Asalamu Alaikum.

A few days ago, a Brother and I were walking back to work after Jummah and got into a conversation about “how to revive the Ummah since 9/11.”

Neither of us had any concrete answers, but it was a good chance for both of us to really start taking the question into consideration.

Insh’Allah this blog post can help create a perspective for the Muslim community to tackle this question, as well as broader questions about how to rebuild the US Left-wing.

I would argue that there has been an important observation by many Muslims and non-Muslims about the scapegoating of the Ummah in today’s politics. The fact is that today, the post-9/11 world: Muslims are treated the same way that Communists were treated in the 1940s and 1950s.

At its face value this seems like a merely superficial observation. “Here are two ideological groups that have been singled out at some point in history.” But the fact is that there is more in common between these two groups and there contextual circumstances than many people are aware of.

In a nutshell, I propose that 9/11 did two major things: it created an excuse to attack the Muslim community at full force, and to use Islamophobia as a weapon against the radicalizing and growing left-wing that existed in the US at the turn of the Millenium.

————

In 1999, there was a massive and historic protest against the World Trade Organization (WTO). This mass protest saw, on a national level, the resurgence of anarchist groups, socialist groups, social justice unions, and other groups as they came together to form a militant Left-wing. This has been remembered as the Battle of Seattle.

It was precisely that sort of left-wing radicalism that the US was absolutely terrified of. It was precisely that sort of left-wing radicalism that the US was eager to smash as quickly and absolutely as possible. With the events of 9/11, the US ruling class got its wish. 9/11 was disgustingly used as an excuse to ratchet up US patriotism and US nationalism.

This patriotism/nationalism has been used to demonize and criminalize immigrants and people of color here in the US and abroad.

I bring all of this up, because it is important to keep the repression of the Ummah in this context. The raids in Muslim neighborhoods, the random arrests of Imams right off of streets in the US, extradition of people within countries of the Middle East, and mass deportation of Muslims out of the US has been a terror campaign against the Ummah. The state repression against the Muslim community was used to promote Islamophobia against Muslims amongst all sections of US society.

And it worked. Hate crimes against Muslims sky-rocketed immediately following 9/11. Meanwhile, all left-wing organizations and organizers were swept up in a sea of “patriotic unity.” The handfuls of groups that resisted the draw towards patriotism became pariahs of the Left.

In summary, 9/11 was used to generate Islamophobia and patriotism. Islamophobia and patriotism have been used to tear apart the Left and to silence it. That same Islamophobia is still lodged, like a knife, in the eyes of the US Left, and it prevents any real solidarity between the Ummah and the Left: so both communities remain on their knees.

————

It is in this context that we must figure out how to rebuild the Ummah in the US.

To paraphrase Karl Marx: we don’t get to participate in history under the conditions that we would like. We must be actors in history under the conditions that are forced on us.

Since the Siege of Gaza back in December of 2008 and since the massacre at Fort Hood, two things have become clear.

1. The Ummah can be organized and it can be mobilized.

The biggest concentrations ever of Arabs and Muslims at a political protest (in my lifetime) was at the protests against the Siege of Gaza. It was magnificent. This showed that, given the opportunity and the organization, the Ummah can become a force to be reckoned with.

2. The Left-wing remains, 8yrs since 9/11, suspicious and generally uncomfortable around the Muslim community.

The incident at Fort Hood should have touched off national (and even international) protests against the Occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. But instead, the majority of the Left around the world was either silent, or limited to defending Muslims from hate-speech. But a moment that could have been critical in organizing against the Occupations was completely missed.

So insh’Allah, what steps can we take to remedy this situation?
————

I think that there are a few basic things that activists, Muslim and non-Muslim can do to begin to fix this situation. But subhanAllah, this will be a long struggle (jihad). But first we need a general perspective to create a program.

For starters, it is important to recognize that the demise of the Left is directly tied to the demise of the Ummah. The same way that right-wing politics were used to hammer down the Ummah and the Left, left-wing politics must be used to hammer back and rebuild the Ummah and the Left.

The second thing to keep in mind is that the rebuilding of the Ummah will have to be done along strictly grass-roots, working class political lines. This might sound odd, given that there are ruling class, middle class, and working class members of the Ummah. But we must never forget that most Muslims, internationally and in the US, are workers. The interests, therefore, of the Ummah are the interests and aspirations of the working class.

If the middle class and even the rich want to help, that is great and we should welcome that. But the politics and orientation needs to be working class. If the ruling and middle classes want to help it has to be on working class terms.

Plenty of wealthier Muslims feel totally fine picking up the US flag, waving it around, and promoting war in the Middle East as “patriotic US citizens.” Those are the same people that want to create good business connections, make friends with rich politicians, and hope that someday they can be Muslim CEO’s that pay low wages to their Muslim workers.

In my humble opinion, these must be the parameters within which we rebuild the Ummah and the Left.
————

Flowing from the perspective outlined above of I think that a few essential and feasible things need to happen within the Muslim community, in towns and cities around the world.

1. The Muslim community needs to “come out of the closet.”

This my seem silly to Muslims living in predominantly Muslim countries, but “in the West,” this can be a difficult and even deadly task.

Racism and Islamophobia are rampant in some parts of the world. Recent film footage from two Muslims spending in 2weeks in Britain highlights the level of hate and prejudice that exists.

But none the less, the reality is that, just like the Lesbian, Gay , Bisexual, Transgendered, and Intersexed (LGBTI) movement: we need to be open about being Muslim! The only way that Muslims will ever gain acceptance in society is by letting everyone around us know that they have a friend, neighbor, coworker, family member, etc. that is Muslim and that is great!

The more that Muslim’s try to cover up their identity, or try to just “blend in,” the more that treatment of Muslims as “an other” is legitimized and perpetuated.

The first step is to be open Muslims. Beards, hijabs, prayer rugs at work, whatever you can handle.

2. The next step will require starting up Muslim organizations that are explicitly and deliberately: Pro-Equal Marriage, Pro-Choice, Anti-Death Penalty, Anti-War, and Pro-Working Class.

As stated above, the demise of the Left and the demise of the Ummah are locked together. To rebuild the Ummah will require consciously pulling the Ummah towards Left-wing politics and being as public about this as possible.

The US right-wing has made itself the sole representative of religious people. In the US, most people assume that being religious universally the same as being conservative. We need to first let the world know that religious does not equal conservative. In fact, many of history’s Left-wing heroes were people who identified with one religion or another.

Moreover, it is an individual’s politics that influence their religious perspective. Not the other way around.

By building the Left within the Ummah, we can pull the Ummah “out of the closet” and pull us closer with our brothers and sisters in the Left, whom can be our only allies against the right-wing racist and Islamophobic attacks.

The sort of group would depend on the issues in your locality. But groups like “Muslims for Gay Marriage,” or “Pro-Choice Muslims” would be two good ideas to get started on organizing.

3. Muslims pushing for Unionization, Muslims withing Unions struggling for more solidarity with the Ummah.

The US is in its worst period of unionization ever. Most US workers are completely unorganized. But a few important struggles, led by immigrant workers in unions, has brought the utility and necessity of unions back to life.

The workers at Republic Windows and Doors, at SK Handtools, at Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), and at the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: all of these workers went on strike and they all WON their demands.

I bring up Muslims building and organizing in Unions, because of a few key things. For one, the modern weekend (i.e. Saturday and Sunday) were created by the cooperation of Catholic and Jewish union workers. There had been a debate about when workers should have time off. It was not by default that the weekend became Saturday and Sunday.

Some people had considered making the days off Wednesdays and Fridays. But because Saturday is the Sabbath for Jews, and Sunday is the Sabbath for Christians, those days were combined into the modern weekend. But to win this required solidarity, organizing, and strikes!

Well Muslims have a “sabbath” as well, and its Fridays. And the modern demand for the labor movement is a four day workweek. The new day added to the weekend should be Friday, so that Muslims can attend Jummah prayers, without worrying about whether or not their workplace will allow them enough time each Friday to visit the local masjid (mosque).

Of course, in the most practical sense, as the economy ges worse, workers (Muslim and non-Muslim) will need unions to defend us from: being fired, having our wages, lowered, and having our benefits taken away.

4. Recruiting as many Brothers and Sisters to the fight for International Socialist Revolution.

The struggles to “come out” as Muslims. The struggles to create Left-wing Muslim groups. The struggles to unionize and push the unions to join in Solidarity with the Ummah. All of these are important struggles. But as long as capitalism exists, we will have to fight again and again and again for all of these struggles.

Capitalism NEEDS racism, sexism, homophobia to survive. The only way to make a few people super-rich, is to keep the majority of people super-poor. The only way to keep people super-poor is to make them fight amongst themselves instead of against their common enemy: the ruling class.

As long as capitalism exists, the ruling class will try to bring back all of the things we try to create reforms against. Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. fought for reforms all of his life. Particularly for things like desegragating public schools, winning affirmative action, and against Jim Crow.

While Jim Crow was completely defeated, affirmative action has been slowly destroyed. Meanwhile, according to recent studies, public schools are actually MORE segregated now than they were during the time of MLK!

Reforms like the ability to organize unions was won back in the 1930s, but its almost harder to organize a union now than ever.

Capitalism constantly tries to take away whatever reforms we win, so while we should continue to fight for reforms, we should remember that reforms are not enough. Ultimately, we need to organize sections of the Ummah to be revolutionary socialists.

Otherwise, we can fight Islamophobia forever, but under capitalism, it will always come back in one way or another.

————

This is a basic perspective and rough-sketch of first steps for the Ummah to rebuild itself and simultaneously rebuild the Left.

We cannot forget that it is because of the racist, sexist, homophobic, pro-war Right-wing that our Ummah in the Middle East is under attack by bombs, and our Brothers and Sisters here in the West are under attack by racists and police.

It is this struggle against the right-wing internationally, and to help rebuild the Left-wing internationally, which is our only hope to Liberate ourselves as Muslims and as an international Ummah. Our struggle as an international Ummah is connected to the struggle of the international Left and international workers (as most Muslims, internationally are working class).

To paraphrase Karl Marx, as Muslims and as workers, we have nothing but our chains to lose and a world to win!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Third Printing of Graham’s Best Seller, The Gay State Announced for 2010.

New York, NY, USA – December 22, 2009.  In 2009, the world witnessed the relentless and continuing assault of Gays around the globe.  Murders, executions, imprisonment and beatings of members of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgender community increased internationally.  The beheading of Gays even reached the US, which saw LGBT hate crimes spike by eleven percent in 2008-09.

 As a result of the ongoing global persecution, author Garrett Graham is re-releasing his internationally acclaimed book “The Gay State: The Quest For An Independent Gay Nation-State And What It Means To Conservatives And The World’s Religions.”  The book, originally written  and released in 2007, was followed up with a second printing in 2008.  After revisions and re-editing and inclusion of new data, a third printing of The Gay State is expected to be released by Spring, 2010.  Demand continues to increase, according to Graham’s agent,  Dottie Shapiro, with global distribution across five continents.

 Graham, who lives in New York, has travelled extensively as a Gay equality activist and has researched the question of creating an independent Gay nation.  According to Graham, “Gays have lived under brutal oppression for thousands of years.  And with the exception of a few liberal pockets of enlightenment, the onslaught of our people mercilessly continues.”

 In a telephone interview from London, Graham said “We, as the Gay community are a people – one people, yet we are scattered about in every nation on Earth.  Of those 195 nations, 80 of them have made our very existence an illegal act.  Even in countries where we are legally allowed to exist, we are rooted out for extermination and subjected to routine violence.”

Graham insists the time for this historic experiment in Gay independence has come.  “The global Gay community wants nothing more than to live in freedom with peace and liberty.  We seek only to be left to prosper – or fail, according to our own merit, drive and talent.”

Political conservatives and religious leaders have had mixed reactions to the plan for an independent Gay territory, but substantial numbers support the Gay community in establishing their own Gay state.  Graham’s response to the clergy was “It may be true that we are strange bedfellows.  But we all agree that our views are incompatible and by working harmoniously to separate peacefully is in everyone’s interest.”

Often referred to as “The father of the global Gay independence movement,” Graham will continue to give talks on the subject and a book tour will be scheduled in the coming months, according to his agent, Dottie Shapiro. 

Garrett Graham is available for interviews and his offices may be reached at:

GarrettGrahamAndTheGayState@GMail.com

Contact:  Garrett Graham

GarrettGrahamAndTheGayState@GMail.com

Sans Everything has a great article looking at homosexuality and it’s depiction in comic books/strips in response to conservative Brent Bozell.  It’s a great read with a lot of history and a lot of examples of the topic from the 1930’s and 40’s.  I remember it being was such a big deal when Marvel finally revealed Northstar was gay as a recent example, though the examples provided are spotlighting being gay in a negative context.

Below is part of a Mickey Mouse strip from January 22, 1931 where he not only verbally assaults a “gay” character but actually physically assaults him too.  Who’d thought Mickey was a gay basher?  I mean Walt Disney loved people of all kinds (snicker).

Ignorance...it's so much easier.

Prior to opening Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, I had a fairly narrow view of feminism and the many different issues the broad umbrella of “feminism” entails. All the info I had on feminism came from Hollywood, shock jocks, overheard conversations, and 20 years worth of indoctrination into the conservative Christian tradition. Though I had largely rejected my religious upbringing and had begun to question many of the opinions which I’d thought were fact, many remained, simply because they were unexamined. The readings from Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions have caused me to examine my views of feminism, the role of women in society, the patriarchy, activism, and cosmetic surgery. Two readings in particular have proven catalytic in broadening my mind; Feminist Politcs, written by bell hooks, and Hermaphrodites with Attitude, by Amy Bloom.

In Feminist Politics, hooks provided me with a definition of feminism I couldn’t not support (ironically, it was also the first definition I’d heard, despite having a strong, albeit ignorant, opinion about feminism): “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (2000, p. 40). Hooks went on to address why this is not a commonly understood and accepted definition of feminism and I had my eyes opened again. I was not a big believer in the “patriarchy”— the idea of a group of men in expensive suits, sitting around a cigar-smoke-filled room, conspiring to keep women oppressed seemed preposterous. With a simple phrase, “[Most people's] misunderstanding of feminist politics reflects the reality that most folks learn about feminism from patriarchal mass media” (p. 40), I realized that it didn’t take a conspiracy of peers to oppress a group of people.

The term “radical feminist” was a cause for concern to me before hooks explained the difference between “reformist feminism” and “radical feminism.” Reformists want, primarily, “equality with men in the workforce” while the “original radical foundations of contemporary feminism…called for reform as well as overall restructuring of society so that our nation would be fundamentally anti-sexist” (2000, p. 41). Reforming our current, sexist society is not enough. Gaining equality in one area (such as equal-pay-for-equal-work), is not enough to end (or at least push back) all the ‘ism’s that oppress millions every day.

The second reading that cataclysmically altered my point of view was written by Amy Bloom. In Hermaphrodites with Attitude, Bloom writes that infants born with “ambiguous genitalia” are more common than those born with cystic fibrosis, about two thousand times a year in the United States alone. (2002, p. 244)

I myself am not a hermaphrodite, nor do I know anyone who is (that I am aware of). Prior to this reading, I had done no research about the subject whatsoever. And yet, I had an opinion about hermaphrodites and people I considered “gender confused.” My thought was naively, “Whatever genitals are most prominent, that’s what you are. Just be that.” Very few hermaphrodites are true 50/50 splits so this seemed an easy judgment to make.

This opinion was challenged upon my reading about the “corrective” procedures, which, “if necessary” involve “some enlargement of the vaginal cavity by metal dilators, inserted by the parents daily for six months….Monthly dilation of the seven-or eight-year old continues into adolescence to prevent the narrowing or closure of the vaginal cavity” (p. 244). Further challenges arose when reading about the mentality of those performing such procedures. Bloom quotes a doctor as writing, “After stillbirth, genital anomaly is the most serious problem with a baby, as it threatens the whole fabric of personality and life of the person.” One must wonder how much more a baby’s personality will be shaped by having non-consensual genital surgery and by the postoperative “dilation” in order to make her vagina “normal” than by having a “genital anomaly.” Bloom quotes Dr. Richard Hurwitz, in the instructional video “Surgical Reconstruction of Ambiguous Genitalia in Female Children” as saying, “The finding of ambiguous genitalia in the newborn is a medical and social emergency.” There is a common understanding among doctors and surgeons that a boy can not have a fulfilling life with a small penis and a girl can not have a fulfilling life with a large clitoris and therefore, “corrective” surgery must be performed as soon as possible. These same doctors believe that parents are incapable of truly loving a child whose genitals do not conform to the “normal” standard of genital conformation. The American College of Surgeons training video on how to treat female genital abnormality makes clear that they believe it highly important to appear normal while making no mention of functionality or feeling. (Bloom, 2002, p. 248)

My ignorant opinion that one should just “be what they are” was challenged and ultimately destroyed upon reading about Klinefelter’s syndrome, AIS, PAIS, and CAH, all of which result in fairly “normal” looking genitals but with various hormonal or chromosomal abnormalities which result in varying degrees of natural variations, such as a man developing small breasts but not the typically “male” traits such as a hairy chest, deep voice, and heavier musculature.

This essay also reaffirmed to me the dangers of homophobia. Dr. Philip Gruppuso (quoted in Bloom, 2002), speaking on the treatment of infant hermaphrodites said:

“…in the history of treating these kids, there is an element of homophobia…If you look back at the standard texts of the fifties and sixties, the underlying concern was that people who were ‘really’ male but looked female would want to have sex with males, and the same for females who appeared male. Homosexual sex was the underlying fear.” (p. 247)

While understanding that homophobia was dangerous and damaging to adults, I had not realized the extent to which the irrational fear of consenting adults having relations with other consenting adults of the same sex was causing harm upon the most innocent and defenseless people in our midst.

I know that I have many more ignorant and judgment views remaining to be examined, but due to the writings of bell and Bloom, there are at least some which are no longer mucking around in my brain.

References

Bloom, A. (2002) Hermaphrodites with attitude. In S. Shaw, J. Lee (Eds.), Women’s voices, feminist visions. (2009). (pp. 244-249). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminist politics: Where we stand. In S. Shaw, J. Lee (Eds.), Women’s voices, feminist visions. (2009). (pp. 40-42). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

A Field Guide to the Straight Girl:

http://ordinaryfreakshow.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/a-field-guide-to-the-straight-girl/

A Field Guide to the Straight BFF

http://ordinaryfreakshow.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/field-guide-to-the-straight-bff/

—

So here’s the next (over-due) installation to the Field Guide series: A Field Guide to the Homophobe.

I’m sure you all know what a homophobe/homophobic is, but if you don’t, a homophobe is someone who is either scared of gay people (homo meaning gay and phobe meaning fear) or, under a loose interpretation of the word, someone who dislikes (or hates) gays. For me, finding out someone is homophobic is probably just as scary for a homophobe to find out someone’s, well, gay. The situations are literally synonymous to each other. There’s no way to know that someone’s gay, and there’s really know way to know that someone’s homophobic, unless either of they say so themselves.

The only way to know if someone is homophobic is to feel them out a bit. Of course, some people just come right out with the fact that they simply do not like gay people. Or, on the more negative side, they could lash out. Ask around. Ask the people who you trust to give you the truth. See how she reacts whenever anyone mentions something gay-related. Keep in mind that a lot of people will say “Don’t be such a fag” or “That’s so gay.” That’s really no indication if someone’s homophobic. It could mean something, but not always. Words like fag and gay are just conventional words that don’t really mean anything anymore.

Now, I generally categorize homophobes into four categories: Passive, Moderate, Aggressive, and ‘Immatures.’ The most important thing, I think, is to calculate whether or not the person is under any of the three categories. To be completely and absolutely honest, it is important to deduce whether or not someone fits under the Aggressive category. Why? Safety. True, these days, everything’s getting better. We can be more open about being gay, and honestly, there are few people who still fit under the Aggressive category. But some still do. Never forget that there are still violent attacks on gays that have lead to serious injury and even, in extreme cases, death. Lawrence King, for example, died only last year. A girl in NJ was killed at a local bus stop. The list goes on. I don’t mean to scare people, but that’s the harsh reality. Thankfully, as I already mentioned, very few people these days fit under the Aggressive category. My only advice? Steer clear of them. Don’t be argumentative, and as much as I hate to say it, don’t be ‘flamboyant.’ Safety is the most important thing here.

The Moderate category and the Passive category is where most people are going to fit. The Moderate category are generally going to be the people who aren’t going to extend further than verbal lashings. The verbal bullies. Whether or not you stand up for yourself is your choice, and it’s totally understandable if you choose to say nothing. Oftentimes they’re not going to be swayed to believe anything other than gays are awful. Not much you can do here. How to spot them? They’re probably the most outwardly argumentative. “Bible-thumpers” fit underneath this category, evangelical types who make it a point to say they don’t like gays. Again, I say bullies. They’re looking for a fight.

The Passive category is going to include a lot of religiously motivated people, and people who are driven, by more logical arguments, to dislike gays. They’re not going to really outwardly say anything, but if anyone asks, it’s who they are. They don’t like gays. What I’ve found about the Passive category, is that they’re easily swayed. Most of them, like most homophobes, have never met anyone who’s gay. In fact, they know very little. Their extent of their knowledge rarely exceeds past what they’ve learned in Sunday School. Actually, all I can say is just to let them get to know you. Even engage in some friendly, healthy debate on the topic. Maybe you can change their mind on how they feel about gays. Most of the time, they’re not going to be outwardly hurtful.

Now there’s the “Immature” category. Here, you’re just going to have a lot of high school kids who are afraid of anything they don’t really know about, ie) gays. I hate to stereotype, but this category is going to have a lot of guys. Unfortunately, today’s society raises the male demographic to be ‘macho,’ which is anything but that stereotypical gay. Thus, a lot of guys are going to be afraid of ‘fags,’ and they’re going to be outwardly argumentative. Not much to say here other than be yourself. Maybe even open up their minds a little bit.

I know the approach I take to the ‘Homophobe’ might not be the best. But it’s a way that I’ve found works for me, and it’s a way that’s easy to put down on paper. If anyone finds this offensive, I sincerely apologize, I did not mean it as such.

To the gays, I know it can be scary to find out that someone’s Homophobic. Especially if they’re your friend, your teammate, or classmate. In the simplest of terms, here’s what I have to say: Be respectful and always take the high road. Show them that you won’t sink down to they’re level and that you are a respectable and all in all nice person. And above all, be safe.

So if anyone is reading this, and I’m not entirely sure that they are, I would love to hear your own coming out stories. What happened, how did you do it, who did you do it to, what was their reaction, was it favourable or poor? How long did it take them to get over it? Maybe they still haven’t got over it? Let’s have a share

A great piece on the Daily Beast by Dustin Lance Black on witnessing homophobia–and those who stand up to it–and hope in a small conservative town.  Definitely worth a read.

Almost a year ago, I won an Oscar for writing Milk, a film about a famous gay-rights pioneer. My acceptance speech was a call for gay rights that got me lots of attention and plenty of hate mail. Then last summer, my film was banned by the college in the small Midwestern town where I was scouting my next project. It would have stayed that way, if not for an unlikely coalition of conservative local leaders, students, and a gay kid in short-shorts who fought to get the film its due—and gave the town some hope.

Read the full piece at the Daily Beast.

h/t Debbie.

Thanks www.ladybunny.net

By Mary Shaw (about the author) 

www.opednews.com, December 21, 2009 

It’s that time of year again. At shopping centers everywhere, representatives from the Salvation Army, dressed in their paramilitary attire, ring their bells and aggressively invite your holiday donations. And I always see people eagerly throwing money into their big red kettles. I suspect that most of these generous individuals aren’t aware of what their dollars are actually funding.

Last year I wrote a column titled “The Salvation Army’s red kettle of trouble”, in which I outlined the Salvation Army’s long and disturbing history of religious coercion, abuse, and intolerance. An excerpt:

I have spoken with a number of people who have sought assistance from the Salvation Army in the past, particularly for disaster relief. I was told of how these people were preached to and forced into praying with the Salvation Army folks to their Christian God as a prerequisite for receiving services. If you’re Jewish, tough. If you’re Hindu, tough. Gotta pray their way, to their God, or else you’re not worthy of assistance. It’s quid pro quo. Gotta take advantage of people when they’re most vulnerable. Contrast this with the secular Red Cross, which just wants to help disaster victims, not save their souls. (In the interest of full disclosure, I personally received help from the Red Cross when my apartment building burned down in 2001. They were extremely helpful and compassionate, and expected nothing in return.) As if the religious coercion isn’t enough, the Salvation Army has also been implicated in a number of cases of alleged sexual abuse, ranging from molestation of child members of the Salvation Army’s Red Shield swim team in Seattle to pedophile rings that operated out of Salvation Army-run orphanages in Australia and New Zealand. (Yes, they like to “spread the love” worldwide.)

The Salvation Army is also homophobic — so much so that they would stop helping the poor if it meant they had to respect equal rights for gays and lesbians. In 2004, they threatened to close their soup kitchens in New York City rather than comply with the city’s legislation requiring firms to offer domestic partnership benefits to gay employees.

In the year since I wrote that piece, I have heard from several people who have shared their own negative experiences with the Salvation Army. Their stories have reinforced — and even worsened — my own impressions of the organization. A retired U.S. military officer contacted me after considering the Salvation Army for his charitable donations. He wrote:

“I’m glad I came upon your article about the Salvation Army. I have been considering leaving my worldly goods to them because I thought they did nothing but good. I had second thoughts when I was late in answering their charitable request. I have since found many disturbing facts about the Salvation Army.”

A former Salvation Army volunteer from Canada shared his experience with some ethical issues:

“Everyone [at the Salvation Army] liked me, because I also went to the service on Sundays. I am a believer in God. After 4 weeks [as a Salvation Army volunteer], I noticed whatever came in the back door for donation, for the poor, also left through the back door, and never reached the vulnerable or needy. All the good stuff the volunteers took. “I complained to one of the Salvation Army workers, That this should not be happening so close to Christmas. I was told to keep quiet, because the Major and some of the volunteers had an understanding. I was told to look the other way. I tried to ignore it, but it became very hard, especially when a local business donated six big boxes of clothes and shoes for children. All went missing.

“I complained again, and now I was labeled a troublemaker. In the end, I was told to leave.”

But by far the most compelling response I got was from an anonymous emailer who contacted me through a Yahoo account, probably accessed via a public library or other community Internet resource. This woman, who signed the email message simply as “Feeling helpless”, wrote:

“I am a homeless woman living at the Salvation Army women’s shelter. Can you help me expose the Salvation Army? I have so much to tell you but I can not do it by email.”

Unfortunately, no other contact information was included, and my attempts at follow-up seem to have fallen through, but hopefully she received my suggestion that she contact the appropriate authorities and the local media for immediate help in exposing and addressing whatever issues she was facing. This woman clearly needed more help than I alone can provide through my own writing and activism. I hope that her situation has since improved. The bottom line is this: While the Salvation Army may have done some good work over the years in providing assistance to the poor, the addicted, and the marginalized, their methods and practices are not ones that I approve of. There are many other nonprofit organizations out there that provide similar services in a more ethical manner.

And, if you’re a Christian, consider this: The ironic thing about the Salvation Army’s practices is that they do all that while labeling themselves as “Christian”. But think about it: If Jesus were here today, he surely would not approve of their methods.

So please think twice before tossing your spare change into their red kettles of trouble. Think about what you would be supporting with your hard-earned cash.

Happy holidays.

 Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views (more…)

Sex objects forced to flaunt their bodies to promote the devil's nectar

It is often assumed that the people who complain loudest about something have the most to hide. That’s the prevailing logic about homophobia – that those who hate gays do so because they are seeking to deny something about themselves.

And it is certainly the case with the recent controversy over the Leo Beer 2010 calendar launched here in Thailand last week – and promptly banned from sale or distribution by the government.

The reason for the ban was two-fold. First of all, alcohol advertising laws in Thailand forbid the linking of alcohol with fun. Secondly, nudity is forbidden in the media. As this was a calendar promoting beer through the use of body-painted (so, officially nude in that they weren’t actually clothed, even though they were at least visually covered) models, it was always likely to offend someone in a position of power.

Now, if a government wants to control how alcohol is advertised, that is fine. You could even praise them for being responsible about what is, after all, a health issue. Furthermore, there are those who will have their arguments against presenting the female form in a sexual context. Again, there are valid arguments for this.

But this is Thailand. It’s not Utah or Indonesia. I’m not criticising those places, but the point is, they practice what they preach. They set out their stalls and they stick to them. The hypocrisy in the Thai government banning a sexy beer calendar is striking.

Let me take the two offending points one at a time.

First of all, the advertising of alcohol. They say alcohol should not be equated with fun. Fair enough. But then why is it most concerts and festivals here are promoted by major beer and/or whisky brands? Are concerts and  festivals not fun?

A friend of mine went to a Chang Beer-sponsored reggae festival in Bang Saen beach a couple of months ago and said his 1,500 baht (30 pounds) ticket included 32 bottles of beer. Thirty-two! Per person! To be consumed in one day.!Perhaps the logic there is that even if it were physically possible for any human being to drink 32 bottles of Thailand’s strongest beer (6.4%) in one sitting, it would cease to be fun long before you even hit the halfway mark. Alcohol = fun? Not when you’re puking your innards out en route to an 18-hour hangover.

Furthermore, how puritanical can a government be in terms of promoting alcohol, when it is possible – no, easy - to get a drink literally 24 hours a day in Bangkok?

If the government was so concerned with reducing its citizens’ alcohol consumption, then perhaps it would be better served looking into the illegal after-hours pubs, the itinerant street bars, and the unlicensed shops, than cracking down on a calendar which doesn’t even depict actual beer, only the logo of the brand.

Now, personally I’m not against the idea of all-night bars. The responsibility of how much a person drinks, and until when, surely rests with that person. I’m a bit of a night owl and it’s good to know I can go out at 2am if I fancy it. But surely if a person is an irresponsible drinker, it’s more to do with the wide availability of affordable drink in this city, than an affordable drink being painted on a girl’s chest.

Secondly, there is the issue of using nude models to promote a product. Some people will argue that such strategies, or indeed any depiction of the female body in a sexual context, demeans them. I don’t agree with that, so long as there is no exploitation involved, because I know a lot of women take pride in their appearance, their sexiness, and if they have the confidence in themselves and their figures to flaunt them, then that is their choice. For some women, to appear in a tasteful nude calendar would be something to be proud of.

Some people may disagree with this, and that’s fine. Apparently the Thai government is among those people.  Again, it’s not the stance I object to, but the hypocrisy.

Thailand, and Bangkok, justifiably has a worldwide reputation for its vice. Just as I can get a drink at any time of day or night, similarly I could buy sex at any time. Or I could go to watch semi-nude girls parading on stages. Or doing worse. And then I could take one of these girls home for a modest fee.

So, I can watch sexual content in the flesh – I can even indulge in sexual acts for a price - but I can’t buy a sexy calendar. Because there is a beer logo on it.

Right. As if the literally hundreds of go-go bars in Bangkok serve only orange juice.

The point is, if I was of a mind to do so, I could drink myself into oblivion every day and night in Bangkok. At the same time as I did this, I could watch barely-dressed girls in bars. For many, either or both of these factors are what makes Bangkok such an enticing place. Everybody knows this, many people even embrace it, but the only people who make a show of being conservative is the Thai government.

In fact, it wouldn’t be absurd to suggest the government doesn’t actually want to tackle the problems of alcohol and vice, because these industries are simply too profitable. It just wants to be seen to denounce them.

Tackling the problems of alcohol and vice by banning a calendar is like trying to cure skin cancer by putting a plaster over the tumour. Only in this case, it’s a see-through plaster. We all know what’s beneath.

* You can see some of the uncensored images from the calendar here. Judge for yourself if this was worth banning.

For many years I have always suspected Donnie McClurkin and Tonex who both have strong presences in the gospel entertainment industry as being a part of the LGBT community as well. I never actively seeked confirmation for this hunch of mine because it lacked importance to me, if they were it was there business until they made it mine. I remember the first time that I heard Tonex sing, I was at the Crystal Cathedrals’ gift shop in Anaheim, CA after a rehabilitation session at the Kaiser Permanente out-patient center for the stroke I had just had. Immediately after viewing a demo compilation DVD of him and a few other gospel artist I brought his first CD aptly self titled which I absolutely loved, so much so that I purchased his second album immediately thereafter which the title escapes me……. I played his second album just once, that was all it took for me to feel his self hatred trying to engulf my spirit. I believe it was the second track where he sings “What is this I’m seeing, two girls kissing…” quite frankly, even in 2009 being homosexual is still largely taboo though this was at least 5yrs prior (which means that it was absolutely no better). Take into account when the lyrics were written which I made sure were by him because I refused to believe that he wrote the lyrics he was singing since I had a sneaking suspicion that he himself were gay, unfortunately I was proved wrong and my heart was broken and I would discontinue supporting his musical movement. I felt that he was doing what most gay people do when they are fighting their true selves, they put down the very community that will embrace them the most – and he was doing it rather publicly. Maybe this was guise that the music industry had put into action to throw off the media and the public from his non- traditional gospel music artist image and he was just following along, either way his actions were hurtful. This I could not accept in my life especially since in that time period (and probably still now today) you will not witness intimacy between two homosexual people unless you are in an environment that accepts them for who they are and our images are not very common on day time or even evening television, movies primarily aimed at us can not be found very easily in your local theatres and when they come out on DVD local retail chains aren’t advertising it as part of their product line. So for him to be able to witness “two girls kissing” one had to wonder where he was at and what he was doing to come across this sight…….

            I have since reconciled my musical relationship with Tonex due to my own personal growth and I brought his new CD released on a different label (which also speaks volumes to me) titled “unspoken”. I am very pleased with the content especially track 5 titled “Blend” which speaks of growth on his part: “Do you really wanna be like them? / Do you really wanna act like them? / Do you really wanna sound like them? / Why do you try so hard to blend…” (A.Williams). While I love the whole CD, those lyrics really speak to me!

            Recently Donnie McClurkin, in his own bout of self denial outed Tonex (who now goes by TON3X possibly due to his previous record label owning rights to his name or perhaps his way of wiping the slate clean, either way please keep in mind that this is my personal speculation.) to those of us who pay no mind to the media frenzies that often smear celebrities name and character through black lists for years to come… During  a sermon Donnie broke down and admitted that he had been saved from a life of homosexuality, going on to reveal that he had lost his virginity to an Uncle (who obviously committed incest and scribed scars into this man’s psyche that still have yet to heal) and how other people who are homosexual are confused and can be saved from it . While I appreciate the insight that he gave us into his personal life, it was heartbreaking to listen to him place blame on his past for who he is. Everyone knows what makes them comfortable in their own life and they make decisions based off of that, and quite frankly at least half of the gay community can testify to some type of sexual abuse occurring in their life at some point. What say you about the other half who can’t? For me it was almost like experiencing déjà vu when watching the youtube version of his testimony and my heart ached for every gay person that sat in that audience listening to him spill his shattered soul like shards of glass against their spirit, they didn’t deserve that. When you lack spiritual strength you can be left affected by actions like that. I’m honestly disappointed in Donnie, especially since he disrespected TON3X. Since he’s gay (and he may deny this all he likes which is his prerogative, but like him I am entitled to my opinion.) he knows all too well the emotional struggle that the homosexual community goes through to find internal and external acceptance and peace, why he would compromise anyone’s journey including his own is beyond me. Our journeys are sacred and powerful to our history and we shouldn’t be ashamed or made to feel ashamed of it. Yes, there are things in our community that I’m often confused by and just plain don’t understand but in remembering my own journey I know that our paths are not going to be parallel all the time. My greatest concern lies in the moment that he reaches self acceptance and finds a way to embrace the truth about himself. He will then have to face the time he’s invested in others “ministering” to them about their “confusion”, perhaps that will be his most powerful testimony of all but at what cost?

In typing all of this I must impress upon you that in no way am I angry with the decision that Donnie McClurkin made. I am honestly concerned for the emotional well being of the [southern] black gay community as we are damaged enough by the many “religious” sects that have denied us, and this public outcry has only given further concrete pseudo confirmation of an ancient belief drenched in archaic religious rhetoric that we as a people are an abomination. This also offers tools to continue to ostracize us from our core communities which only create more obstacles for us in our journeys. This is heartbreaking because it all derives from a member of our own community whether he accepts it or not, he is a part of us because at the end of the day we are all of one accord. Gay/straight/bisexual/transgender/intersex/hermaphrodite and many of us all believe in the same God, some only rejecting this God because of human interpretation that lacked comprehension…

In an email early this morning a friend of mine referred to receiving her “first ‘lezbo’ insult in Nottingham last week.” It reminded me of what happened a few nights ago when a friend of mine saw my short hair for the first time. We were out for the night and I’d styled my quite short, purple-streaked hair into a mohawk. This, it seems, offended her sensibilities enough for her to comment that I looked like a lezbo (oh, little does she know). When I asked her what she meant, she backtracked and tried to cover it up, because, as she put it, I am “too intellectual for comments like that.” Evidently, I’m also too intellectual for the homophobic jokes, racist jokes, anti-semitic jokes, misogynist jokes, and so on, that characterized the rest of that evening. I didn’t know I was too intellectual for that sort of thing. Here I was thinking I was just decent and not disgusting.

Having been here almost a full week I can feel the familiar rage and frustration settling into me. I can feel it coiling up into my stomach. I am ready to snap. I can whip out curses for any situation. I am sensitive to everything (no wait, maybe that’s me just being “intellectual”), especially situations in which I am being treated differently because I am a woman, or because I speak English and/or look foreign, or because I am not feminine enough, or because I do not care about what I am ’supposed’ to care about. At the supermarket today (I guess at this point it was actually yesterday) a man was rude and patronizing to me and my mother, and I stood up for us. I am still going over it in my head: should I have been calm? should I not have been rude? should I have been ruder? should I not have sworn? should I have called the manager (definitely not – he would have pulled the same sort of shit)? And this has me thinking: what battles am I meant to be fighting here? I cannot fight every battle for my mother (a woman who thinks feminism isn’t for her). I cannot even fight every battle for myself. These encounters make me feel sick inside, not empowered. These encounters make me want to hide in bed and cry over this shit of a place, and this shit of a people. They make me want to run. But I have nowhere to go. So I will stay here, and keep thinking about the incident at the supermarket, and all the incidents to come, and create a system. I will be calm. I will be polite, logical. Intellectual, even. And I might still feel sick inside, but this is because I am correct.

1.voanews.com

The U.S. State Department’s top Africa diplomat says approval by Uganda’s parliament of a bill criminalizing homosexual activity would harm that country’s world image and undercut the fight against HIV/AIDS. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson discussed the issue Friday with leaders of U.S. gay and lesbian groups concerned about the legislation pending in Kampala. http://www.LesbianSugarLounge.com to read full article

Gareth Thomas, the Rugby Union legend, has possibly taken the bravest step of his career.  He has “come out” that he is gay.  So what I hear people sigh!

This is a big issue for a number of reasons.

Gareth Thomas (Munster Vs Cardiff Blues) - Thanks to Clare Courier (flickr)

Firstly, Gareth is Wales most capped player, and perhaps more importantly he is still playing professional Rugby (for the Cardiff Blues). It is unprecedented for a Rugby Union star to come out whilst still a playing professional.  For a player of Gareth’s stature to come out it is incredible.  Players often shy away from this issue for fear of fans reactions, loss of sponsorship and lack of support from their clubs! For Gareth to face all this down and come out should be supported and acknowledged to be a truly brave act.  How the public reacts is incredibly important as it will set a precedent for all other gay sport stars who are thinking about coming out (at the moment in Rugby Union there is an openly gay referee but no player that I am aware of). 

Secondly, this is not just important for Rugby but sets a precedent for all other major sports.  At the moment, out of the 500 professional footballers in the UK  and there are no openly gay footballers.  It is highly unlikely that this reflects the reality of footballer’s actual sexuality.  Footballers are role models for millions of people around the world.  To show that sexuality has nothing to do with your professional capabilities (or your ability to lead an ordinary life) would be incredibly positive.  Whether we like it or not, footballers are elevated onto pedestals by fans.  The only problem is they know more than anyone how easy it is to fall off that pedestal. Footballing history has not been kind to those who have not followed the script.

Justin Fashanu, the first million pound black footballer, came out and was hounded by fans and the public to such an extent that the coroner said it contributed to him committing suicide. We all remember the taunts that Grahame Le Saux received …all these chants seemed to be based on nothing other than the fact he read the Guardian and has a university education.  Le Saux was married…but he did collect Antiques!  Sadly, it was not just fans who taunted Le Saux, do you remember Robbie Fowlers taunts? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article2419068.ece

Then there was the whole incident that involved heterosexual left back Ashley Cole.  The News of the World, wrongly, accused a premiership footballer of taking part in a Gay orgy.  This was not the interesting bit of the story.  What was interesting for me was despite not being named in the story; Cole went to extraordinary lengths to dispute the accusations even taking the paper to court.  Check out – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-378786/Cole-sue-gay-footballer-orgy-claims.html. 

I have said before and I will say again.  There is no social force in this world more powerful than football.  If you want to change anything in this world, start with football.  Sadly, for improving the lives of millions of people around the world affected by homophobia this looks like a slow process.  The Football Association (FA) has introduced a ruling that puts homophobic chanting on a similar scale to racist chanting.  There has been scattered reinforcement of this ruling (especially at the Seagulls ground who suffer disproportionate abuse).  To say that the FA is a slow moving conservative body would be an understatement.  This ruling however, at least sets a target to aim. 

Hopefully, footballers will follow in Gareth’s brave example.  Having openly gay footballers will be one of the biggest steps towards a more equal society that we could take.  All secretly gay sports stars though will be looking on with great interest to see how fans, sponsors and club treat Gareth.  Let’s hope it is with respect.

by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux

We don’t usually like to call out other campus publications on Equal Writes, but December’s issue of the Tory, Princeton’s “journal of conservative and moderate thought,” contained several articles that were shockingly offensive in their depiction of masculinity, emergency contraception, and campus feminism in general.  I disagreed with the first two articles, which were anti-feminist and homophobic, but was actually shocked by the last, which mocked a recent postering campaign that attempted to dispel myths about feminism.

In the “Points and Punts” section of the magazine, the writers observed that they had returned after Thanksgiving to find the campus “littered” with fliers illustrating myths and facts about feminism.  They were then “inspired” to write a few of their own, which are incredibly shocking in their mockery of an ideology that I’m assuming many Tory writers – and people in the campus community – ascribe to.  In response to the “myth” that “feminists are very defensive about their ideology” (what ideology?  That men and women are equal?  So radical!), the writers wrote, “[Feminists] do not feel at all threatened by long-term political trends, widespread disagreement with their radicalized message, or benign misconceptions about them and their beliefs.”

I was frankly appalled when I read this, especially in the week after the announcement of the formation of President Tilghman’s committee on women’s leadership.  The question of why there are fewer female leaders on this campus seems to be obviously answered, when writers of a prominent campus magazine feel that it’s acceptable, and even funny, to mock activists who are attempting to equalize relations between men and women.  I’m sure that conservative writers for this blog would be surprised to hear about feminism’s “radicalized” message, and it really displays an embarrassing ignorance on the part of the Tory staff, who seem to see feminism as a single and profoundly threatening message.

But it actually got worse – the next “myth” was simple: “feminism has an image problem.”  The response?

“Why would you say such a thing?  If feminists had an image problem, they would likely be engaging in ill-conceived publicity campaigns to improve their perception on campus.  Wait…”

Are you kidding me?  I am actually embarrassed for the Tory staff – and disappointed in the people who allowed this to be published, many of whom I respect.  But the funny thing is that I almost missed this little snippet of sexist bullshit – because of the feature, and editor-in-chief Brandon McGinley’s article about masculinity, in which McGinley attempts to defend the Dockers ad from a few weeks ago (I’ll give him points for bravery, anyway).

In the feature, Toni Alimi and Robert Marsland “expose” Princeton’s “institutional involvement in reproductive politics.”  The subject of this rather dramatic article is the website run by the Office for Population Research about emergency contraception.  We’ve written about the site before here on EW; the director, Woodrow Wilson School professor James Trussell, is a pioneer for pro-choice activism and one of the preeminent American experts on emergency contraception.  The site is simply a great source of information about emergency contraception.  Alimi and Marsland, however, attack it for “going beyond merely providing ‘neutral’ information” and encouraging increased use of emergency contraception (the horror!).  They also accuse the site of an “overtly pro-choice” agenda, and “withholding or obfuscating crucial information about the continuing controversy over the safety of the drugs and their abortifacient potential.”  To which I say: for the last time, emergency contraception does not cause abortion, and providing information does not mean promoting a particular agenda.  The site is an accurate source of information, which is important, because emergency contraception is a crucial resource and should be available and affordable to all women.  Far from pushing an agenda, the site (and the OPR) provide a public service.

But wait – there’s more.  By the time I got to Brandon McGinley’s article, I was ready for anything, or so I thought.  But McGinley’s “Reflections on Manliness” managed to be both homophobic and sexist.  McGinley reflects on the differences between Princeton and Pittsburgh, and concludes that there is a dearth of manly men in our fair town, “meandering meekly through crowds, hips failing to remain staunchly solitary, toting field greens with raspberry vinaigrette.”  He proceeds to call for the return of an old kind of manliness (you guessed it – the one in the Dockers ad!), claiming that he is not homophobic but actually promoting the value of male friendship.  But I’ll leave you with one of the last lines of his article, and let you decide:

“If we are to reestablish a healthy, positive and self-respecting understanding of masculinity in society, then homosexual conduct must be viewed as so ignominious, so disgraceful, so shameful that ‘nobody would assume that a good man would engage in it.’  Crucially, this does not imply censure of those who experience same-sex attractions; quite the opposite, it entails love and compassion for those who experience persistent same-sex attraction, that they may overcome this daunting personal challenge.”

Head to table.  I don’t know what the Tory staff was thinking this week, but these articles display a shocking level of intolerance and ignorance.  I had hoped that campus discourse had risen above this level, but I guess I was mistaken.

The BBC has once again taken flak, this time for hosting a debate on its Have Your Say section, which was entitled “Should gays face execution?” Once it became notorious, the Beeb changed the topic’s name to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”.

On the surface this is jaw-droppingly offensive, making you cringe as you cower from your screen out of embarrassment for the BBC. However, once I read on and learnt the reasoning behind the topic, I could see why they’ve shed light on this issue, even if they have dealt with it very badly. The fact is that the Ugandan government will vote on a bill which proposes:

Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act. The death sentence where the offender has HiV, is a “serial offender” or the other person is under 18. Imprisonment for seven years for “attempted homosexuality.”

In the interests of human rights, this is an important problem. Africa is known for its intolerance towards homosexuality, much of which stems from Africans’ hard-line religious beliefs. If there is a situation arising in a country whereby people are persecuted and murdered for their sexuality, it should brought to our attention.

Britain recently signed a 10-year aid deal worth £700 million to the Ugandans. It’s very much in our interests, as British taxpayers, if our money is going to a country which is abusing its citizens’ human rights. The question shouldn’t be whether Uganda should debate gay execution, but what should Britain do to prevent the bill from passing? Then a bigger question arises – what is Britain doing to quell anti-homosexual intolerance throughout the whole of Africa?

The BBC were right to raise the issue of homophobia in Uganda. However, they approached the issue entirely wrongly.

…about the article written about Stephen Gately’s death the day before was buried by the raging homophobe Jan Moir, of the Daily Mail. His one complaint will have more weight than the other 25 000 complaints put together and I hope she gets the f*****g sack for writing the most disgusting and hateful article I’ve ever read.

Sonya Bell, THE CANADIAN PRESS /winnipegfreepress.com

OTTAWA – It has all the hallmarks of a politician’s glossy Christmas card.

Pastoral setting? Check.

Doe-eyed golden retriever? Check.

Handsome couple dressed in smart casual? Check.

Same-sex couple?

That was too much for “a handful of bigots” who objected to Scott Brison’s holiday greeting card depicting him and spouse Maxime St. Pierre, according to the Nova Scotia Liberal MP. http://www.LesbianSugarLounge.com for more on this item