Gay Patriot Header Image

Iranian Authorities Torture Gay Youth

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:06 pm - September 20, 2005.
Filed under: Gays in Other Lands,War On Terror

Thank goodness that at least one gay organization in the world, OutRage!, actually cares about the real and physical (not imagined) war against our community by the Islamic Fascist governments and terror organizations.

Iran sanctions state violence against gay people
Gay Amir, aged 22, given 100 lashes
Apathy of gay, left and human rights groups condemned

London – 20 September 2005

The bruised and bloodied body of a 22 year old gay Iranian, Amir, bears witness to the brutality of the Ayatollah’s regime.

Amir escaped Iran after the authorities threatened him with execution for being gay – but not before he was subjected to the barbarism of 100 lashes, which left his back covered in huge bloody welts.

A copy of Amir’s story, together with photos of his savage injuries, has been sent to the British LGBT human rights group OutRage! by Iranian LGBT activists (see below).

View the photos of Amir:
http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=Iranian_gay_flogging1
http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=Iranian_gay_flogging2
http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=Iranian_gay_flogging3
http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=Iranian_gay_flogging4
http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=Iranian_gay_flogging5
http://www.outrage.org.uk/imagezoom.asp?file=Iranian_gay_flogging6

“This is a further example of the violent homophobia of the Iran’s Islamic fundamentalist regime,” said Brett Lock of OutRage!

OutRage! is appalled that large sections of liberal and left opinion in the West shows little concern regarding the murderous brutality of the clerical fascist regime in Tehran.

“We deplore the gullibility of many gay, left and human rights groups concerning the abuse of LGBT human rights in Iran.

“Too many are willing to believe the smears and slurs of the Iranian government and state-approved newspapers like Qods.

“When two young men were executed for same-sex acts in the Iranian city of Mashad in July, some left and human rights organisations accepted at face value claims by the state-controlled media that the youths were hanged for rape.

“Similar gullibility has been shown by some left-wingers. They have long swallowed Iran’s homophobic propaganda.

“Believing the stories in Iran’s state-sanctioned media is like accepting the news as reported by the press in Franco’s Spain or Pinochet’s Chile.

“Where are the left-wing campaigns in western countries to support the freedom struggles of Iranian LGBTs, women, democrats, socialists and workers?

Answer: They are accusing the popularly-elected, and re-elected leaders of their own democracies of being the “real terrorists” and so wound up in their own self-absorbed panties about the semantics of civil unions versus marriage to care.

Welcome to readers from Best of the Web and Roger L. Simon!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Commenting on Bruce’s post, the Anchoress explains, “The condition is this: In order to be offended by images of torture, the torturers have to be U.S. Troops, serving under a CIC who has an R after his name.” Read the whole thing.

Share

79 Comments

  1. Bruce, the subject is awful but it is so important to get the word out there – Thank you for posting it.

    I agree 100% that it would be nice, if we had gay organizations in the U.S. who worried about the real violence against gay people (that awaits us if we do not win the War on Terror), and gay political liberals who were interested in real solidarity with the oppressed.

    Comment by joe — September 20, 2005 @ 10:06 am - September 20, 2005

  2. They are waiting for those gay concentration camps here in the US before they speak out.

    A little piss on a Koran in Cuba and the US is the worst human rights abuser in the world. Murder and mame gays in Iran, no biggie. Disgusting…

    Comment by Robert — September 20, 2005 @ 10:59 am - September 20, 2005

  3. Wasn’t the radical President of Iran democratically elected? Hmmm.

    As much as I normally detest Peter Tatchell and his tactics, I think he is doing a brave service by taking on the anti-gay extremism in Iran and elsewhere. His life may very well be in danger for doing this. Whether it embarasses the whiny narcissism of much of the gay left is ultimately beside the point.

    Comment by Patrick Rothwell — September 20, 2005 @ 11:07 am - September 20, 2005

  4. Patrick-

    Wasn’t the radical President of Iran democratically elected?

    Don’t be silly. He was “democratically” “elected” just like Hussein (and Mubarek and so on…). The mullahs got to decide which candidates would be allowed to appear on the ballot — and included no “opposition” candidates.

    Bruce-

    Thanks for highlighting this kind of thing. If we do get into a shooting war with Iran in the next few months (over nukes, not over this, obviously) look for domestic gay-rights groups to support the Iranian government that tortures gay kids.

    Comment by Clint — September 20, 2005 @ 11:27 am - September 20, 2005

  5. Amazing. Kudos to Outrage.

    Comment by rightwingprof — September 20, 2005 @ 11:37 am - September 20, 2005

  6. […] That it what it takes. So, if you happen to come across a story about a 22 year old gay man in Iran who is subjected to 100 lashes for the crime of being gay, why you just turn the page, and repeat this motto: the enemy (Iran) of my enemy (Chimpy Bushitler) is my friend. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » Torture only conditionally offends… — September 20, 2005 @ 12:38 pm - September 20, 2005

  7. Yes, thanks for posting this. It should not be allowed to happen anywhere. Gay people are human and deserve ALL the same civil rights that straights have. And the president of Iran was ‘elected’ just like W.

    Comment by njmm — September 20, 2005 @ 12:40 pm - September 20, 2005

  8. I’m guessing some gay lefty nitwit somewhere is already shrugging this off with, “Abu Ghraib was worse.”

    Comment by V the K — September 20, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - September 20, 2005

  9. They can’t blame this on Bush, so they’re not interested. They have better things to do. Like attend Cindy Sheehan rallies.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — September 20, 2005 @ 1:08 pm - September 20, 2005

  10. They are accusing the popularly-elected, and re-elected leaders of their own democracies of being the “real terrorists” and so wound up in their own self-absorbed panties about the semantics of civil unions versus marriage to care.

    Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, “liberal” newswires were carrying the story, liberal blogs were reporting it, “liberal” groups were demanding official protests”>over it and the simple rank and file were staging multi-city protests against it.

    We now return you to our regularly scheduled, shrill and deluded programming here on Gay Patriot Net. Up next, Bruce reports on how liberals were the cause of his most recent hang-nail.

    Comment by Jody — September 20, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - September 20, 2005

  11. There was an article in our own Gay magazine here in Toronto regarding the Iranian situation, here is just one passage,
    I quote;

    “Upon further reflection, I considered what little international shaming Canada suffered when police engaged in raids in various parts of the country against venues where the queer community was engaging in private consensual sexual activity. Canada got off pretty easy. We simply cannot be asking the world to point a flashlight on the recent executions in Iran, for example, and not be willing to put our own western countries under the same scrutiny” and it goes on to say, that we must give Iran the benefit of doubt,and stick to attacking our own governments instead.

    you can see the article at
    http://www.extra.ca (archives issue 542.)

    Comment by Stephen Reeves — September 20, 2005 @ 1:17 pm - September 20, 2005

  12. Come on Joe-the-HRC-is-the-voice-of-gays… where are you in condemning Iran, Egypt, China and others? Oh wait, if it isn’t abortion or advancing female candidates from the LibLeft, gays shouldn’t care. I forgot.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 20, 2005 @ 1:28 pm - September 20, 2005

  13. See my related comment I just posted over at Roger L. Simon’s re a topic there this morning and a LGF topic yesterday:

    A Little Dark Secret of Arabic Islam

    Amen Brother Roger!

    This little dirty secret is the key to winning the GWOT. Go PJ Media and bring this message to the American people and the world! It’s obvious by now the MSM and the MRL can’t or won’t. In my opinion their efforts and propaganda so far are aiding and abeting the enemy when this Great Nation’s is at war against Evil.

    If it helps think Ring Trilogy and the rise of Nazism. Our Western frame of reference and belief system is completely different than the enemy’s. There can be no understanding, compromise, or appeasing with this enemy. This is a war of ideologies.

    See this related topic yesterday over at LGF. This dirty little secret is starting to leak out. The Blogos needs to break this wide open.

    This Religion of Peace is in need of much reformation. The Islamic radical cult sect (Islamofascism) does not recognize the free will of men and WOMEN. I say, “Call a shovel a shovel!”

    […]

    RLS Link

    Comment by Ron Wright — September 20, 2005 @ 3:25 pm - September 20, 2005

  14. What makes you think that guy’s gay? I mean aside from those shorts.

    Comment by Stinger! — September 20, 2005 @ 7:02 pm - September 20, 2005

  15. It’s all BUSH’s fault! That guy’s bruises are because of BUSH!!!
    Anytime anything happens anywhere to anybody that I don’t like, it’s all BUSH’s fault!

    I blame BUSH because aren’t gays allowed to hang their dongs out of their pants and swing them around in public. I blame BUSH because I can’t JO in front of my building. Well, F *** him cause I do it anyway cuz I love to expose myself in public.

    I also think I’m in love with at least 6 of you on this thread. I secretly fantasize about getting nailed by conservative guys, didn’t ya know? So when I use your name in a posting it’s only because I really hate myself and want to get seeded by one or more of you.

    I gave Barbara Boxer $80 during her last election campaign. I think Ward Churchill is G-O-D. I have my homepage set to Daily Kos. I hate Amerikkka so much that I want to see the whole F***ing place exploded into a million pieces by Arab terrorists!

    I love the LEFT and know that they want the same thing I do: to see AmeriKKKa get blasted! We hate all you BUSH people and are so frickin angry that we never win that wed rather see the country destroyed than live here under your control.

    Comment by Monty — September 20, 2005 @ 7:11 pm - September 20, 2005

  16. It’s all BUSH’s fault! That guy’s bruises are because of BUSH!!!

    Just wondering Monty — or Bruce or whomever — does Bush have any responsibility for the worsening situation Iraqi gays have found themselves in with the adoption of a legal framework based, in part, on Sharia? If he doesn’t, what about you? Me? All of us?

    So I can prepare now — the whole multilevel FEMA disaster has gotten me to be more proactive of late — when stories start cropping up in the Gay Press over the next few years about Iraqi brutality towards their local gays, who’s the point person to send out those Thanks for Your Sacrifice For the Greater Good of the Mideast sympathy cards with accompanying $10% off all Baghdad Bed Bath & Beyond After Torture Products &reg?

    E-mail address please. I’d like to put one on order now and avoid the later rush.

    Comment by Jody — September 20, 2005 @ 9:00 pm - September 20, 2005

  17. Related: A friend was recently commenting on an upcoming movie about a man living in America who is recruited by al Qaeda. The trailer, I said, looked possibly melodramatic, suggesting that the film could be a renter, at best. He lamented that the movie probably would do better if we here in the U.S. didn’t have “such a negative view of al Qaeda.” The dinner party went silent, dumbfounded at his naivete, until some wag broke the ice, noting that it’s just too bad al Qaeda doesn’t have better P.R.!

    Comment by Publius — September 20, 2005 @ 9:01 pm - September 20, 2005

  18. So Jody, you’re saying that this “Bruce” is “Monty”. And is “Monty” “Bruce”? What a Restoration comedy.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 20, 2005 @ 9:58 pm - September 20, 2005

  19. QP, be it restoration comedy or gothic horror, you could always take a stab at answering the question….

    Comment by Jody — September 20, 2005 @ 10:19 pm - September 20, 2005

  20. And that question would be…

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 20, 2005 @ 10:28 pm - September 20, 2005

  21. Scroll back up to #16…

    Comment by Jody — September 20, 2005 @ 10:42 pm - September 20, 2005

  22. I believe that, much like Jews in Europe, gays around the world today are the canary in the mine. And, unfortunately, much like Jews in Europe, the world doesn’t seem to give a damn.

    Need we be reminded, these aren’t gays being tortured; these are full human beings, deserving of all the dignity and God-given rights that all humans deserve, being tortured and killed.

    Thanks for the Post GayPatriot!

    (just a short side note to some of the commentors here – Oh, please do grow up. And if you think I might mean you I probably do)

    Comment by Charles — September 20, 2005 @ 10:44 pm - September 20, 2005

  23. #15 Nice parody. Although it’s not that far removed from what’s actually found on the Democratic Underground message boards.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — September 20, 2005 @ 10:57 pm - September 20, 2005

  24. americablog is typical of the leftwing blogs. They are aware of the torture of gays in Iran but deny it’s true. They’re so committed to the idea that George W. Bush is the only evil in the world they don’t want the light of day shining on the world’s truly evil regimes.

    Comment by Jack L. Allen — September 20, 2005 @ 11:00 pm - September 20, 2005

  25. americablog is typical of the leftwing blogs. They are aware of the torture of gays in Iran but deny it’s true. They’re so committed to the idea that George W. Bush is the only evil in the world they don’t want the light of day shining on the world’s truly evil regimes.

    Comment by Jack L. Allen
    ========================
    I believe that due to the huge number of threads on Americablog, assisted by three co-moderators, there was a feeling that any information comming out of Iran was tainted. I respect this kind of cautious information gathering when it is coupled by ten to twenty threads a day. The Iran Gay killing story is not over.

    And Bush is not the only evil in the world. There are many.

    But if we wanted to shine a light on the font of evil in the world today, all you’d have to do is pretend you were Barbara Bush’s gynecologist.

    Back in Hell again…

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 20, 2005 @ 11:36 pm - September 20, 2005

  26. #15
    No surprise there.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 20, 2005 @ 11:53 pm - September 20, 2005

  27. #22
    What, are you kidding? The libs don’t have to pander to Iranian gays unless there’s a sporting chance at getting their votes. Besides, they’re to busy getting more Abu Ghraib photos for getting their rocks off.

    #25
    What a dick.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 12:01 am - September 21, 2005

  28. I don’t celebrate or condone homosexual behavior, but this is simply savagery.

    Comment by corrie — September 21, 2005 @ 12:39 am - September 21, 2005

  29. I thought this was the most interesting point in the article Jody cited:

    “In Iraq, the majority of religious scholars are of the Ja’fari School, and in their interpretation of the Shariah law, anyone married or unmarried found to have same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer — that’s stoned to death,” Salman Pax said.

    “I would say that is quite a setback from just being sent to prison.”

    Ah, but let’s not forget the issue here……under Saddam, gays WERE sent to prison regularly for being gay, and these were Ba’athist prisons — the kind where people disappeared regularly as well or came home missing various appendages?

    I would simply pose the question to Mr. Pax…..does he prefer his current state of being able to walk, talk, blog, and carry out his life worrying about the possibility, or does he prefer incarceration in a Ba’athist prison?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 1:32 am - September 21, 2005

  30. or does he prefer incarceration in a Ba’athist prison?

    And that’s if he was lucky and the Hussein boys were lazy.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 1:50 am - September 21, 2005

  31. This reminds me of the day I heard Ron Reagan Jr. on the Michael Medved Show. Mr. Reagan seemed to be saying, if I understood him correctly, that he would rather live in a world where Saddam Hussein deliberately murdered 80,000 Iraqi civilians than in a world where the U.S. Military accidentally killed 8,000 Iraqi civilians. I wondered how this could be, until I remembered one of the key traits of liberalism: it’s about making liberals feel good about themselves. Sure, 80,000 Iraqi civilians murdered by Saddam is a bad thing, but because the U.S. Military wasn’t involved, liberals don’t have to feel guilty about it. But get the U.S. Military in Iraq, and liberals just can’t stand that their tax dollars are funding it and that their country would intervene in another country’s affairs. They’re racked with guilt. They would much rather we respect the diversity of the world’s cultures from a distance instead of imposing our values.

    Same thing with this poor young man. Bush is responsible for Abu Ghraib, so they feel guilty about it. The New York Times carried what, 40-odd front page stories about alleged abuse at Abu Ghraib? Liberals could feel good about themselves because they had done something to atone for Abu Ghraib, even if it was just to moan and complain. America had nothing to do with flogging Amir, so there is no white liberal guilt to be assuaged.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — September 21, 2005 @ 2:17 am - September 21, 2005

  32. Ah, but let’s not forget the issue here……

    So under Saddam, if you’re gay, you go to prison and then you’re killed.

    Now, under the new Sharia law, if you’re gay, you’re just killed.

    I realize I’m only an irresponsible, gay teen liberal that doesn’t understand things like you gay, conservative adults do, but I really don’t see how that’s an improvement.

    Perhaps you can enlighten me?

    Comment by Jody — September 21, 2005 @ 3:13 am - September 21, 2005

  33. #27
    I wasn’t talking about GHWB.

    &

    I don’t celebrate or condone homosexual behavior, but this is simply savagery.
    Comment by corrie
    ================
    Celebrating homosexual behavior can be quite savage as well, corrie.

    and from PlanetOut about Iran:

    http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/09/20/3

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 3:30 am - September 21, 2005

  34. From the post

    They are accusing the popularly-elected, and re-elected leaders of their own democracies of being the “real terrorists”…

    One of the things that you need to remember is that “democracy” is not the same as “freedom.” Despite the conflation that GWBush might want you to believe. Democracy would allow the majority to rein in or eliminate the rights of the minority. It is a usually forgotten point, but it really is as simple as that.

    Now, as to how to correct the situation, what do you propose? Let’s get practical. The US government, under GWBush, has made it clear that it doesn’t care about gay people, so they certainly aren’t going to war with Iran over the atrocities committed against Amir. Heck, the US government under GWBush made it clear that they didn’t care about the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

    And the US military is bogged down in Iraq, and doesn’t have the capacity to mount war against Iran. So, what do you propose?

    Comment by raj — September 21, 2005 @ 5:46 am - September 21, 2005

  35. Right…. the US government under GWBush dosen’t care about gay people. So who signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act and why was it signed?

    I am beginning to wonder if Bill Clinton was actually ever President since his constituents seem to forget everything that he did and never seem to remember all the things he said he would do but never did, like removing Saddam in 1998, or fighting Islamic Jihad.

    Sure…. John Kerry was for gay marriage up until he needed votes then he was against it because GWBush hates gays.

    Mayor Nagin is black so it’s okay for him to bring harm to black NO citizens because BWBush hates blacks.

    Gov Blanco is a female so it is okay for her to hysterically fall to pieces in a time of crisis, unable to make decisions which ultimately brought harm her populace(and still is) in Louisiana because GWBush hates women, wants to out females back in the dark ages and he will rape all women if you vote for him.

    The Democrat Party can quickly arrange in an organized fashion hundreds of busses to deliver blacks to the voting booths, but cannot manage to organize ONE bus in order to properly evacuate blacks who don’t have cars and are living in poor neighborhoods, built by Liberal Welfare policies, when facing a disaster. BUT, it’s Bush’s fault because he is a Republican.

    Meanwhile, in the state of Florida the Governor (R) has been hit with now five hurricanes in the past year without suffering from any of the mindboggling problems the people in the state of Louisiana suffered from one hurricane, which did not even directly hit NO.

    Comment by syn — September 21, 2005 @ 7:40 am - September 21, 2005

  36. Jody:

    #10 Nice links. However, I only got as far as the “we shouldn’t impose our values on them” comments before giving up.

    #32 O for the moral clarity of youth! So, because, under the new constitution, which hasn’t even been ratified yet and may not be, it might be legal, if the laws were passed, challenged and upheld, to execute gays (congratulations for an absolutely amazing use of the subjunctive mood), we should oppose that constitution?

    Call me a traitor to gays, if you will, but I think a constitution that stabilizes the country is far more important than what laws MIGHT be passed under it.

    To fall into cliche: Don’t let the best be the enemy of good enough and The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

    If the Iraqi government actually does start executing gays, then I’ll get worked up about it.

    Comment by mrsizer — September 21, 2005 @ 9:05 am - September 21, 2005

  37. What a medieval hell hole:

    Women who violate Iran’s strict Islamic dress code will be flogged immediately, prosecutor’s offices in provincial centres announced on Tuesday.

    In the central Iranian city of Shahin-Shahr, the prosecutor’s office posted huge notices on billboards and shop windows warning women that dress code violators will appear before an Islamic judge immediately after arrest to receive a sentence, usually 100 lashes in public. The prosecutor will be demanding maximum penalties, the notice warned.

    “Individuals whose state of attire and make-up is against religious laws in public will be prosecuted without having to first wait in a queue and will be sentenced to flogging and fines”, the statement said.

    “Scarves which do not cover the hair and neck”, “tight overcoats or coats that which finish above the knees and whose sleeves cover to a point higher than the wrist”, “tight trousers which do not cover the calf of the leg”, and “women’s make-up” are all forbidden, according to the statement, which added that failure to adhere to the dress code would be dealt with accordingly.

    Comment by MC — September 21, 2005 @ 9:15 am - September 21, 2005

  38. Lest we forget, Iran never attacked us and had no role in 9/11 (I suppose). Therefore, we have no right to criticize, let alone do anything about how they abuse their own people, their neighbors, are seeking WMD, and are a threat to the region and world peace in general.

    Um, or was it, if we go after Iran for this, why aren’t we going after Lower East Nimbandia for thier atrocities also? Sometimes I get my appeasement arguments mixed up.

    If only the party of civil rights and liberties would take a principled stand.
    Hm…perhaps after 2008, they might, depending on how that election goes.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — September 21, 2005 @ 10:51 am - September 21, 2005

  39. So under Saddam, if you’re gay, you go to prison and then you’re killed.

    Now, under the new Sharia law, if you’re gay, you’re just killed.

    I would echo to you mrsizer’s statement, Jody…..I will take the possibility that discrimination against gays will increase in Iraq rather than to go back to where they were previously.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 11:56 am - September 21, 2005

  40. #34

    Bogged down? How do you figure?
    We don’t have the capacity? About 74% of the U.S. military is HERE in the U.S.

    Gotta love those libs who say, one day, that we’re stretched too thin. Then the next day, they demand that more soldiers be sent to Iraq. How does that work?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 21, 2005 @ 1:00 pm - September 21, 2005

  41. …we should oppose that constitution?

    If it uses sharia as a legal basis to inflict law, then yes….

    I would echo to you mrsizer’s statement, Jody…..I will take the possibility that discrimination against gays will increase in Iraq rather than to go back to where they were previously.

    Thanks for the echo, but what I asked was how are gay Iraqis current, worsening situation, and improvement over what went on before?

    Comment by Jody — September 21, 2005 @ 1:15 pm - September 21, 2005

  42. If it uses sharia as a legal basis to inflict law

    That should read: “inflict pain.”

    Comment by Jody — September 21, 2005 @ 1:17 pm - September 21, 2005

  43. Lest we forget, Iran never attacked us
    Comment by ColoradoPatriot
    ===========================
    American Embasies are considered American soil. You are wrong.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 1:27 pm - September 21, 2005

  44. Exactly how good did gays have it under Saddam? Does anyone know? Was there gay marriage and pride parades under Saddam? If things are getting worse, will gay Iraqis notice the difference?

    Comment by VinceTN — September 21, 2005 @ 1:40 pm - September 21, 2005

  45. Good job;this kind of barbarism must be exposed.

    Comment by colin — September 21, 2005 @ 1:42 pm - September 21, 2005

  46. Chandler: Yes, come to think of it, Iran did attack us, thanks for reminding me.

    So then, given Hussein’s lack of attacking us (forget about him shooting at us daily, of course) was their reason for not supporting Iraq’s liberation, why isn’t the Left clamoring for us to invade Iran?

    Oh that’s right…nevermind, I guess we’ll have to wait till one of theirs is President. Hope the ‘mos over there can hold out till it’s politically defensible for y’all to come along!

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — September 21, 2005 @ 2:05 pm - September 21, 2005

  47. Thanks for the echo, but what I asked was how are gay Iraqis current, worsening situation, and improvement over what went on before?

    Think of how many gay Iraqis you saw blogging under Saddam Hussein’s regime, bitching and complaining about their government, before the war.

    Come to think of it, think of how many Iraqis, period, you saw blogging under Saddam Hussein’s regime, bitching and complaining about their government, before the war.

    It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t there, and it wasn’t because there was nothing to complain about.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 5:05 pm - September 21, 2005

  48. #46
    They were shooting at planes that were enforcing the the UN no fly zone.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 5:06 pm - September 21, 2005

  49. Ah, but Chandler….was Saddam supposed to shoot at planes that were enforcing the UN no-fly zone?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 5:32 pm - September 21, 2005

  50. #49
    That was the UN’s call to make.

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 21, 2005 @ 6:25 pm - September 21, 2005

  51. Think of how many gay Iraqis you saw blogging under Saddam Hussein’s regime, bitching and complaining about their government, before the war.

    I saw one before the war: Salam Pax.

    I’ve seen one after the war: Salam Pax.

    The one I saw before the war is now writing that after the war things are worse do to the implementation of sharia. Granted the Iraqi sample size is only one, but n all other countries where sharia has been followed…like say Iran, mentioned at the top of this post… life for Gays is pretty horrible, which meshes with what Salam wrote recently.

    Unless you can provide some information to the contrary, say the adoption of a domestic partner article in the Iraqi constitution or video footage of gay rights parades in Tikrit, it’s a pretty fair wager that life for gays has gotten worse.

    So, I’ll ask again, for the third time, SD30 or anyone else who wants to jump in, how are gay Iraqis current, worsening situation, an improvement over what went on before?

    Comment by Jody — September 21, 2005 @ 7:27 pm - September 21, 2005

  52. Actually, go look before the war, and see what you see.

    Then again, you may not want to….it will shake your faith in the paradise that was pre-war Iraq as explained by Michael Moore — you know, total freedom, ample electricity, no corruption, nothing of the sort.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 21, 2005 @ 9:48 pm - September 21, 2005

  53. ND30, nice dodge but still no dice.

    It’s understood that the situation under Saddam, for people in general and gays specifically, was pretty bad. However, by Pax own accounting, under a government that we are condoning, a constitution we’re advising on, and a sharia colored legal system we’re supporting, its gotten worse for gay people.

    Very simple.

    I’ll ask again, and I’ll ask you not to dodge by launching into Michael Moore Bashing Vacuous Comeback #372964, how are gay Iraqis’ current worsening situation, an improvement over what went on before?

    Comment by Jody — September 21, 2005 @ 10:18 pm - September 21, 2005

  54. It’s not clear at all yet what the situation is for gays in the new Iraq since the new Constitution hasn’t even been ratified and it contains passages that could cut two different ways depending on how they’re interpreted.

    In some ways clearly the new Constitution gives more rights than anyone, gay or straight, male or female, ever had under Saddam, not least of which are the right to free speech, free press, the right to vote in genuine competitive elections, the right to hold office, the right to trial by jury, the right not to be tortured, and all the rights guaranteed under the UN charter on human rights.

    It is possible that the provision of the new Iraqi constitution that laws can’t be contrary to the principles of Islam will be interpreted to criminalize gay people. But we don’t yet know for sure what the long term will hold. We do know that the new Constitution would make whipping someone like they did to this poor kid illegal.

    But then, the kid did get off easy–under Iranian law, he could have been executed–Just as they’ve done to thousands like him.

    Comment by Dean Esmay — September 22, 2005 @ 12:47 am - September 22, 2005

  55. It’s not clear at all yet what the situation is for gays in the new Iraq since the new Constitution hasn’t even been ratified and it contains passages that could cut two different ways depending on how they’re interpreted.

    I have to disagree, Dean. We know what the situation was for people in general, and gays in particular, before we ousted Saddam. Now, in this interim time, where sharia has been adopted in a great many regions throughout the country and by the recent comments from a gay person living under that situation, we can see that things have gotten worse.

    The proposed Constitution doesn’t really have anything in it that would suggest gays are going to be treated any differently — sharia again being mentioned as a chief principle of their legal structure.

    So if the constitution passes, odds are not very good for any improvement, and fairly good for the situation to continue to worsen. If the constitution fails to be accepted, again, its pretty fair to conclude that gays aren’t going well. Unless you’ve got some evidence to the contrary, I think its rather wishful thinking to conclude the gay Iraqi situation is going to do a 180.

    The difference between the way things were under Saddam, the way things are under the Iranian mullahs (vis a vis gays, the topic of Bruce’s post), and the way things are under us, is that now it’s directly our responsibility for how things turn out.

    It’s that whole “Pottery Barn” rule.

    Comment by Jody — September 22, 2005 @ 3:53 am - September 22, 2005

  56. #41 – “…what I asked was how are gay Iraqis current, worsening situation, and improvement over what went on before?”

    It is the difference between theory and reality, Jody.

    You’ve posited that things under Iraq’s new constitution will be bad for gays. Quite possibly. The world shall see. I mean that literally, because if things do become bad for gays in Iraq, at least some of them will be able to tell us (which none could under Saddam).

    But Saddam’s torture, imprisonment and execution of tens of thousands of his own citizens every year – including thousands of gays per year – was horribly real. Not “possible”.

    Can you link a case in Iraq currently of gays being tortured or executed, like the cases we’ve seen recently in Iran?

    I will confess frankly that I hope you can’t – just because such events would be reprehensible and tragic, like the Iranian cases.

    Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 6:32 am - September 22, 2005

  57. #50 – And the U.N. made that call. If it’s not too advanced for you Chandler, look up U.N. Resolution 1441 sometime.

    Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 6:34 am - September 22, 2005

  58. #51 – “Unless you can provide some information to the contrary, say the adoption of a domestic partner article in the Iraqi constitution or video footage of gay rights parades in Tikrit, it’s a pretty fair wager that life for gays has gotten worse.”

    That’s a pretty “armchair liberal” statement.

    No country in the Middle East is a place where they are about to adopt gay marriage, domestic partner articles or transsexual pride parades. And those aren’t even the first things life is about. The first thing life is about, is not being killed, imprisoned or tortured by one’s government. That’s the measure and standard (low as it may be) of gay rights in the Middle East. Let’s talk about how gays were killed, imprisoned and tortured under Saddam, and whether things in Iraq today have gotten better or worse on that score.

    Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 6:38 am - September 22, 2005

  59. #55 – “Now, in this interim time, where sharia has been adopted in a great many regions throughout the country and by the recent comments from a gay person living under that situation, we can see that things have gotten worse.”

    That’s what you need to substantiate for the unenlightened, Jody.

    How have they gotten worse? What could be worse for gays in Iraq today than having no free speech, secret police watching every move and then being killed, imprisoned or tortured? If things in real life in Iraq today are worse than that, by all means, please enlighten us with specific cases you’ve seen in news articles or your blog reading.

    Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 6:44 am - September 22, 2005

  60. And if you have a blog, post an article (and link from here) about the real plight of Iraqi gays, by all means.

    Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 6:45 am - September 22, 2005

  61. This link given earlier was definitely worth reading: http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050917-102824-9029r

    A couple of quick points about it:

    – Salam Pax says “Now they worry about being stoned to death”. But is that because they’ve actually been stoned to death? He doesn’t say. If anyone can get pictures, like the Iranian cases, they should be publicized. Have they?

    – Salam Pax says “During Saddam Hussein’s reign, gays were basically ignored unless it became too flagrant…” That makes no sense. Saddam imprisoned, killed and tortured his own citizens at a rate of tens of thousands per year. On a statistical basis alone, that would necessarily include thousands of gays, whether or not they were being “flagrant” or even the tiniest bit sexually active.

    Comment by joe — September 22, 2005 @ 6:56 am - September 22, 2005

  62. Another example. See:

    http://blogmeisterusa.blogspot.com/2005/09/muslims-attack-christians-no-news-at.html

    Comment by rightwingprof — September 22, 2005 @ 9:41 am - September 22, 2005

  63. I would say that the question has been answered quite nicely. 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 22, 2005 @ 11:53 am - September 22, 2005

  64. #50
    My pleasure joey:

    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

    [Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

    The Security Council,

    Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

    Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

    Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

    Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

    Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

    Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

    Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

    Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

    Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

    Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

    Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

    Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

    Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

    Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

    Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

    Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

    Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

    1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

    2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

    3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

    4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

    5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

    6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

    7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

    – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 22, 2005 @ 5:15 pm - September 22, 2005

  65. #64 shoulkd have referenced joeys #57.
    joey,
    Now tell me what part contradicts anything I have said?

    It even includes the faulty statement of WMD’s as fact.

    So you were saying…

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 22, 2005 @ 5:20 pm - September 22, 2005

  66. #65

    Cute. Now let’s see if you can read and comprehend that and the Iraq Liberation Act instead of just copying and pasting.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 22, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - September 22, 2005

  67. Parting Shots

    My schedule has not allowed me the time for as much sight-seeing (or blogging) as I would like this week. (Now I know why the idea of a guest blogger is so attractive, at least someone to keep the lights on, but it all seems just too vain and insipid o…

    Trackback by The Malcontent — September 23, 2005 @ 11:06 am - September 23, 2005

  68. #66
    Now what?

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 23, 2005 @ 1:51 pm - September 23, 2005

  69. Chandler, I think No. 66 has been assigned to follow you.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 23, 2005 @ 10:11 pm - September 23, 2005

  70. You can start with this one, Chandler:

    Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2005 @ 2:07 am - September 24, 2005

  71. #70
    You want me to start with a conclusion based on a faulty assumptiom. What am I, a Republican?

    Comment by chandler in hollywood — September 24, 2005 @ 2:23 pm - September 24, 2005

  72. You know Chandler, I was wondering why ThatGayConservative wasn’t sure you had actually read Resolution 1441….but now I see why.

    You don’t believe that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions.

    You don’t believe that Iraq, aside from having the al-Samoud missiles that were already illegal, was working on others and was working with North Korea.

    Finally, you don’t believe that not only did Saddam have the means, he also had the method and the will to build, distribute, and use WMDs.

    There’s the problem.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 24, 2005 @ 8:08 pm - September 24, 2005

  73. Gays and Iran

    Kudos to Doug Ireland for doggedly following the persecution of gays in Iran. But is he really deserving of such special credit, as Andrew Sullivan suggests? (Gay Patriot’s attention to this issue, for instance, is also worthy of mention.) Has libera…

    Trackback by The Malcontent — September 30, 2005 @ 11:59 am - September 30, 2005

  74. salam man kave hastam 22 salame mikham ba ye aghaye mosen ashena besham vase gay
    my email:kave_o2000@yahoo.com

    Comment by kave — January 8, 2006 @ 9:59 am - January 8, 2006

  75. quiero hacer el amor con muchos chicos y soy de colombia

    Comment by raul — April 2, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - April 2, 2006

  76. Very nice site. I actually found it doing some research on my golf projeect I am getting ready to launch. Do you have a rss feed I can grab? Good job! 🙂

    Comment by used golf equipment — April 8, 2006 @ 7:01 am - April 8, 2006

  77. Most gays that I know are steadfastly opposed to the US regardless of what it does *. The ill intent of the regimes they back seem to not register as a danger
    One gay celebrity (don’t remember which) said that “America’s policies on gays should be more in line with the world”
    If you really want that, I am fine with it. Maybe they REALLY are into S&M…

    * If the US backed mandatory clean air and water laws for ALL nations, they would whine and bitch that the US was violating the other countries’ sovereignty

    Comment by GW Crawford — April 14, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - April 14, 2006

  78. Atomic bomb is very good for this criminal governement Iran !

    Comment by JNRC — September 7, 2006 @ 7:56 am - September 7, 2006

  79. My heart and spirit is still with killed iranian boys…Iran is Satan and pure evil country!I hope,the present Iran political system and goverment will be destroyed!GOD HELP AS!

    Comment by estoskin(gayskinhead) — January 19, 2007 @ 7:59 pm - January 19, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.