Strange Reasons for War

This is but one of the many articles dealing with some of the statements made by Iran’s President concerning homosexuals:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/26/iran_gays/

Now, reading that or any of the other such articles one might assume that Iran is the only country where such an attitude is displayed. Having read rather extensively on matters of gender I know that such is most certainly not the case.

Let’s start with Africa. Black Africa, south of the Sahara. Try to find any mention of homosexuality relating to this part of the world. Various leaders have said that homosexuality is a “White Man’s problem” and is “non-African”:

“In Uganda, for example, the practice - referred to as "carnal knowledge of another against the order of nature" - has been outlawed by president Museveni, while Zimbabwe's president Robert Mugabe claimed homosexuals were "worse than pigs and dogs."”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2002/africalive/2072057.stm

BBC Africa reported that “A common theme from callers, and within emails, was that homosexuality is un-African and does not exist on the continent”.

Over to Nigeria, where homosexuality is punishable by hanging:

“Among the many myths created about Africa, the belief that homosexuality is absent in Africa or incidental is one of the oldest and most enduring. African leaders, historians, anthropologists, clergyman, authors, and contemporary Africans alike have denied or overlooked the existence of homosexuality or same-sex relationships and persistently claimed that such patterns were introduced by Europeans.
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/32974

In Africa, homosexuality is illegal for gay men in 29 countries and for lesbian women in 20 countries. You may recall that when the Anglican Church moved towards recognition of same-sex marriage, the African bishops rebelled and threatened to withdraw. Of course. Gay sex is “un-African”.

Move to Thailand, the sex-trade capital of the world. Until very recently, within the last few decades, the language had no word for “homosexual” and lesbians were "unknown". Indeed, many Thais assume that homosexual behaviour – the many gay bars and male prostitutes - was introduced by American soldiers on R&R visits during the Vietnam War. Commonly, males in the sex trade explain that they are in it “for the money” and are not Gay.

“Down-low” referred to married men or other men professing to be heterosexual,having sex with other men but identifying themselves as neither homosexual nor bisexual. This is part of Afro-American terminology in the United States. Why? To be out is to risk discrimination.

Further south, in Latin America, the same theme holds true. A male is not considered homosexual for engaging in sex with another man, as long as he assumes the “male role”. That is the cultural answer; transsexual prostitutes report that most clients wished to assume the female role in private.

So before throwing stones at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it might be wise to consider that the North American and Western European approach to homosexuality differs markedly from other parts of the world, from Africa, Latin America, parts of Asia and the Mideast.

Nor must we go to foreign shores to find such an attitude. It was only a few decades ago that men were incarcerated or sent to asylums in the United States (and Canada, I would assume) if caught in a gay relationship.

This does not excuse the comments made by Ahmadinejad. It does however put them in a perspective that is totally lacking from the crowing of much of the American media. The jeering crowd at Columbia University was comprised of young Americans. As with many young, they assume they know all and the jeering gave evidence of that snobbishness. They are sophisticated and wise in the ways of the world – their world, but not that of Ahmadinejad. When you are ignorant of cultural differences, it is easy to laugh at other views.

Many similar comments might be made in respect of the questions regarding women in Iranian society. Prior to the fall of the Shah, Iran - then a secular state as was Iraq - had offered women many advantages they did not enjoy in neighbouring states. Iran had high levels of woman in professions and in higher education. Religious garb was largely in the past, as in Turkey, another secular but Muslim State. The return of the Ahotllah certainly changed that, women being forced to return to garb and roles demanded by the Mullahs. Yet even so, the status of women in Iran today compares very favourable with its neighbours. In Pakistan, husbands routinely murder women without any real penalty imposed (according to Amnesty International reports); in Saudi Arabia and other Arab-Muslim countries the role of women is very restricted. We all now know how badly women were restricted in Afghanistan. While there is no doubt that women in the Muslim world do not have the near equality they enjoy in Western Europe and North America, within the neighbourhood women of Iran fare better than in other countries of the region, including those that Americans call allies. Perhaps only Israel has come up to (or surpassed) the gender equality the students of Columbia favour.


Now, I hasten to add that the above does not imply or suggest that I agree with Ahmadinejad or his obvious negative attitudes towards Gays or women’s equality. It does mean that had I been in the audience at Columbia, I would have disapproved of his comments but not joined in the jeering and booing that followed his remarks on this issue. I might have reflected on the need to educate Iran and the rest of the world on such matters.

Try to imagine a reverse of the Ahmadinejad speech at Columbia – George W. Bush speaking at Tehrain University. Someone asks a question on Gay rights in the United States. Well, Bush and his major voting block, the fundamentalists Christians, may not kill Gays but there is no doubt that many do not wish them well. It is only a difference in degree and with many of Bush’s supporters it is hard to say where along the line they would stop. While the students at Columbia may wish to espouse equality, Bush’s supporters certainly do not.

This exercise is really nothing more than further demonization of Iran, a necessary step in the move towards yet more unilateral action and “pre-emptive” military steps. If indeed the United States or Israel attack Iran, as many now expect, for two issues to be discrimination against Gays or women’s rights is indeed strange.

The Civil War in the United States was "to free the slaves". How bizarre for the United States to fight a new war against Iran for Gay and Women's rights. What some people won't do to drum up support for a war!