Morocco to The Gays: You Are Criminals
Perhaps American Liberals will rally to the cause of another Islamic country making life for gays and lesbians more difficult, and perhaps more deadly….. (h/t – Infidels Are Cool)
MADRID, MARCH 24 – Morocco announces the end of tolerance with regard to homosexuality, is the title of the full page article in today’s El Pais, referring to the initiative which the Ministry for the interior in Morocco is using to ‘confront all actions which go against religious and moral values, within the framework of the lawâ€.
An article with the headline in red on the front page of magazine Al Michaal triggered the reaction by the government in Rabat; in it a gay Moroccan couple tell the story of their wedding, reciting a prayer which comes before the reading from the Koran. The formula is very common in Morocco, between heterosexual couples as well, but it does not mean that the union is legal.
In a message quoted by El Pais, the Ministry for the interior registered “voices in the media which are trying to make a case for ignoble behaviour which is a provocation to national public opinion and which are against the moral values and teachings of our societyâ€. The government will carry act against these people “within the framework of current lawsâ€.
Homosexuality is punishable in Morocco from six months to three years imprisonment, even though courts do not usually pass sentences for this kind of crime. Nevertheless arrests of gays are commonly made as a ‘deterrentâ€.
Where is the Human Rights Campaign? (*crickets chirping*)
Maybe they will only get involved when things in Morocco get REALLY serious. You know like in Iran — where gays hang by ropes.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
47 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
similar article from a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2009/03/26/feature-02
the top line says human rights advocates (aka big ol’ liberals) have already spoken out against this.
so what exactly is your point? social conservatism in morocco is pushing barbaric and bigoted laws on its society (shocker!), yet you’re blaming liberals in america? bizarre.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 7, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - April 7, 2009
Speaking at an anti-abortion event in eastern Iowa Monday night, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, warned that legalized same-sex marriage would lead to a complete dissolution of society and religion. “We have no residency requirement in Iowa law, which means that people can come from all over this country — a man and a man, a woman and a woman — it could be, I suppose, a father and a son or a mother and a daughter,†King said. We’ve got plenty of people stirring up hatred right here, than you very much.
Oh, and GP? Exactly why is it HRC’s job (an organization that lobbies the federal government for more/better GLBT rights) to protest overseas gay oppression? The HRC is an American-political focused organization. What’s the connection?
Comment by torrentprime — April 7, 2009 @ 8:13 pm - April 7, 2009
So marriage and “being liked” by America by you two is more important as more and more countries are falling to a REAL fundamentalism that puts gays’ heads on the chopping block — literally.
You two are the real definition of self-loathing for sure.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — April 7, 2009 @ 8:16 pm - April 7, 2009
no, gp…that’s not what we’re saying…
wow.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 7, 2009 @ 8:25 pm - April 7, 2009
Really? Because you both are serial moral relativists. And you are doing it again tonight.
Comment by GayPatriot — April 7, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - April 7, 2009
how are we “moral relativists”? i think what morocco is doing is disgusting, as does probably everyone on this blog (aside from NDT, perhaps). but why does the fact that social conservatives in morocco are treating gays this way lead you to immediately attack liberals in america?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 7, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - April 7, 2009
“Maybe they will only get involved when things in Morocco get REALLY serious.”
And just exactly how do you expect the HRC to get involved? If conservatives cannot stop the persecution of gays in Morocco, Iran, and around the world, how to you expect liberals to stop the persecution? I suspect this is just an excuse for you to attack liberals and the HRC.
I am a conservative myself but I don’t unjustly attack anyone else.
Comment by Cecil — April 7, 2009 @ 8:40 pm - April 7, 2009
thank you, cecil. you apparently have a lot more sense than the OP.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 7, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - April 7, 2009
No worries, GP, after all our state department will…
Oh that’s right. human rights don’t matter to this administration.
Oh and bob, you’ve already agreed with the IA court that “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†You should be cheering that Morocco is bolding stating the standards of the generation.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 7, 2009 @ 9:21 pm - April 7, 2009
El “Pais”? Really? Do we really want to go there?
Comment by Ashpenaz — April 7, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - April 7, 2009
Sounds like a job for IGLHRC
http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/home/index.html
Comment by Chuck In Del — April 7, 2009 @ 9:48 pm - April 7, 2009
And Obama’s little letter culties promptly show up and try to change the subject. Never fails.
Comment by V the K — April 7, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - April 7, 2009
Nah. They’re too concerned about who they’ll take home with them to worry about the plight of “those filthy camel jockeys”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2009 @ 9:54 pm - April 7, 2009
Oh, forgot to add, maybe these are the forerunners of the ‘moderate taliban’ the President wants to negotiate with.
Comment by The_Livewire — April 7, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - April 7, 2009
i’m sorry, TGC, were you attempting to make a point?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 7, 2009 @ 10:19 pm - April 7, 2009
Yeah. You’re a f’ing dick. Not surprised that’s over your head.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - April 7, 2009
Bruce,
You wrongly assume that because liberals engage in moral relativism that they know what the phrase means. They’re liberals. You have to speak slowly and explain the big words…
Boob,
Morally relating the imprisonment of homosexuals in Morocco and the execution of homosexuals in Iran to American social conservatives opposition to court mandated redefinition of marriage is what is meant by “moral relativism” — and for that matter moral retardation.
Comment by American Elephant — April 7, 2009 @ 10:42 pm - April 7, 2009
and where, exactly, did i make that moral comparison, AE? that’s right, i didn’t. i used the phrase “social conservative”, which is an accurate description of the government of morocco.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 7, 2009 @ 10:45 pm - April 7, 2009
Yes, in the exact same way that Nazis were environmental, pro-choice, liberals or social progressives — whatever you dishonest lefties are calling yourselves this week.
Comment by American Elephant — April 7, 2009 @ 11:14 pm - April 7, 2009
wow.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 8, 2009 @ 6:41 am - April 8, 2009
bob,
you’ve admitted that you believe fascism is the way to recovery. Also you again ahve shown your support for “[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation.†So why aren’t you cheering this decision by the Moraccan government? Could it be because you believe you’re right, and it doesn’t matter how your viewpoint is imposed?
Facist.
Comment by The Livewire — April 8, 2009 @ 6:52 am - April 8, 2009
Whassamatter Boob? I’m only using your own moral relativism. The people who imprison and kill homosexuals are just “social conservatives” the same way the pro-choice, environmentalist Nazi party were “social progressives”.
They even advocated socialized health care.
Comment by American Elephant — April 8, 2009 @ 7:13 am - April 8, 2009
And gun control… And abortion… and euthenasia…
Comment by The Livewire — April 8, 2009 @ 7:48 am - April 8, 2009
You seem to be saying that the US should condemn muslim and arab governments for their treatment of homosexuals. A reasonable position to make. It does, however, lead to some unlikely allies. Saddam Hussein, for instance. He didn’t criminalize homosexuality untill 2001, as it’s against Baa’th party beliefs. It was protests by religious conservatives that led to the change. Should the US government have made constructive steps to stymie the religious conservative movement in Iraq to help with laws regulating social behaviour?
Since the Iraq war, doctors have been jailed for even reporting medical findings on homosexuality, and gay people remain a target for militias. Does this mean that George Bush’s foreign policy has caused increased strife for gay communities across the arab world or, at the very least, treated the symptoms and not the illness?
Comment by Scottland — April 8, 2009 @ 9:19 am - April 8, 2009
Correction on the first point: Disputed as to what Baa’th party position on homosexuality is. that is was not officially criminalized untill 2001 suggests that it was the result of religious conservative pressure more than being a platform that the party advocated.
Comment by Scottland — April 8, 2009 @ 9:25 am - April 8, 2009
Oh, and if you want to have a look at a lefty commie tree-hugging gay activist who gives a humoungous shit about the plight of the gay community across the world, have a look at the slightly abrasive but generally awesome dude Peter Tatchell. Anyone who tries to perform a citizens arrest on Robert Mugabe is alright by me.
Comment by Scottland — April 8, 2009 @ 9:37 am - April 8, 2009
#18 bob instructs:
B-u-z-z-z-z-z-z-z!!!!! WRONG.
Morocco is an Islamic country that is tending (under its new young king) toward a pan-Islamic fundamentalism that is sweeping Africa. Morocco was long governed by France and many of the problems with Islamic insistence on Sharia in Spain and France come from Muslims who migrated from Morocco.
Morocco has long been an “open” Islamic country that sought ties with Europe and the United States. Now it is weighing its place among the more isolated Muslim countries such as neighboring Libya and Tunisia.
If the Egyptian Brotherhood could wrest control from Mubarak, Copts and gays would not be safe in Egypt. The Muslim majority in Turkey is trying to smash the Constitution Ataturk put in place so that they can make Sharia over ride Turkish law. Both Egypt and Turkey have been Westernized, but have strong elements to pull them back to Islamic control. If you do not understand this pressure, you do not understand Lebanon at all.
You may call this “social conservatism” at your peril. Imprisoning or hanging gays and calling it “social conservatism” is giving fundamental Islam a pass in preference to smearing the Christian right in America.
You had best come up with examples of “social conservatives” advancing the issue of imprisoning and killing gays to make your point.
The Human Rights Commission is a laudable concept supported by anyone who professes to adhere to the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) That would be a collection of social conservatives, moderates, liberals. It is a moral imperative in the Judeo-Christian ethic. Islam contains nothing that resembles the Golden Rule in its teachings.
To disregard the silence of the HRC on such fundamental issues as the “right” to be gay and free or even alive is to wander aimlessly with moral relativism as your compass.
Comment by heliotrope — April 8, 2009 @ 10:00 am - April 8, 2009
#6: “how are we “moral relativistsâ€? i think what morocco is doing is disgusting, as does probably everyone on this blog…â€
Glad to hear it, bob, but simply condemning another sovereign nation’s conduct with regard to a specific issue doesn’t completely dispose of the question. Moral relativists condemn particular foreign practices all the time, but what they are unable (unwilling) to do is JUDGE the offending culture/nation/society as better or worse than western societies that reject the practice, and support the policies of western nations designed to treat barbaric foreign nations accordingly.
For me, the litmus test on this issue is Iran. There is no dispute that it is an Islamic republic, governed by Sharia law, that routinely hangs teenagers suspected of having same-sex attraction in the town square and in broad daylight as a testament to the nation’s commitment to Islam. Only the worst, most vile moral relativists are unable to condemn the practice. But they’re no different from people who condemn the practice but also denounce US efforts to prevent the country for developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. Anyone who calls Iran’s hanging of gays repugnant, but also believes the US has no moral authority to prevent Iran (or any other Islamic theocracy) from getting nukes (even with the use of military force), is still a moral relativist.
Comment by Sean A — April 8, 2009 @ 10:08 am - April 8, 2009
#26 I’d not heard that. I will give him credit for doing what the rest of the civilized world is loathe to do. I wonder how many Africans miss colonialism?
Comment by The Livewire — April 8, 2009 @ 10:26 am - April 8, 2009
#25 I’d suggest it was an attempt to curry favour from the religious radicals prior to the invasion, following the Regime change policy laid out by President Clinton in 1998
Comment by The Livewire — April 8, 2009 @ 10:30 am - April 8, 2009
And people wonder and worry why hatred is so ramp id in this world.
Comment by LindaMarie — April 8, 2009 @ 11:54 am - April 8, 2009
heliotrope – I think there’s been a mixup in the acronyms. The Human Rights Commission is, well, there are loads of them, there’s not any definitive one. The Human Rights CAMPAIGN is a gay rights political interest group that started in 1980. the UN human rights COUNCIL is the name of their body that deals with this issue.
It was my understanding that the original blog post referred to the Human Rights Campaign, as they seem to be a reasonably frequent target on this site. Criticizing their silence isn’t wholly accurate, though; they were talking about Morocco’s anti-gay crackdown back in 2007:
http://www.hrc.org/news/8493.htm
and, y’know, as a point, its a difficult one. resources by western gay rights advocates only go so far, and they certainly are going to fall on the deaf ears of state representatives of harshly restrictive muslim countries, should they make that their approach to matters concerning human rights. Below is a link to a Peter Tatchell article about the ‘Gay Underground Railroad’ that has formed in Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/25/iraq-gay-rights
Tatchells ability to implement this railroad is extremely limited. He can help exiles, he can give publicity, but what else? Bruce, what are you trying to say that US gay rights groups aren’t doing?
Comment by Scottland — April 8, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - April 8, 2009
FILTERED
Comment by Scottland — April 8, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - April 8, 2009
Scottland, Thanks for the information. I am not familiar with the gay human rights campaign.
My comments still stand.
The UN Human Rights Council is a perpetual joke, because it tries to moderate liberal views of human rights with genocide, female genital mutilation, slavery and the extermination of gays.
Those who navigate by the compass of moral relativism would do well to join the UN Human Rights Council where they would be right at home as graduate students in that clown college. Furthermore, to insist that fundamental Islam and social conservatism are the same thing is breathtakingly mind numbing. I would require a student of this level of flat-line blather to write a documented paper to support the thesis which would be peer reviewed, before he could continue to engage the debate.
Comment by heliotrope — April 8, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - April 8, 2009
You neglected to mention that Bush refused to sign the UN declaration condemning throwing Gays in prison or executing them simply because they are Gay. Obama just did.
HRC is useless. If you wish to see some international activism at work, go over to the Box Turtle Bulletin.
By the way, I think that Spain has the right idea. I’d announce that any discussions of the return of Ceuta and Mellila must take into account the rights of Gays who are married, converts from Islam, and Bahais.
What can we do to Morrocco? or Saudi Arabia? Not much. But we CAN go after Jamaica, which has the same laws, a WORSE climate for Gays than Morrocco and is completely and totally dependent upon US tourism and remittances.
But another thing will likely change for the better with the Obama administration. Under the Bush administration, Gay refugees were sent back to Jamaica, Saudi Arabia, and Morrocco under the orders of Chertoff.
Comment by Tom in Lazybrook — April 8, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - April 8, 2009
Unfortunately, this seems to be a trend with Islamic countries that seemed to be more moderate in the recent past. Malaysia apparently used to be so, but the government has tightened the reins there. Ethnic Malays, by law, have to be Muslim. They are not allowed to convert although ethnic Chinese are allowed to convert to Islam. They still have bars in Malaysia, but it is against the law for an ethnic Malay, or any other Muslim to enter a bar. Only non Muslim Chinese or other ethnic groups, and tourists (non Muslim, I suppose).
And we recently saw UAE prohibit a tennis player from Israel from entering the country for a tournament.
And now this from Morocco. I had a colleague who went to Morocco recently. He commented how repressive it has gotten compared to the recent past. On the other hand, he told me that while at a marketplace, the merchant told a customer that he would give him any rug he wanted for his wife. When I first heard the story, I thought it was a nice, positive story, until my dense self realized that the rug wasn’t quite for free. And this type of thing is not unusual.
So I don’t know exactly how to characterize this immoral ideology. But the Moroccan government seems to believe that homosexuals and women should have about the same rights that a rock has.
Tom, I’m glad to hear that Obama signed the UN resolution. Sure, it’s non-binding, but leadership has to start somewhere. It’s good that Obama can do the right thing every now and then.
Comment by Pat — April 9, 2009 @ 12:03 am - April 9, 2009
The weird thing about it is that male Arabs are innately into homosexual encounters from a very early age. It starts with them about 11 or 12 or so and continues throughout their lives, even after marriage. Its completely normal for them culturally, and yet, politically, its a ‘western’ thing. Weird!
Comment by james — April 9, 2009 @ 8:38 am - April 9, 2009
Source, james?
And Scottland, again, thank you for the info. I didn’t know Jamaca had such strictures itself.
I’d say I’m going to boycott Jamaca, but I’m not planning to vacation there anyway, so no point in me saying it.
Comment by The Livewire — April 9, 2009 @ 12:25 pm - April 9, 2009
#38: “I’d say I’m going to boycott Jamaca, but I’m not planning to vacation there anyway, so no point in me saying it.”
I appreciate you saying that, The Livewire. It shows an integrity that those dolts with “Free Tibet” stickers on their cars simply don’t have. To them, they have done their part to free Tibet by putting the sticker on their car. But the truth is, they haven’t done anything to free Tibet. They’ve just engaged in an empty gesture to give themselves a reason to feel self-righteous.
Better example: Obama signing some idiotic “Gays are Super-Fantastic!” resolution that was opposed by every barbaric Islamic regime in the UN that hangs gays in the town square, just so he can resume his diplomatic mission of rewarding every barbaric Islamic regime in the UN that hangs gays in the town square with appeasement, legitimacy, apology, and prostration.
Bush invades Afghanistan to crush the Taliban and unequivocally condemns Iran as part of the Axis of Evil, and he’s a brain-dead, war-mongering scumbag.
Obama begs Iran to “unclench the fist,” is really, really jazzed about engaging in peace negotiations with the “moderate” wing of the Taliban, and signs some WORTHLESS pro-gay resolution backed by a VILE, CORRUPT organization, and Tom in Lazybrook and Pat are ready to throw him a fucking ticker-tape parade.
It’s UNREAL. Every overture the Bush Administration made to try to rein in a nation that poses a threat to us ALL (gay and straight) was met with screaming, unrestrained outrage by the Left. But Obama could broker a deal allowing Iran to hang me from the gallows as long as they sent my partner a muffin basket to apologize and he would be a shoo in for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Obama Kool-Aid is apparently still flowing deep and wide and eventually will drown us all.
Comment by Sean A — April 9, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - April 9, 2009
Obama begs Iran to “unclench the fist,†is really, really jazzed about engaging in peace negotiations with the “moderate†wing of the Taliban, and signs some WORTHLESS pro-gay resolution backed by a VILE, CORRUPT organization, and Tom in Lazybrook and Pat are ready to throw him a fucking ticker-tape parade.
Sean A, when I said
It’s good that Obama can do the right thing every now and then.
I’m not sure why you interpreted that to mean that I’m ready to throw Obama a ticker tape parade.
Yes, I know the UN is corrupt. But sixty or so nations came up with a resolution that they figured that, even though nonbinding, would not be embraced by Islamic countries. I have no illusions that this resolution alone is going to decriminalize homosexuality on its own. In fact, we now see Morocco criminalizing homosexuality.
With regard to the resolution, Obama had two choices. Sign it or not sign it. I think signing it was the right choice. It’s a good start. Now Obama needs to step up to the plate in September at the UN, and among other things, clearly denounce all those countries who criminalize homosexuality, who support terrorism, who have terrible human rights abuses, etc., and push the UN to do something about it or condemn the UN for failing to something about it.
Then maybe I’ll get ready to throw Obama a “f&cking ticker tape parade.”
Actually, not really. This would simply be a small part of leadership a president needs to exhibit. I don’t throw parades for that.
Comment by Pat — April 10, 2009 @ 7:01 am - April 10, 2009
Sean A, my post is in moderation. In the meantime, my post was not a ringing endorsement of Obama, so I’m not sure how you interpreted it to mean that I’m ready to throw him a ticker tape parade.
Comment by Pat — April 10, 2009 @ 7:04 am - April 10, 2009
#40: “With regard to the resolution, Obama had two choices. Sign it or not sign it. I think signing it was the right choice. It’s a good start. Now Obama needs to step up to the plate in September at the UN, and among other things, clearly denounce all those countries who criminalize homosexuality, who support terrorism, who have terrible human rights abuses, etc., and push the UN to do something about it or condemn the UN for failing to something about it.”
Pat, thank you for your thoughtful reply, and I’m sorry if my “ticker-tape” festivities comment was a bit over the top. Your response clarifies why we disagree on this issue. Obama signing the resolution is not a “good start” because it is not a prelude to Obama “stepping up to the plate” and denouncing these barbaric nations. Obama signed the resolution so that he DOESN’T have to step up to the plate. Obama will NEVER take on these nations, much less condemn the UN for doing nothing. And my disagreement is not based on knee-jerk Obama hatred or simple partisan pessimism. It’s based on the fact that he has done NOTHING but pander to these backward neanderthals since he took office. He has demonstrated that he has no intention of standing up to these countries on behalf of America in general, so why on Earth would you expect him to do so on behalf of gays specifically? Seriously, Pat, explain to me what evidence there is to support your optimistic belief that the signing of the resolution is a “start” and not an “end.”
Comment by Sean A — April 10, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - April 10, 2009
Sean A, I appreciate your response. I don’t know if we disagree too much on this issue. I still maintain that signing this resolution is a good start. If that’s all that comes of it, and if that’s all that Obama does, then that’s all it is, a good start, in which case, I’ll agree with you is not much better than doing nothing.
On the other hand, I believe that you have to start somewhere. No previous president has signed such an agreement (of course, no such resolution appeared before the previous president), and yet no president has spoke out fervently against criminalization of homosexuality. Again, if Obama just stops at signing a non-binding resolution, and uses it as an excuse to stop there, then it isn’t much better than a leader not signing the resolution and also doing nothing about it.
I’m afraid that we have a long history of pandering to nations that think nothing of rights of homosexuals, or half or all of their citizenry for that matter. And I’m afraid that I’m not optomistic that Obama will stand up and speak out against these nations. But I’ll give him another 3 1/2 years to see if he can step up to the plate. Heck, I was surprised that he even signed the resolution. So maybe he will do something more substantial. No holding my breath though.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 11:50 am - April 11, 2009
#43: “I still maintain that signing this resolution is a good start. If that’s all that comes of it, and if that’s all that Obama does, then that’s all it is, a good start, in which case, I’ll agree with you is not much better than doing nothing.”
I don’t agree that it’s “not much better than doing nothing.” It is NOTHING. Is does NOTHING.
“And I’m afraid that I’m not optomistic that Obama will stand up and speak out against these nations. But I’ll give him another 3 1/2 years to see if he can step up to the plate.”
He won’t. And like I said, it’s not because I hate the man. It’s because the evidence shows that doing nothing is what we can logically expect of him. We are talking about a man who at the moment is demonstrating that he is apparently afraid of offending the Muslim pirate community.
Comment by Sean A — April 11, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - April 11, 2009
I don’t agree that it’s “not much better than doing nothing.†It is NOTHING. Is does NOTHING.
Okay, disagreement there, Sean A.
He won’t. And like I said, it’s not because I hate the man. It’s because the evidence shows that doing nothing is what we can logically expect of him. We are talking about a man who at the moment is demonstrating that he is apparently afraid of offending the Muslim pirate community.
You may be right, but I do think it is early to conclude as you have. And I’m puzzled as well as to why Obama isn’t commenting about the standoff, while it’s going on, even though Clinton has commented on it. I don’t think that it’s a question of not wanting to offend pirates.
Comment by Pat — April 11, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - April 11, 2009
As Moroccans we have always had strong ties with the United States and Europe. Yet it is also our human rights as a people to live in a society where homosexual marriage and im not saying homosexuality must be against the law. Our culture our and beliefs differ from yours and you must respect that. In Morocco homosexuals are not persecuted but the laws are clear, homosexual marriage is illegal and it is not something we want in our society.
Comment by JackSparrow — May 14, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - May 14, 2009
[...] Morocco to The Gays: You Are Criminals [...]
Pingback by Lez Wrap It Up: Pink, Rachel Maddow, Cat Cora, Ben & Jerry’s - Lez Get Real — July 20, 2009 @ 4:32 am - July 20, 2009