From the Nation
by ESTHER KAPLAN
[posted online on October 26, 2007]
In the past few years, the students and faculty of Columbia University have found themselves in the midst of a culture war. They've seen their Middle East Studies department targeted as "anti-Israel" by one right-wing organization, the David Project. Two assistant professors, Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El-Haj, were publicly smeared by another right-wing outfit, Campus Watch, as they underwent tenure review (see "The New McCarthyism" by Larry Cohler-Esses). And at the start of this school year their own president, Lee Bollinger, seemed to pander to this right-wing pressure by slamming Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of "the modern civilized world."
This week they've got David Horowitz, of the modestly named David Horowitz Freedom Center, best known in recent years for his ads in campus papers opposing slavery reparations, in which he argued that there is no evidence that the legacy of slavery has harmed any living African-American and demanded "the gratitude of black America" for the white Christians who "created" the antislavery movement. Now he's here to teach them about "Islamofascism."
His "Islamofascism Awareness Week" descended this week on dozens of college campuses across the country (he claims more than 100) with vigils here, sit-ins there and scattered forums featuring "aware" individuals such as former Senator Rick Santorum. But Columbia has been showered with special largesse: an entire week of activities, kicked off by a candlelight vigil on Monday, where a dozen or so College Republicans remembered "the untold millions who suffer under tyrannical Islamic regimes" and closing on Friday at noon with a speech by Horowitz himself (Columbia College class of '59).
"I had thought, probably stupidly, that the David Project had accomplished its purpose when they hit us so hard a few years ago," says Bruce Robbins, a professor of English and an organizer of a recent initiative to end Columbia's investment in companies that do business with the Israeli military. "But our academic freedom has not been extremely well defended in the past, so we've been shown to be rather vulnerable in that way."
At Wednesday night's Oppression Panel, some eighty students and assorted gadflies had the chance to see a self-satisfied panel of Ibn Warraq (Why I Am Not a Muslim), Phyllis Chesler (The Death of Feminism; The New-Anti-Semitism) and the American Enterprise Institute's Christina Hoff Sommers (Who Stole Feminism?) apply Horowitz's patented PC-bashing technique. "I encourage [conservatives] to use the language that the left has deployed so effectively in behalf of its own agendas," he wrote in 2003. "Radical professors have created a 'hostile learning environment' for conservative students. There is a lack of 'intellectual diversity' on college faculties and in academic classrooms. The conservative viewpoint is 'under-represented.'"
Thus we had Warraq telling us that it was Edward Said, by means of his book Orientalism, who "encouraged Islamic fundamentalism" by teaching "an entire generation the art of self-pity." It was Said--not, say, Campus Watch, with its hit list of faculty labeled as apologists for suicide bombings and militant Islam--who created a "climate of fear in academia" and whose "aggressive tone" was tantamount to "academic terrorism." We had Chesler declaiming perversely that the right to free speech "belongs also to those of us who are pro-American and pro-Israel, and not only to those who demonize the West." College campuses, she said, have been "Stalinized," "Palestinized." And we had Becky Dunnan, class of '08, spokesperson for the Columbia University College Republicans, sponsors of the event, gamely tell a reporter, "We really have to take back academic freedom for the minority viewpoint on campus--and that's the conservative view."
Of course, as Elizabeth Castelli, chair of Barnard's religion department, said to me before the festivities, Islamofascim Awareness Week is "not about academic freedom at all." She calls Islamofascism a "made-up term" designed to "close off debate, impose a particular position and set of arguments, and invite the harassment of individuals who hold alternative positions. It casts the world situation in a clash-of-civilizations mode--and places any critic in the position of being anti-Western, or even treasonous."
That these self-annointed opponents of Islamofascism claim to speak on behalf of women, gay people and Jews only deepens the Horowitzian irony. Chesler, bravely surmounting the constraints on her speech (the chief one being, as far as I could tell, that Barnard's women's studies department had declined to co-sponsor the panel), sounded an alarm against an "epidemic of homosexual pederasty in the Muslim world," called for a Jewish right of return to "Judenrein" Arab states and warned that if the jihadists win, they'll impose a Muslim caliphate on the United States and we will all become veiled "sex slaves." This, she said, would be "the end of civilization as we know it." Is it mere coincidence that her words echo exactly the phrase that conservative evangelical deployers of the term "Islamofascism," such as Family Research Council founder Gary Bauer, have used to characterize the threat of gay marriage? Homosexuality, as Castelli points out, has become both a marker of the
destruction of our way of life and, in our battle against Islamofascism, a stand-in for Western civilization itself.
It would all be a lot funnier if it weren't for the fact that Horowitz's campus experiment is serving the cause of a larger ideological campaign to expand the "war on terror." "Islamofascism," notes David Judd, Columbia class of '08, "[is] a term of demonization invented so we can justify attacking almost any country in the Middle East." Texas pastor John Hagee deployed the term "Islamofascism" in July when he brought some 4,000 members of his new Christian Zionist organization to Washington to lobby hundreds of members of Congress for militant support for Israel--and military action against Iran. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee pulled the phrase out just last week in the Republican presidential debate, where he called Islamofascism "the greatest threat this country's ever faced." "We've got an enemy that wants to kill every last one of us," he went on. "We cannot be soft. We must be strong." And in an e-mail alert to his followers last week, Bauer declared "Islamofascism" a
core "values issue."
Even inside the elite precincts of Columbia's campus, the term seems to have stirred up some bellicosity. Judd, a member of Columbia Coalition Against the War, points out that in the weeks leading up to Horowitz's "awareness week," messages of hate cropped up in graffiti on campus--a swastika in one location; "towel head" in another--and a noose appeared on the office door of an African-American professor. Mahira Chishty, a graduate student in the School of Social Work and a practicing Muslim, says she's felt unsafe in recent days. "There have been insinuations in my direction that I can say are the result of the divisive climate on campus," she says. "One student came right up to me and said, 'Happy Islamofascism Week!' For a split second I thought, 'OK, I should go back to my room now.'"
Chishty and Judd have helped to organize a Friday morning protest of Islamofascism Awareness Week, and the Columbia University College Democrats planned an alternative forum to educate students more fully about Islam, set for Friday at noon--the exact time when Horowitz was scheduled to speak.
But is it up to students themselves to counter Horowitz and Co.'s attacks on academic freedom? Robbins doesn't think so. "What we need when untenured faculty are targeted by conservative activists or public officials," he says, "is for the administration to back people up."
Esther Kaplan is author of With God on Their Side: George Bush and the Christian Right, now out in paperback from the New Press.
Showing posts with label columbia university. Show all posts
Showing posts with label columbia university. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2007
Friday, October 05, 2007
Ahmadinejad's Gay Denial Must Occasion Caution
From Gay City News
By: KOUROSH SHEMIRANI
10/04/2007
Following the recent trip of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the US and his remarks at Columbia University where he denied the existence of homosexuals in Iran, the issue of Iranian gays is now in international public view.
Whether this newly gained global visibility marks a step in favor of improving the situation of gays in Iran or leads to a deepening of their plight has as much to do with internal Iranian society as with the actions of the international community. There are dangers and possibilities in this incredible turn of events that Western gay activists have to consider carefully.
No matter what anyone thinks of Iran, its regime, or its president, the fact is that Ahmadinejad's trip was a conscious change in policy by the Iranian government aimed at reaching out to the US and the American people. The Bush administration and the mainstream media have downplayed this fact and have even increased the same rhetoric that they developed before the invasion of Iraq - WMDs, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.
None of us can know what the outcome of these diplomatic maneuvers will be. But now that the issue of gays in Iran has become front and center, there is little doubt that it will work into the propaganda wars of both the Bush and the Ahmadinejad administrations.
In Iran, the president's comments denying the presence of homosexuals have been generally ignored or censored in the mainstream media; however the issue is debated and discussed publicly and on the Internet. It remains to be seen if activists and progressives in Iran will make any inroads in gaining greater public visibility and support as a result of this discussion.
This issue could easily become a major ideological and political test for a regime that rests on the basic notion that Iran is a proud independent nation resisting Western and especially US imperialism. The idea that homosexuality is a Western phenomenon is, of course, the main government line on the issue, and if the movement for gay rights is seen as a Western agenda, or a part of Western imposition on Iran, it will make it that much harder for the many brave gay activists inside Iran to continue their struggle for visibility and acceptance.
In the US, on the other hand, Ahmadinejad's comments regarding gays have been blown up and discussed ad nauseum to the point of becoming one of the primary ways that he is being increasingly discredited and vilified. And here is the danger that we in the West can easily fall into - if this issue is used to further antagonize Iran, it could mean a disaster for the situation of gays in Iran.
The sudden emergence of sympathy, even love, for gays by the likes of Fox News is not just cynical, it is dangerous. If left in the hands of those who couldn't care less about gay rights, the situation of Iranian gays will become a part of American war propaganda that aims to create justifications for military intervention and deepen the idea inside Iran that gays are a dangerous fifth column.
For the many well-meaning gay activists in the US who have been facing great challenges and setbacks here under the Bush administration, the idea that the LGBT community can have influence on public policy - especially foreign policy - seems farfetched. But what we say and how we relate to this moment can have repercussions beyond our own struggling community. I hope this essay will serve as a beginning of a constructive dialogue that helps us think and take proper action regarding the situation of gays and all sexual minorities in Iran.
Kourosh Shemirani lives in New York City and is a member of QIAM, the Queer Iranian Alliance. Contact him at: qiam2006@yahoo.com.
By: KOUROSH SHEMIRANI
10/04/2007
Following the recent trip of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the US and his remarks at Columbia University where he denied the existence of homosexuals in Iran, the issue of Iranian gays is now in international public view.
Whether this newly gained global visibility marks a step in favor of improving the situation of gays in Iran or leads to a deepening of their plight has as much to do with internal Iranian society as with the actions of the international community. There are dangers and possibilities in this incredible turn of events that Western gay activists have to consider carefully.
No matter what anyone thinks of Iran, its regime, or its president, the fact is that Ahmadinejad's trip was a conscious change in policy by the Iranian government aimed at reaching out to the US and the American people. The Bush administration and the mainstream media have downplayed this fact and have even increased the same rhetoric that they developed before the invasion of Iraq - WMDs, state-sponsored terrorism, etc.
None of us can know what the outcome of these diplomatic maneuvers will be. But now that the issue of gays in Iran has become front and center, there is little doubt that it will work into the propaganda wars of both the Bush and the Ahmadinejad administrations.
In Iran, the president's comments denying the presence of homosexuals have been generally ignored or censored in the mainstream media; however the issue is debated and discussed publicly and on the Internet. It remains to be seen if activists and progressives in Iran will make any inroads in gaining greater public visibility and support as a result of this discussion.
This issue could easily become a major ideological and political test for a regime that rests on the basic notion that Iran is a proud independent nation resisting Western and especially US imperialism. The idea that homosexuality is a Western phenomenon is, of course, the main government line on the issue, and if the movement for gay rights is seen as a Western agenda, or a part of Western imposition on Iran, it will make it that much harder for the many brave gay activists inside Iran to continue their struggle for visibility and acceptance.
In the US, on the other hand, Ahmadinejad's comments regarding gays have been blown up and discussed ad nauseum to the point of becoming one of the primary ways that he is being increasingly discredited and vilified. And here is the danger that we in the West can easily fall into - if this issue is used to further antagonize Iran, it could mean a disaster for the situation of gays in Iran.
The sudden emergence of sympathy, even love, for gays by the likes of Fox News is not just cynical, it is dangerous. If left in the hands of those who couldn't care less about gay rights, the situation of Iranian gays will become a part of American war propaganda that aims to create justifications for military intervention and deepen the idea inside Iran that gays are a dangerous fifth column.
For the many well-meaning gay activists in the US who have been facing great challenges and setbacks here under the Bush administration, the idea that the LGBT community can have influence on public policy - especially foreign policy - seems farfetched. But what we say and how we relate to this moment can have repercussions beyond our own struggling community. I hope this essay will serve as a beginning of a constructive dialogue that helps us think and take proper action regarding the situation of gays and all sexual minorities in Iran.
Kourosh Shemirani lives in New York City and is a member of QIAM, the Queer Iranian Alliance. Contact him at: qiam2006@yahoo.com.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
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, October 02, 2007
The Queerest Denial - Op-Ed from the Wall Street Journal
From the Wall Street Journal
Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing a brisk business in harassing, entrapping, lashing, imprisoning and executing homosexuals since nearly the moment it came to power in 1979, with little notice in the West beyond the occasional human-rights report. So when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the startling claim at Columbia University last week that "we do not have homosexuals in Iran like you do in your country," it offered what could have been a learning opportunity to those who think Iran is just another misunderstood regime with an equally misunderstood president.
Such wishful thinking. The Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls spent a fair bit of time Wednesday night debating what to do about Iran, without once mentioning Ahmadinejad's peculiar world view. These are the same debaters who in August went before a gay audience to denounce Bush administration policies as "demeaning" and "degrading" toward gays. In the Nation--a magazine that excoriated Ronald Reagan upon his passing for his "inaction and bigotry against gays"--editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has nothing to say about the subject either. Instead, she devotes her latest column to denouncing last week's symbolic Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization.
In the Guardian, another crusading voice from the left on gay rights, foreign-affairs columnist Martin Woollacott lambastes Columbia's president Lee Bollinger for his "mean-spirited" remarks to the Iranian president, which he takes as an indication that "it is still difficult to suggest that Iran has arguments and interests worth considering on their merits." But again, no mention of Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude toward gays, much less its "merits." And on "progressive" Web sites like Democratic Underground, there are earnest debates about exactly what Mr. Ahmadinejad meant by the word "like," as if he were merely making an academic cultural comparison rather than denying the existence of an entire category of his own citizens.
Long gone are the days when people spoke of the love that dare not speak its name. We are now living in the era of the hate-that-dare-not-be-spoken-about--lest disingenuous neocons use Mr. Ahmadinejad's unfortunate pronouncements to cut off dialogue and beat the drums for war. But if one side of the political spectrum is not to be trusted to discuss the subject, and the other side simply won't, who will?
For that, turn to a revealing and moving documentary by Indian-born journalist Parvez Sharma called "A Jihad for Love," which he describes as a "discussion about Islam through its most unlikely storytellers." Mr. Sharma (who is very far from being a conservative of any kind) spent six years filming his subjects on four continents: They include a gay imam in South Africa, a lesbian couple in Istanbul, an Egyptian who spent a year in prison for being gay before fleeing to Paris, and four young men who fled Iran for their lives and now live as political refugees in Canada.
The documentary is notable for its depiction of the tenacity with which its subjects hold on to their faith despite the wall of bigotry, often homicidal, that confronts them. Nowhere is that seen more vividly than in the plight of the Iranians. Take Arsham Parsi, 27, a subject of Mr. Sharma's who now runs the Iranian Queer Organization (irqo.net) from Toronto. In 2001, he says in a phone interview, "two of my close friends committed suicide because of the bad situation for queer people." Their deaths galvanized him to begin a gay and lesbian support group, conducted furtively and electronically, consisting largely of articles on gay-related subjects from English language sources. The enterprise grew to include six separate electronic magazines. "We used to think we were alone in the world," Mr. Parsi says. "With these magazines, we knew we were not."
In fact, homosexuality has a particularly rich history in Iran--the Qajar dynasty's Nasseruddin Shah, a contemporary of Queen Victoria and ruler of Iran for nearly 50 years, took a Kurdish boy named Malijak as his lifelong lover. It is hardly less present in contemporary Iran, not just in the parks of Tehran but the seminaries of Qom. But Mr. Parsi's activism put him at particular risk. "The police use the Internet to make undercover arrests," he says. "They'll write to say 'I am looking for a partner,' entrap someone, and use their correspondence as evidence." That was the fate of friends of Mr. Parsi, who in 2003 were sentenced to 100 lashes in the space of an hour, and it would have been his, too, had he not fled Iran on word he was about to be arrested.
From Toronto, Mr. Parsi works on asylum cases and continues to publish a newsletter called Cheraq ("Light"), which reaches about 3,000 readers in Iran. Yesterday, it published a selection of letters to Mr. Ahmadinejad by gay Iranians.
"I pray that some false note in the divine composition has you fathering a gay offspring so that the hammer that you've raised over our heads comes down on your very own," writes one. "I recommend you partake in the first Iranian gay Pride parade so you can see for yourself that it will be more glorious and more populated than your Quds day or annual revolution commemoration day parades," writes another, adding that a gay parade would be attended voluntarily, in contrast to "a bunch of schoolchildren and innocent peasants who have been forced to show up to punch the 'world oppressors' in the mouth."
All of this ought to be evidence that, when it comes to the Iranian regime, the gap between bad neocons and pure-of-heart progressives ought to be no more than tactical: This is, ultimately, a regime that needs to go. Not so. Mr. Sharma, for instance, rails in the Huffington Post against the "the Good-vs.-Evil caricature" that he says prevails in Western attitudes toward Iran.
Mr. Sharma is a gifted filmmaker, but his politics remind me of the Socratic observation that poets are poor judges of their own work. Or how else is one supposed to view the scene he captures of Mr. Parsi at last arriving in Toronto and weeping both for the freedom he has gained and his friends still trapped in Islamist captivity? Is it a testament that there is no meaningful difference between free and unfree, Bushworld and Ahmadinejadland? Take that view seriously, and you wind up taking the notion of gay rights, and human rights, too lightly for anyone's good.
Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.
Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran.
BY BRET STEPHENS
Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been doing a brisk business in harassing, entrapping, lashing, imprisoning and executing homosexuals since nearly the moment it came to power in 1979, with little notice in the West beyond the occasional human-rights report. So when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the startling claim at Columbia University last week that "we do not have homosexuals in Iran like you do in your country," it offered what could have been a learning opportunity to those who think Iran is just another misunderstood regime with an equally misunderstood president.
Such wishful thinking. The Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls spent a fair bit of time Wednesday night debating what to do about Iran, without once mentioning Ahmadinejad's peculiar world view. These are the same debaters who in August went before a gay audience to denounce Bush administration policies as "demeaning" and "degrading" toward gays. In the Nation--a magazine that excoriated Ronald Reagan upon his passing for his "inaction and bigotry against gays"--editor Katrina vanden Heuvel has nothing to say about the subject either. Instead, she devotes her latest column to denouncing last week's symbolic Senate vote to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization.
In the Guardian, another crusading voice from the left on gay rights, foreign-affairs columnist Martin Woollacott lambastes Columbia's president Lee Bollinger for his "mean-spirited" remarks to the Iranian president, which he takes as an indication that "it is still difficult to suggest that Iran has arguments and interests worth considering on their merits." But again, no mention of Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude toward gays, much less its "merits." And on "progressive" Web sites like Democratic Underground, there are earnest debates about exactly what Mr. Ahmadinejad meant by the word "like," as if he were merely making an academic cultural comparison rather than denying the existence of an entire category of his own citizens.
Long gone are the days when people spoke of the love that dare not speak its name. We are now living in the era of the hate-that-dare-not-be-spoken-about--lest disingenuous neocons use Mr. Ahmadinejad's unfortunate pronouncements to cut off dialogue and beat the drums for war. But if one side of the political spectrum is not to be trusted to discuss the subject, and the other side simply won't, who will?
For that, turn to a revealing and moving documentary by Indian-born journalist Parvez Sharma called "A Jihad for Love," which he describes as a "discussion about Islam through its most unlikely storytellers." Mr. Sharma (who is very far from being a conservative of any kind) spent six years filming his subjects on four continents: They include a gay imam in South Africa, a lesbian couple in Istanbul, an Egyptian who spent a year in prison for being gay before fleeing to Paris, and four young men who fled Iran for their lives and now live as political refugees in Canada.
The documentary is notable for its depiction of the tenacity with which its subjects hold on to their faith despite the wall of bigotry, often homicidal, that confronts them. Nowhere is that seen more vividly than in the plight of the Iranians. Take Arsham Parsi, 27, a subject of Mr. Sharma's who now runs the Iranian Queer Organization (irqo.net) from Toronto. In 2001, he says in a phone interview, "two of my close friends committed suicide because of the bad situation for queer people." Their deaths galvanized him to begin a gay and lesbian support group, conducted furtively and electronically, consisting largely of articles on gay-related subjects from English language sources. The enterprise grew to include six separate electronic magazines. "We used to think we were alone in the world," Mr. Parsi says. "With these magazines, we knew we were not."
In fact, homosexuality has a particularly rich history in Iran--the Qajar dynasty's Nasseruddin Shah, a contemporary of Queen Victoria and ruler of Iran for nearly 50 years, took a Kurdish boy named Malijak as his lifelong lover. It is hardly less present in contemporary Iran, not just in the parks of Tehran but the seminaries of Qom. But Mr. Parsi's activism put him at particular risk. "The police use the Internet to make undercover arrests," he says. "They'll write to say 'I am looking for a partner,' entrap someone, and use their correspondence as evidence." That was the fate of friends of Mr. Parsi, who in 2003 were sentenced to 100 lashes in the space of an hour, and it would have been his, too, had he not fled Iran on word he was about to be arrested.
From Toronto, Mr. Parsi works on asylum cases and continues to publish a newsletter called Cheraq ("Light"), which reaches about 3,000 readers in Iran. Yesterday, it published a selection of letters to Mr. Ahmadinejad by gay Iranians.
"I pray that some false note in the divine composition has you fathering a gay offspring so that the hammer that you've raised over our heads comes down on your very own," writes one. "I recommend you partake in the first Iranian gay Pride parade so you can see for yourself that it will be more glorious and more populated than your Quds day or annual revolution commemoration day parades," writes another, adding that a gay parade would be attended voluntarily, in contrast to "a bunch of schoolchildren and innocent peasants who have been forced to show up to punch the 'world oppressors' in the mouth."
All of this ought to be evidence that, when it comes to the Iranian regime, the gap between bad neocons and pure-of-heart progressives ought to be no more than tactical: This is, ultimately, a regime that needs to go. Not so. Mr. Sharma, for instance, rails in the Huffington Post against the "the Good-vs.-Evil caricature" that he says prevails in Western attitudes toward Iran.
Mr. Sharma is a gifted filmmaker, but his politics remind me of the Socratic observation that poets are poor judges of their own work. Or how else is one supposed to view the scene he captures of Mr. Parsi at last arriving in Toronto and weeping both for the freedom he has gained and his friends still trapped in Islamist captivity? Is it a testament that there is no meaningful difference between free and unfree, Bushworld and Ahmadinejadland? Take that view seriously, and you wind up taking the notion of gay rights, and human rights, too lightly for anyone's good.
Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.
NPR Story: Homosexuality in Muslim World Shrouded in Secrecy
Talk about homosexuality and Islam on "Blog of the Nation." Talk of the Nation, October 2, 2007 · In an address to an audience at Columbia University last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that homosexuality does not exist in Iran. The comment prompted derisive laughter from his audience and put a spotlight on the hostile treatment of gays and lesbians in the Muslim world.
Parvez Sharma, the filmmaker behind the documentary A Jihad for Love, discusses the underground world of homosexuality in Muslim countries. Filmed in 12 countries and nine languages, the documentary profiles men and women who struggle daily against persecution, danger and social isolation.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)