Aw crap…. I incorrectly spelled “Muslim” in the headline.

Ofcom upheld two complaints from listeners about Leeds based Radio Asian Fever after presenter Rubina Nasir hit out at homosexuality and mixed faith marriages.

She said that homosexuals should be ‘beaten up’ and that a Muslim marrying a non-Mulslim was on ‘the straight path to hellfire’.

The presenter, known as ‘Sister Ruby’, said: “What should be done if they do it? [practise homosexuality].

“If there are two such persons among you, that do this evil, the shameful act, what do you have to do? Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.”"Allah states, ‘If they do such a deed [i.e. homosexuality], punish them, both physically and mentally.

It’s unfortunate that Advocate Magazine is too busy printing hatred of fellow Americans instead of focusing on systematic anti-gay actions by Islamic regimes in Egypt and Iran that prefer their gays on the end of ropes.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Sometimes, it seems conservatives pay more attention to the plight of gay people in Islamic lands than do the various heads of gay organizations.   Now, to be sure, there are some gay bloggers who do address their web-sites.  They often do the work that paid gay activists do not.

Yesterday, one of my favorite conservative blogresses reminded us that there’s no Arab Spring for women and gays.  Jennifer Rubin asks us to understand. . .

. . . that in most Muslim countries homosexuality is a sin and punished by severe and sometimes capital punishment. So it’s okey-dokey for a Muslim man to have sex with a dead woman but heaven help him if he chooses to have sex with a live man. (I await the 60 Minutes expose on the plight of Middle East gays — that there aren’t enough gays in the Knesset or something.)

Read the whole thing.  Yeah, and when we remind us how good it is for gays in Israel, some gay activists on the left accuse us of “pink washing” the Jewish State as if its treatment of gay people shouldn’t matter.

Well, it should matter to gay activists that some conservatives have shown concern for the plight of gays under Islamofascistic regimes.  Let’s hope they acknowledge Jennifer’s post.  As well as the work of David Horowitz’s Freedom Center.

RELATED:  Conservative Confronts Islamic Prejudices Against Gays

Rest assured with the president’s smart diplomacy, this problem will soon be remedied: Islamic States Walk Out Of U.N. Meeting On Violence Against Gays…

(Reuters) — Brushing aside high-level UN appeals for cooperation to halt murder and violence against gays and lesbians around the globe, Muslim and Arab countries on Wednesday stalked out of a Human Rights Council panel to tackle the issue.

Speaking before the walkout for the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Pakistan described homosexuality as “licentious behavior” while African group leader Senegal said it was not covered by global human rights accords.

. . . .

The walkout, which diplomats said not all countries in the Islamic and African groups joined, was the first by three major blocs in the 47-member council, which has been dominated until recently by a caucus of developing countries and their allies.

Another sign that this Council has become little more than a pathetic joke, with member states unwilling to address a real human rights’ issue.  Let’s hope the president and his foreign policy team speak out on the matter and insist that those nations who walked out return to the table — and mend their policies so that gay men and lesbians can live free and openly — without fear of attack from their fellow citizens.  Or their government.

Just caught Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech tonight to AIPAC.  It was a powerful address when he reminded his listeners that Israel was the only nation in the Middle East where minorities, including Arabs, have civil rights.

When he defined the tyranny that reigns in Iran, he pointed out that Iran hangs gays.  We must always remember that gay men and lesbians can live openly, live freely in nations like Israel, but in such places like Iran, their freedom is not existent and their lives could readily become forfeit to a radical regime.

Religion of Peace Alert! (via @BillyHallowell)

A disturbing trial came to a close this week in London, England, after three men were convicted of distributing pamphlets that called for gays and lesbians to be murdered. The hateful fliers were disturbing at best. One of them, titled, “Death Penalty?,” showed a mannequin that was hanging from a noose and said that gays should be sent to hell.

“The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any other ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way.”

The leaflet continues: “The only dispute amongst the classical authorities was the method employed in carrying out the penal code.”

It goes on to offer burning, being flung from a high point such as a mountain or building, or being stoned to death as suitable methods.

It’s okay, the real threat to gays (according to American gay leftist/progressive types) is Rick Santorum. 

Move along, nothing to see here.  Except the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In a letter to the New York Times explaining why Israeli Prime Minister Binnyamin Netanyahu “respectfully declined” to write an op-ed piece for the old gray lady, his senior advisor Ron Dermer provides his correspondent with many examples of the paper’s bias, including this one:

Yet instead of trying to balance these views with a different opinion, it would seem as if the surest way to get an op-ed published in the New York Times these days, no matter how obscure the writer or the viewpoint, is to attack Israel. Even so, the recent piece on “Pinkwashing,” in which Israel is vilified for having the temerity to champion its record on gay-rights, set a new bar that will be hard for you to lower in the future.

Pinkwashing, as Matthew Ackerman reported last month

. . . refers to the efforts by the state of Israel and Israel advocacy organizations to promote Israel’s liberal treatment of its gay population, which is certainly the freest, by an extreme long shot, in its region and perhaps in the entire Western world, where even San Francisco may not be as welcoming to gays as Tel Aviv.

The attractiveness of this kind of argument is easy to see. Because Israel is seen most harshly in the West by the left, it is the “progressive” case for Israel that must be made. (Evangelicals and conservatives, presumably, will go on loving the Jewish state no matter how large or, shall we say, exuberant, the Tel Aviv gay pride parade becomes.) Since the left today reflexively voices its concern over gay rights, the thinking goes, highlight sexual freedom in Israel.

Despite the facts on the ground, many “progressive” voices, including those otherwise sympathetic to gay causes, bend over backwards to fault Israel, even creating the term “pinkwashing” to fault those who would highlight the rights openly gay people enjoy in the Jewish State, freedoms denied them in most nations in the Middle East. (more…)

Gay candidate leads race to be Irish president: poll.

Cool though it is, the poll is of a multi-candidate field so he doesn’t (yet?) command the support of a majority of Irish voters:

A gay Irish senator is the favourite to become Ireland’s next president, while former IRA commander Martin McGuinness is in third place, an opinion poll said Saturday.

Senator David Norris had the backing of 21 percent of those surveyed in a Red C/Sunday Business Post poll ahead of the October 27 election to succeed President Mary McAleese.

If he does win, I believe he would be the first openly gay head of state in the modern era.

Hillary: State Dept. ‘Instrumental in Sealing Deal’ For Lady Gaga’s Gay Pride Gig in Rome

I mean, with all the problems in the Middle East and all, not to mention a couple of wars and various kinetic actions, you do have to have your priorities.

Via reader Peter from Houston.

Despite the adulation that President Obama enjoys in most gay circles, he has refused to address the persecution of our fellows around the world.  It is particularly striking that while he has delivered two speeches in the past four days on the Middle East, citing in his speech this past Thursday at the State Department, our promotion of “political reform and human rights in the region“, he did not mention the plight of homosexuals suffering under Islamicist oppression.

Nor had he mentioned their suffering in his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo.

Perhaps, it’s because on gay issues, he takes his cues from the gay left, all too many who fear losing their sense of solidarity with the broader “progressive” movement for whom alliance with some of America’s enemies is paramount.  All too often they lose sight of the individuals who suffer under the rule of anti-American regimes.

Over at Commentary Contentions, Jonathan S. Tobin wonders at “David Kaufman’s bizarre and confused article in Time magazine that focuses on ‘pink washing’—the term used by leftists to describe the discussion of Israel’s stance on gay rights.” Kaufman, Tobin finds, is concerned that some cite Israel’s exemplary record on gays as a “cover to stop people from denouncing Israel for its alleged abuse of the Palestinians”:

The reason why Israel’s gay rights record is relevant to the broader discussion about the conflict in the Middle East is not a matter of mere public relations. The point here is one of understanding the difference between an open society and a culture rooted in fundamentalist Islam and irredentist nationalism, which sees all minorities as objects of hate. The drive to isolate and eradicate the one non-Muslim majority country in the Middle East is rooted in the intolerance that is at the core of the culture of Israel’s foes. The equal rights enjoyed by gays in Israel and the oppression and violence they face in Palestinian society as well as in much of the Arab world is a perfect example of the difference between liberal democracy and intolerant Islam.

Read the whole thing.

If the president is such an ally of gay people, why is he so unwilling to hold up Israel as an exemplar of how a nation in the Middle East should treat gay people?  And to encourage its Arab nations to follow that example?

(H/t:  ThatGayConservative.)

This is rich:

After 25 years, Canada has officially banned the Dire Straits song “Money For Nothing” because it’s extremely offensive! You Know, it has the word “Faggot” in it. Blog Pals and Facebook Friends, Please link to the offensive song and lets offend Canada like never before!!!!

Here you go, Sonic:

Doug Powers notes that while the “original version has been banned . . . it can be played provided the offending word is edited.”

Give me a break.

Guess those bureaucrats up north just think if we ban an offensive word, then presto chango, not only will people not feel offended, but bad people will change their ways, the sun will stream through the clouds and we’ll all sing kumbaya.

Taking no prisoners in his response (as is his wont), blogger R. S. McCain bold challenges those Americans labeling their ideological adversaries as haters:

Somebody call Mark Potok at the SPLC. Tell him I played this homophobic anti-Canadian anthem and demand to be denounced for it!

(Via Instapundit.) Oh, and if you’re offended by that blogger’s style, well, understand he’s doing it to make a point. So too may have been a certain band.

I agree that the word is offensive, but also believe sunlight to be the best disinfectant.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Throbert McGee offers a “much better” US analogy:

. . . bleeping-out every instance of the word “nigger” in edited-for-TV versions of Blazing Saddles — even though the movie’s script very pointedly puts the word ONLY in the mouths of characters who are idiots, villains, or both.

I guess real Hope & Change for The Gays comes at the expense of everyone in the Obama Family.

Prime Minister Raila Odinga has ordered a nationwide crackdown on homosexuals in Kenya.

Mr Odinga on Sunday said that police should arrest anyone found engaging in such behaviours and take appropriate legal action against them.

“We will not tolerate such behaviours in the country. The constitution is very clear on this issue and men or women found engaging in homosexuality will not be spared,” Mr Odinga said.

“Any man found engaging in sexual activities with another man should be arrested. Even women found engaging in sexual activities will be arrested,” the premier warned.

Speaking at a public rally at the Kamukunji grounds in his Nairobi’s Kibera constituency on Sunday afternoon, the Prime Minister cited the recent population census results which put the ratio of men to women equal and wondered why people should engage in homosexuality.

“This [homosexual] kind of behaviours will not be tolerated in this country. Men or women found engaging in those acts deserve to be arrested and will be arrested,” he told a hilarious crowd.

Jim at GatewayPundit reports:

While visiting Kenya as a guest of the government Obama campaigned with opposition leader socialist Raila Odinga, who claims he is Obama’s cousin.

Don’t expect any of the American Gay Leftist Lickspittles to protest this Obama family state-sponsored action.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Wondering which gay media will pick up on this story: Gay Palestinian seeks residency in Israel on humanitarian grounds:

Media attention has recently focused on the effort to obtain residency rights for children of foreign workers. But Majed Koka is not a foreign worker. He is a gay Palestinian man from the West Bank who came to Israel at age 14 because in his hometown of Nablus, he never could have lived openly as a gay man.

“If I returned to Nablus, it would be like throwing paper into a fire,” said Koka, 26, who has been living in Tel Aviv for the last 12 years. “If I returned I’d be in big trouble, one long nightmare.”

While the United Nations Human Rights Council can’t let up in its criticisms of the Jewish State, that very state becomes the refuge of choice for gay Palestinians.

Do wonder why said council doesn’t spend much time criticizing the Palestinian Authority for making it a nightmare for gays to live openly.  Guess they’re just not concerned with the rights of our fellows.

Via Instapundit comes Michael Moynihan’s reflections on Fidel Castro’s apology “for his revolution’s ‘excesses’ against gay Cubans“:

As [Mark] Hemingway notes, Castro’s persecution of gays (and black Cubans) hardly stopped in the 1970s, as this Reuters story suggests, with gay bars routinely shut down by the state security service and organizers of a 2008 gay pride march thrown in jail. But for this non-apology, designed to burnish his foul legacy, Foreign Policy magazine says that while Castro is “a bit late,” he nevertheless “deserves plaudits.” No he doesn’t. Nor did Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet deserves plaudits for his 1999 letter “lamenting” (and not apologizing) those killed during his reign—which, incidentally, no one in the media was willing to grant. And rightly so.

Great analogy.  It seems that only leftist tyrants deserve plaudits when they apologize for torture and persecution while right-wingers can never (never, NEVER, NEVER) be forgiven for their wrongdoings.

When I first posted on the former dictator’s “apology,” some of our (left-of-center) readers were quick to acknowledge this admission of responsibility (with one indicating he believed the one-time leftist leader still had a ways to go).

Why do some folks on the left show a greater willingness to forgive a man who isolated, imprisoned and tortured gay people than a then-closeted gay man who advocated for traditional marriage?  That man, Ken Mehlman, never harmed a single gay individual (save in the imagination of the gay left).

Seems to be a default reaction of all too many on the political left (including gay people) to show some sympathy for an anti-American tyrant — no matter his treatment of gay people.  And they call us self-hating for generally supporting a party with an imperfect record on gay issues.

What do we call gay people who defend a leftist leader who persecutes gay people?

* (more…)

Fidel Castro has always posed a problem for gay leftists.  On the one hand, he constantly wins accolades from the American left for his efforts to change Cuba while constantly being a thorn in the side of the United States.*  But, on the other, his regime has been perhaps the greatest persecutor of gay people in the Western Hemisphere.  

Not only did this demagogue oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, but he also sent Cuban gays away to labor camps where they suffered under inhuman conditions and were often tortured.  

Now, the former chief executive of the world’s largest island prison, claims he was just “too busy” to prevent his henchman from persecuting gays:

Continuing his image rehabilitation campaign, ex-Cuban President Fidel Castro called the rampant homophobia in the initial stages of his revolution a “great injustice.”

During an interview with La Jornada, Castro said that while he was not prejudiced against gays, the blame for the homophobic atmosphere lay only with himself. He claims that he was “too busy” with other matters — such as trying to survive U.S. assassination attempts — to deal with the discriminatory policies.

As Mark Hemingway who alerted me to the article reminds us, Mr. Castro suffers from an affliction common to American Democrats, notably Barbara Boxer, remembering things the way he wants them to have been, not the way they were:

I had a feeling some in the media might be overeager to forgive Castro, but some basic questioning of the official version of the Cuban government’s claims might be in order. For one thing, persecution of gays appears to have persisted well past the “initial stages” of the Cuban revolution.

He’s right; it wasn’t just the initial stages of the “revolution.”  Just follow the story of Reinaldo Arenas, the subject of the 2000 movie, Before Night Falls.

Now that Castro has apologized — and his actions directly led to the real persecution , the real suffering, of gay people — I wonder if some gay leftists will more readily rush to accept his apology than they did that of Ken Mehlman — a man responsible for suffering only in the minds of those eager to blame all gay peoples’ woes on Republicans.

* (more…)

While my friend Jamie Kirchick may have won the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association Journalist of the Year Award in 2007, he has not yet gained the fame of his contemporary Ezra Klein.  (Klein was born in 1984, Kirchick in ’83)  Perhaps it has something to do with sexuality (Ezra is straight, Jamie is gay) or maybe it’s politics (Ezra is a leftie loyalist, Jamie leans right, but, unlike his contemporary, does not toe the party line).

And this notion of the younger man’s celebrity came to mind this morning as I was continuing the process of cleaning out my e-mail boxes.  I read a Wall Street Journal piece Jamie had sent his friends earlier this month on the decision of a Spanish gay organization to exclude a float from the municipality of Tel Aviv in Madrid’s gay pride parade:

By joining the international campaign to delegitimize Israel, Spain’s leading gay organization undermined its purported mission: the furtherance of gay rights. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that even has gay pride parades, never mind respects the dignity of homosexuals. Saudi Arabia beheads gays. Syria arrests them in sting operations. Iran hangs them from cranes in public squares. (Speaking at Columbia University in 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed that there are no homosexuals in his country, an absurd assertion nonetheless portentous for its murderous aspirations). As for Gaza, one of Hamas’s leaders has referred to gays as “a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick.”

Like so many other democratic values, when it comes to gay rights Israel is an oasis in a sea of state-sanctioned repression, a “little patch,” to use Mr. Poveda’s words, that he and his comrades ought to defend. Gays serve openly in the Israeli military. While gay marriages can’t be legally performed in Israel, the government grants gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual ones and recognizes same-sex unions performed abroad. Many Palestinian gays seek asylum in Israel. (more…)

The more I learn about the antics of gay leaders (and other organizers of gay events) in this country and abroad, the more convinced I become that their primary concern is not promoting greater social acceptance of gay people, but in becoming the gay auxiliaries of various left-wing (and often anti-Western) movements.  

The latest evidence we have comes from Madrid where the organizers of the Gay Pride parade disinvited Israeli participants:

. . . in the wake of the Gaza flotilla incident, the organizers of the Madrid parade folded quickly to pressure to get rid of the Israeli participants.

Before the invitation was officially withdrawn, it was reportedly “hinted” to the Israelis that their participation in the event would be an “embarrassment” and would mean the additional expense of increased security. When the Israelis failed to take the hint and voluntarily stay home, the axe fell on them.

No matter that Israel is, of nations in the Mideast, the most tolerant of gay people.  No matter that the flotilla was sponsored in large part by terrorist organizations which advocate the execution of gay people.  No matter that gay people face persecution in the terrorist-run enclave of Gaza.

It will be interesting to see what (if any) gay organizations condemn this exclusion and commend Israel for its policies protecting gay people and allowing our fellows in the Jewish State to live openly and celebrate publicly.

As Allison Kaplan Sommer put it in the post linked above, “Those who are truly interested in lesbian and gay rights should welcome Israel with open arms as a model of tolerance in an intolerant region.”

Yet, to all too many gay organizations, that tolerance matters less than belonging to the “Grand Coalition of those Oppressed by Western Civilization.”

As Congress prepares to debate repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) today in Washington, our federal representatives should consider the experience of those nations which have allowed gay people to serve openly in their nation’s military.  In Politco yesterday, Maj. Peter Kees Hamstra of the Royal Dutch Army, Leif Ohlson of the Swedish Armed Forces and Lt. Com. Craig Jones, retired from the Royal Navy of Britain observe:

Moral opposition to homosexuality, while real, is just not allowed to undercut our militaries’ missions.

Nor do we think it will have any impact on yours after you repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

This is an important point because many Americans seem to believe that ending anti-gay discrimination in European and Israeli militaries faced no resistance because our cultures are more tolerant.

 In fact, our polls, rhetoric and even threats of mass resignations were quite similar to the continuing resistance in America. Yet none of the doomsday scenarios came true.

 According to research and assessments of our transitions, the new policies had no negative impact on military readiness.

Once again, the experience from nations which have allowed gay people to serve openly in the military shows that such service does not compromise military readiness or unit cohesion.

The plan before Congress appears to be a good compromise, repealing the Clinton-era legislation which prevents gays people from serving openly while giving the Administration the authority to work with the military to allow for a smooth implementation of the new policy.

This is just added good news from the Tory majority election win in the UK (despite the hung parliament thingy). (h/t – VictoryFund)

Three openly gay Conservatives in party leader David Cameron’s shadow government are set to become ministers if the Tories are able to form a government with the Liberal Democrats.

National elections held yesterday saw a swing of nearly 100 seats from Labour to the Conservatives, but no party controls the requisite 326 seats needed to form a government.  Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg, who today finds himself in a kingmaker role, said this morning he would give Cameron (pictured) the first shot at an alliance with his party.

According to Pink News, 20 Conservative Members of Parliament are openly gay, though the party has only named 11 of those.  The first out lesbian MP in the Tory party will be Margot James of Stourbrige, who was elected last night.

Cameron has sought to transform the Conservatives when it comes to LGBT issues, going so far as to issue an apology for the party’s anti-gay past.  Earlier this year one of his shadow ministers, Nick Herbert, traveled to the U.S. to speak at the Cato Institute about the place of LGBT people in the conservative movement.  During his speech he urged the U.S. Republican Party to embrace LGBT rights as a conservative value.

Now THAT is change you can believe in!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Let us hope that we are not the only gay people to denounce police in Wokington, Cumbria (in the UK) for arresting Dale McAlpine, a Christian street preacher who was “reciting a number of ‘sins’ referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships“:

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.

Now, we don’t agree with what Mr. McAlpine said, but we certainly support his right to say it.  He should not have been arrested.  If people were offended by his words, then they should have challenged him, mounting their own stepladders (as Mr. McAlpine) had done and taking issue with his arguments point by point.  Indeed, one woman did just that, only to find herself approached by a “homosexual police community support officer (PCSO)”.

After this PCSO spoke with this woman who had engaged the preacher “in a debate about his faith”, he confronted McAlpine who

. . . claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

This PCSO sounds like a real busybody while the woman sounds like she pretty much knew how responsible people deal with disagreement in a free society.  They engage in debate.  If this PCSO is going to lock up someone offering an alternative point of view, he must suffer from a severe case of inecurity.  Where else have we see such behavior, locking up our intellectual adversaries?

Authorities should drop the charges, fire the PCSO and ask him to attend tolerance training sessions while we should all follow the example of that woman who engaged the street preacher in debates about faith.  (Though she would have been wise not to inform this PCSO about her conversation.)

In contrast to modern American conservatism which is a movement based on an idea, modern liberalism appears more a coalition based on a series of grievances.  We on the right strive to promote policies which promote freedom at home and abroad.  Those on the left seek to promote policies which punish (or otherwise constrain) the “oppressors,” be they corporations, Western militaries or white men in general, particularly those of the heterosexual Christian sort.

The dilemma for the left comes when elements of their coalition of the oppressed come into conflict.  In the British publication, the Standpoint, Peter Whittle offers a hypothetical about a gay man teaching “in a state school in an area with a large Muslim population“:

It throws into sharp relief the dilemma which has petrified the Left and its fellow-travellers within the social, educational and cultural establishment. When two parts of your worldview collide, when your traditional support for gay rights conflicts with your staunch and uncritical support of ethnic minority cultures, what do you do? Relativism has tied your hands. You conjure the possible intellectual somersaults you could perform to justify your reasoning. And then you stay silent.

This silence, Whittle writes,

. . .ignores the widespread intolerance of homosexuality throughout the Muslim communities, which in Britain are growing up to ten times the rate of the rest. This community can only increase in power and predominance, especially when faced with a weak, vacillating establishment which will do anything to avoid making a scene, let along stand up for Western liberal values.

And it seems that for many gays on the left, those “liberal values” only kick in when the oppressor is not an approved “victim” group as, to many, Muslim groups have become:

Gays are pretty sensitive when it comes to detecting possible future persecution, which makes the relative silence about Islam — whether from denial or simple ignorance — all the more worrying. I’ve certainly found, when bringing up the subject on my travels around gay London, that one is usually met with the response: “Ah, well: it’s those Christian fundamentalists that worry me.” (more…)