of support, financial contributions and other messages can be sent to IRQO at info@irqo.net. Visit their website or read the text of a recent speech that Arsham gave in Toronto.
All Things Considered, September 25, 2007 · Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad said Monday that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Melissa Block talks with Arsham Parsi, executive director for the IQO, or Iranian Queer Organization. Parsi, who fled Iran in 2005, currently lives in Canada.
Hear the story here.
Messages of support, financial contributions and other messages can be sent to IRQO at info@irqo.net. Visit their website or read the text of a recent speech that Arsham gave in Toronto.
Songs of Peace and Brotherhood; No American Imperialism
Great quote from an Associated Press story:
Interesting to note that there has been very little mentioned in the press about a small group of protesters who call themselves "Jews Against Zionism."
Protesters also assembled at Columbia. Dozens stood near the lecture hall where Ahmadinejad was scheduled to speak, linking arms and singing traditional Jewish folk songs about peace and brotherhood, while nearby a two-person band played ''You Are My Sunshine.''
Signs in the crowd displayed a range of messages, including one that read ''We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism.''
Interesting to note that there has been very little mentioned in the press about a small group of protesters who call themselves "Jews Against Zionism."
Outrage turns to laughter at Ahmadinejad NY speech
From Reuters - Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:30am BST
By Mark Egan
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vilified as a Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorism and a backer of Iraqi insurgents, the president of Iran was actually able to make New Yorkers burst into laughter -- but not at a joke.
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University on Monday in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay men there.
"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon," he continued. "I do not know who has told you we have it."
Loud laughs and boos broke from the audience of about 700 people, mostly students at the Ivy League school whose garb included "Stop Ahmadinejad's Evil" T-shirts.
Everyone from presidential candidates to September 11 families had expressed outrage that Ahmadinejad would speak there.
After his assertions that Israel persecutes Palestinians and that Iran's nuclear program is for energy not weapons, the Iranian leader's comment on gays broke the tension.
But it spurred strong reaction too.
"This is a sick joke," said Scott Long of Human Rights Watch, saying Iran tortures gays under a penal code that punishes homosexuality between men with the death penalty.
Continued...
By Mark Egan
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Vilified as a Holocaust denier, a supporter of terrorism and a backer of Iraqi insurgents, the president of Iran was actually able to make New Yorkers burst into laughter -- but not at a joke.
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University on Monday in response to a question about the recent execution of two gay men there.
"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon," he continued. "I do not know who has told you we have it."
Loud laughs and boos broke from the audience of about 700 people, mostly students at the Ivy League school whose garb included "Stop Ahmadinejad's Evil" T-shirts.
Everyone from presidential candidates to September 11 families had expressed outrage that Ahmadinejad would speak there.
After his assertions that Israel persecutes Palestinians and that Iran's nuclear program is for energy not weapons, the Iranian leader's comment on gays broke the tension.
But it spurred strong reaction too.
"This is a sick joke," said Scott Long of Human Rights Watch, saying Iran tortures gays under a penal code that punishes homosexuality between men with the death penalty.
Continued...
'Who Are We?' Iranian Gays Ask President
By GRACE RAUH
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 25, 2007
New York Sun
President Ahmadinejad's contention during a speech at Columbia University that
there are no homosexuals in Iran drew a swift rebuke from human rights
organizations, with one activist challenging the president to explain how he,
a gay Iranian, exists.
Taking questions from Columbia faculty and students who attended his address
yesterday, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a query about the treatment of gays in
Iran by saying: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have
that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told
you we have it."
The executive director of the Toronto-based Iranian Queer Organization, Arsham
Parsi, had a question for the president yesterday.
"Who am I? Who am I, if we don't have any queers in Iran?" Mr. Parsi said,
noting that in 2005 he had had to flee Iran to escape arrest.
A spokesman for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,
Hossein Alizadeh, said that, in Iran, there is a "constant fear of execution
and persecution and also social stigma associated with homosexuality."
Mr. Alizadeh, who said he is gay and moved to America from Tehran in 2000,
added that the commission, which is based in New York, has documented numerous
cases of gay persecution, including executions, in Iran. It is difficult to
know for certain the number of Iranians executed because they are gay, as the
government refuses to disclose the real reasons that lead to arrests, he said.
The director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at
Human Rights Watch, Scott Long, said Iranians arrested on suspicion of being
gay are routinely tortured.
Mr. Alizadeh, who said he was not openly gay in Iran, said there are many
cases of Iranians in America and other countries who are seeking asylum
because of their sexual orientation, noting that he himself was granted asylum
on that basis.
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 25, 2007
New York Sun
President Ahmadinejad's contention during a speech at Columbia University that
there are no homosexuals in Iran drew a swift rebuke from human rights
organizations, with one activist challenging the president to explain how he,
a gay Iranian, exists.
Taking questions from Columbia faculty and students who attended his address
yesterday, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a query about the treatment of gays in
Iran by saying: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have
that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told
you we have it."
The executive director of the Toronto-based Iranian Queer Organization, Arsham
Parsi, had a question for the president yesterday.
"Who am I? Who am I, if we don't have any queers in Iran?" Mr. Parsi said,
noting that in 2005 he had had to flee Iran to escape arrest.
A spokesman for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission,
Hossein Alizadeh, said that, in Iran, there is a "constant fear of execution
and persecution and also social stigma associated with homosexuality."
Mr. Alizadeh, who said he is gay and moved to America from Tehran in 2000,
added that the commission, which is based in New York, has documented numerous
cases of gay persecution, including executions, in Iran. It is difficult to
know for certain the number of Iranians executed because they are gay, as the
government refuses to disclose the real reasons that lead to arrests, he said.
The director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at
Human Rights Watch, Scott Long, said Iranians arrested on suspicion of being
gay are routinely tortured.
Mr. Alizadeh, who said he was not openly gay in Iran, said there are many
cases of Iranians in America and other countries who are seeking asylum
because of their sexual orientation, noting that he himself was granted asylum
on that basis.
Antioch 'March Against Hate' unites wide range of faiths, cultures
Antioch 'March Against Hate' unites wide range of faiths, cultures By Tom Lochner
September 23, 2007 ANTIOCH -- With religious strife rampant all over the world, one Contra Costa city made a vow Sunday that whatever pits community against community elsewhere, it must not and will not happen here. It was not a simple call for tolerance, organizers said. "It's moving beyond tolerance to active respect -- to stand together as a community," said Father Tom Bonacci of St. Ignatius Catholic Church in Antioch. He also sits on the board of the Interfaith Council of Contra Costa County, which organized the event Sunday.
A "March Against Hate" from Antioch City Hall to Antioch High School by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Baha'is, Zoroastrians and other believers was a denunciation of the torching of a mosque in Antioch last month. It also was a call to look past differences of doctrine to focus on ethics that are common to most of the world's religions.
Article continued...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Breaking News: Iran"s President Claims No Homosexuals in Iran; Defends Women's Human Rights
September 24, 2007 - 5:00 pm EST
Video of Iran's President's statement on homosexuality.
Video of Iran's President's statement on women's rights in Iran.
Ahmadinejad: Iran doesn't have gay issue
NEW YORK, Sept. 24 Iran respects women and does not have the "phenomenon" of homosexuality, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday at New York's Columbia University.
During a question-and-answer following his provocative remarks to students, teachers and others, Ahmadinejad said, "Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Women in Iran enjoy the highest level of freedom."
He said executions, some of which are carried out in public, are carried out against "people who violate public rights," such as drug traffickers.
People who "cause deterioration" to others "are sentenced to executions in Iran. Some of these punishments ... are carried out in the public eye."
Concerning whether Iran arms terrorists, Ahmadinejad said Iran has been a "victim of terrorists" and said "we need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate them."
When asked about hostile treatment against homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country.
"We don't have that in our country," he said through an interpreter. "In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."
In closing, he extended an invitation for Columbia teachers and students to visit universities in Iran. Columbia President Lee Bollinger, in his blistering opening remarks, asked for a visit.
Copyright 2007 by UPI
Video of Iran's President's statement on homosexuality.
Video of Iran's President's statement on women's rights in Iran.
Ahmadinejad: Iran doesn't have gay issue
NEW YORK, Sept. 24 Iran respects women and does not have the "phenomenon" of homosexuality, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday at New York's Columbia University.
During a question-and-answer following his provocative remarks to students, teachers and others, Ahmadinejad said, "Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Women in Iran enjoy the highest level of freedom."
He said executions, some of which are carried out in public, are carried out against "people who violate public rights," such as drug traffickers.
People who "cause deterioration" to others "are sentenced to executions in Iran. Some of these punishments ... are carried out in the public eye."
Concerning whether Iran arms terrorists, Ahmadinejad said Iran has been a "victim of terrorists" and said "we need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate them."
When asked about hostile treatment against homosexuals, Ahmadinejad said, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country.
"We don't have that in our country," he said through an interpreter. "In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon."
In closing, he extended an invitation for Columbia teachers and students to visit universities in Iran. Columbia President Lee Bollinger, in his blistering opening remarks, asked for a visit.
Copyright 2007 by UPI
Head of HRC Comments on Ahmadinejad's Claim of No Homosexuals in Iran
“Today’s assertions by President Ahmadinejad that there are no homosexuals in Iran would be simply absurd were it not for the fact that international human rights watchers have long documented some of the most horrific acts of persecution and violence committed against gay people in Iran. These acts of terror have included incarcerations, beatings, and brutal executions. Ahmadinejad’s denial that there are gay people in Iran shows the extent to which he devalues the lives of the many citizens his government has and continues to violate.”
IGLHRC: Iranian President's Official Website Deletes His Columbia University Commentary about Homosexuality
 |
| I |
For Immediate Release
Contact: Hossein Alizadeh, IGLHRC Communications Coordinator, 212-430- 6016
(New York, Monday September 25, 2007)- Upon monitoring the Iranian press reaction to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech and comments at the Monday forum hosted by Columbia University, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) discovered an odd disparity. The English version of the President’s official website (www.president.ir) provides a full and complete transcript of his speech and the Question & Answer segment where he claimed that homosexuality does not exist in Iran. However, the Persian-language transcript has excised both the question about treatment of lesbians and gay men in Iran and President Ahmadinejad’s soon to be legendary response.
The President’s website purportedly provides the authoritative transcripts of his speeches and is relied upon by the news media in Iran. To date, not a single Persian-language media outlet in Iran - including Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, and the semi-independent news agencies, ISNA, Mehrrnews and Farsnews, and the Wednesday morning newspapers - has reported on the President’s comments.
After President Ahmadinejad’s speech on Monday, the Professor John H. Coatsworth moderated a Question & Answer session. Among the questions was why Iran has executed citizens who are homosexuals, to which the President responded “In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.”
“The first reaction of many of us was to join in the astonished response to President Ahmadinejad’s clearly outrageous view that no lesbian or gay people live in Iran,” said Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of IGLHRC. “But the whitewashing of his comments from the eyes and ears of most Iranian citizens speaks to something more troubling. His denial attempts to simply erase from public view the lives of men and women who face regular abuse in his country. Perhaps he knows he could not credibly get away with such a denial among his own people.”
IGLHRC has documented widespread and systemic violations of the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Iran. For more information about IGLHRC’s work, visit: www.iglhrc.org. IGLHRC staff members available for interviews or background briefings on Iran include: Paula Ettelbrick or Hossein Alizadeh at: 212-430- 6016
###
The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is a leading human rights organization solely devoted to improving the rights of people around the world who are targeted for imprisonment, abuse or death because of their sexuality, gender identity or HIV/AIDS status. IGLHRC addresses human rights violations by partnering with and supporting activists in countries around the world, monitoring and documenting human rights abuses, engaging offending governments, and educating international human rights officials. A non-profit, non-governmental organization, IGLHRC is based in New York, with offices in San Francisco, Johannesburg, and Buenos Aires. Visit http://www.iglhrc.org for more information.
Ahmadinejad's Speech at Columbia University Is as American as Apple Pie
From AlterNet.com - Rights & Liberties
By Rebecca Evans and Brandon Hammer, AlterNet. Posted September 24, 2007.
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, in condemning Columbia's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that he's tired of free speech. Ironically, in doing so, he exercised that specific freedom, a privilege that allows critical engagement with elected officials and forces them to defend their actions. He used a right that the people of Iran do not enjoy.
Unlike Americans, who are able to challenge the legitimacy of the Patriot Act or take issue with America's continued presence in Iraq, Iranians cannot question Ahmadinejad's nuclear program or theocratic laws. Due to government control of most major media outlets as well as the threat of imprisonment for dissent, they are forced to accept these policies. This lack of freedom of speech gives Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei both a bully pulpit and immunity from accounting for policies.
Continued...
By Rebecca Evans and Brandon Hammer, AlterNet. Posted September 24, 2007.
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, in condemning Columbia's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that he's tired of free speech. Ironically, in doing so, he exercised that specific freedom, a privilege that allows critical engagement with elected officials and forces them to defend their actions. He used a right that the people of Iran do not enjoy.
Unlike Americans, who are able to challenge the legitimacy of the Patriot Act or take issue with America's continued presence in Iraq, Iranians cannot question Ahmadinejad's nuclear program or theocratic laws. Due to government control of most major media outlets as well as the threat of imprisonment for dissent, they are forced to accept these policies. This lack of freedom of speech gives Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei both a bully pulpit and immunity from accounting for policies.
Continued...
Audience Laughs, Then Boos and Hisses at Ahmadinejad's Comments on Gay People in Iran
NY Times City Room blog, which live-blogged his speech, caught this exchange:
Pressed by Dean Coatsworth on the original question about the rights of gay men and lesbians in Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country.”
The audience booed and hissed loudly. Some laughed, uncomfortably.
“In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon,” Mr. Ahmadinejad continued, undeterred. “I do not know who has told you that we have it. But as for women, maybe you think that maybe being a woman is a crime. It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at a forum for world leaders at Columbia University Sept. 24, 2007, in New York City. The highly controversial leader's appearance at Columbia has led to thousands of protesters descending on the university in opposition. Ahmadinejad, one of dozens of world leaders in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly, has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and has raised questions about the authenticity of the Holocaust. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
More Pictures from Ahmadinejad's Speech and Protests Outside Columbia University.
Ahmadinejad Challenged by Gay Rights Group
From the New York Sun
By GRACE RAUH
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 24, 2007
President Ahmadinejad's contention during a speech at Columbia University today that there are no homosexuals in Iran drew a swift rebuke from an international gay rights organization based in New York today.
In response to a question on the treatment of gays in Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon I don't know who's told you we have it."
A spokesman for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Hossein Alizadeh, said that in Iran, "there is always this constant fear of execution and persecution and also social stigma associated with homosexuality."
Mr. Alizadeh, who said he is gay and moved to America from Tehran in 2000, said the commission has documented numerous cases of gay persecution, including execution, in Iran.
"You are constantly being told that this is wrong and not the way to go and unacceptable," he said. "Also you have the government that is systematically repressing any expression of homosexuality."
It is difficult to know for certain the number of Iranians executed because they are gay, because the government doesn't disclose the real reasons that lead to arrests, he said.
Mr. Alizadeh, who was not openly gay while living in Iran, said that there are many cases, himself among them, of Iranians in America and other countries seeking asylum because of their sexual orientation. Iran is one of the worst countries in the world to be a homosexual, he said.
By GRACE RAUH
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 24, 2007
President Ahmadinejad's contention during a speech at Columbia University today that there are no homosexuals in Iran drew a swift rebuke from an international gay rights organization based in New York today.
In response to a question on the treatment of gays in Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon I don't know who's told you we have it."
A spokesman for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Hossein Alizadeh, said that in Iran, "there is always this constant fear of execution and persecution and also social stigma associated with homosexuality."
Mr. Alizadeh, who said he is gay and moved to America from Tehran in 2000, said the commission has documented numerous cases of gay persecution, including execution, in Iran.
"You are constantly being told that this is wrong and not the way to go and unacceptable," he said. "Also you have the government that is systematically repressing any expression of homosexuality."
It is difficult to know for certain the number of Iranians executed because they are gay, because the government doesn't disclose the real reasons that lead to arrests, he said.
Mr. Alizadeh, who was not openly gay while living in Iran, said that there are many cases, himself among them, of Iranians in America and other countries seeking asylum because of their sexual orientation. Iran is one of the worst countries in the world to be a homosexual, he said.
Iranian President Concludes Controversial Visit To Columbia University
September 24, 2007 4:05 p.m. EST
New York, NY (AHN) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was greeted by a diverse crowd of anti-war activists, holocaust deniers, Orthodox Jews and others outside of Columbia University Monday, as he arrived to speak to a crowded, highly-charged room full of students, faculty and reporters.
His visit began with a reproachful introduction from university President Lee Bollinger, who went through a list of the leader's most controversial remarks and actions. "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," he said, criticizing what he called a "brutal crackdown" on dissidents and intellectuals, the execution of minors and his much condemned denial of the Holocaust, saying it showed that the Iranian leader was either " brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." He also decried his pursuit of a nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad complained about the introduction, saying "In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment."
He focused much of his address on the merits of religion and the Prophet Muhammad and denouncing the Western mindset, which he said is characterized by materialism and greed and creates "an insecure psychological atmosphere, in order to justify their war-mongering acts in different parts of the world."
He refrained from calling the Holocaust a "myth," as he has in the past, and instead drew attention to the international community's response to the tragedy, which he said unduly punished the Palestinian people for the crimes when it established the Israeli state. "The Palestinian people had no role in it," he said. "Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?"
He also defended his country's nuclear program, saying that embargos and sanctions have created the need for them to develop their own energy. "We want the right to self-determination, to be independent," he maintained.
During the question and answer period, he refrained from giving a direct statement on the future of the state of Israel, denied that his country supports terrorism and claimed that "women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom."
He also claimed, when challenged on his human rights records that Iran doesn't have the "phenomenon" of homosexuality. That, and his insistence that the Holocaust merits further research from "different perspectives" drew the loudest condemnations from the crowd.
He concluded his brief appearance by inviting Columbia University's faculty to come and speak in Iran and praying that "Almighty God" help "all of us to work hand in hand for a future filled with peace, justice and brotherhood."
John H. Coatsworth, the acting dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, said he regretted that Mr. Ahmadinejad didn't have more time to answer questions, or to more thoroughly respond to those raised.
New York, NY (AHN) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was greeted by a diverse crowd of anti-war activists, holocaust deniers, Orthodox Jews and others outside of Columbia University Monday, as he arrived to speak to a crowded, highly-charged room full of students, faculty and reporters.
His visit began with a reproachful introduction from university President Lee Bollinger, who went through a list of the leader's most controversial remarks and actions. "You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," he said, criticizing what he called a "brutal crackdown" on dissidents and intellectuals, the execution of minors and his much condemned denial of the Holocaust, saying it showed that the Iranian leader was either " brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." He also decried his pursuit of a nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad complained about the introduction, saying "In Iran, tradition requires that when we invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment."
He focused much of his address on the merits of religion and the Prophet Muhammad and denouncing the Western mindset, which he said is characterized by materialism and greed and creates "an insecure psychological atmosphere, in order to justify their war-mongering acts in different parts of the world."
He refrained from calling the Holocaust a "myth," as he has in the past, and instead drew attention to the international community's response to the tragedy, which he said unduly punished the Palestinian people for the crimes when it established the Israeli state. "The Palestinian people had no role in it," he said. "Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event they had nothing to do with?"
He also defended his country's nuclear program, saying that embargos and sanctions have created the need for them to develop their own energy. "We want the right to self-determination, to be independent," he maintained.
During the question and answer period, he refrained from giving a direct statement on the future of the state of Israel, denied that his country supports terrorism and claimed that "women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom."
He also claimed, when challenged on his human rights records that Iran doesn't have the "phenomenon" of homosexuality. That, and his insistence that the Holocaust merits further research from "different perspectives" drew the loudest condemnations from the crowd.
He concluded his brief appearance by inviting Columbia University's faculty to come and speak in Iran and praying that "Almighty God" help "all of us to work hand in hand for a future filled with peace, justice and brotherhood."
John H. Coatsworth, the acting dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, said he regretted that Mr. Ahmadinejad didn't have more time to answer questions, or to more thoroughly respond to those raised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)