Galloway's Iranian propaganda?

by Celibate Fri Mar 28, 2008 19:54

"All the [British] papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That's not true."

since on average about 10% of a population are likely to be gay, and Iran chooses to have capital punishment, inevitably a certain number of gay people will be executed each year. You would expect 10% or less, given their demographic.

in 2006 they executed 177 people altogether i think. 10% of that is 17. I think they executed far less gay people than 17 in 2006. (Perhaps the discrepancy reflects a somewhat gentler nature! )

It would seem only a handful of the people executed in Iran are gay and of those, on further investigation, there are usually other factors involved which the media chooses to conveniently ignore as it suits their agenda, drumming up support against Iran for their masters and making good headlines. Another thing: If you were accused of a crime, and had little support at home, you would probably play the minority card to get support and muddy the water. It's human nature unfortunately, and what have you to lose? This is not to say that there are no miscarriages of justice in Iran involving gay people. Of course there are, as in any justice system.

The figures would appear more or less to support George's statement. However Iran is not a very gay tolerant country as it is against the prevailing religion (as in the US!) and if you flaunt your sexuality in the face of very fundamentalist religious types, you will likely get yourself in the shit. However this is also very true in other places too (see picture!) (In line with indymedia.ie policy the picture was hidden by moderator because it contained name of hate site)

If we are demonising a country for the fact that minorities are being executed disproportionally to their demographic, then there is a much greater skew visible with executions In the US. For example, you are far more likely to be black than the demographics would suggest. People have often been executed despite it being obvious that they are retarded. The appeals system is pretty unfriendly. I won't even mention guantanamo or abu ghraib here, where the criteria for entry can be rather arbitrary. Why mention america you ask? well only because they are largely behind a lot of this finger pointing at Iran. They deserve to have a light shone on their prison systems too.

Of course Iran's prison and justice system has it's problems as does every justice system. And some of them are serious. But it is up to the Iranian people to address them. It is a largely civilised country and people get a vote just like we do and their elections are not directly rigged. (not that I personally think a vote once every few years is actually worth a shit but its usually the majority accepted view that this is a sign of a healthy democracy)

Sure oppression of peoples right to have lots of sex with whomever they choose is wrong and we in the west would never do such a thing (except if they are paedophiles of course, then we just demonise them and hang 'em out to dry on the smallest excuse. Thats different!! )

Lets face it, we are all born with a weird sex drive of some kind and we try to find a balance between what is allowed at a particular place and time in the cycles of human civilisation, and what this drive compels us to do and who to do it to. The prevailing set of rules is rather arbitrary, and it's pot luck whether your personal sexuality is in harmony with them. If it doesn't you are in for a life of hiding and shame and punishment of one kind or another if you are caught. We don't get to pick this kind of stuff and some have a much easier ride than others in this respect. Of course If you are capable of becoming a top monkey then you can probably do whatever you feel like without much fear of reprisal. However, thats life, you are dealt your hand and you gotta play with it. Luckily sex is somewhat optional. Having the odd orgasm spices things up a bit but its not totally necessary for survival of the individual.
*all puns in this paragraph are unintended...honest!

So sure, sex sucks. But let's get this problem in proportion to the harm being done. I think George says these things in frustration at the people who bring them up as arguments demonising Iran without thinking about how this particular sexual situation, while far from ideal, it pales into insignificance when compared to the large scale death and suffering of muslim people in iraq and other places, and the threat of sanctions and attack by vested interests on Iran, situations he is much more concerned with.

by pat c Sat Mar 29, 2008 17:41

"in 2006 they executed 177 people altogether i think. 10% of that is 17. I think they executed far less gay people than 17 in 2006. (Perhaps the discrepancy reflects a somewhat gentler nature! )"

Unsubstantiated. You have way of knowing how many gay people were executed for other crimes.

"the media chooses to conveniently ignore as it suits their agenda, drumming up support against Iran for their masters and making good headlines. "

But this is not a case of THE MEDIA, its Peter Tatchell an anti-war activist.

"Another thing: If you were accused of a crime, and had little support at home, you would probably play the minority card to get support and muddy the water. "

You have no evidence whatever of this.

"The figures would appear more or less to support George's statement."

You have presented no evidence to support this assertion.

"However Iran is not a very gay tolerant country as it is against the prevailing religion (as in the US!) and if you flaunt your sexuality in the face of very fundamentalist religious types, you will likely get yourself in the shit. "

Thats the excuse of a scoundrel. Last time I checked though, people dont get executed for indulging in gaysex in the US. No US State has such a law, not even one Congressman or Senator has suggested such a thing. You would only find such views on the lunatic fringe of the Christian Right.

"If we are demonising a country for the fact that minorities are being executed disproportionally to their demographic,"

Pointing out violation of Human Rights is not demonisation. No honest person would suggest such a thing.

"then there is a much greater skew visible with executions In the US. For example, you are far more likely to be black than the demographics would suggest. People have often been executed despite it being obvious that they are retarded. The appeals system is pretty unfriendly. "

But this article is not about capital punishment in general so please dont try to derail the thread. But in any case as you well know Peter Tatchell campaigns against Capital Punishment worldwide.

"I won't even mention guantanamo or abu ghraib here, where the criteria for entry can be rather arbitrary. Why mention america you ask? well only because they are largely behind a lot of this finger pointing at Iran. They deserve to have a light shone on their prison systems too. "

But Peter Tatchell has nothing to do with the US. Nor have HOPI. Tatchell and HOPI are opposed to US Imperialism. Why dont you write an article on the US prisonm system, shine a light on it instead of derailing this article.

"Of course Iran's prison and justice system has it's problems as does every justice system. And some of them are serious. But it is up to the Iranian people to address them. "

Exactly. Thats why Tatchell and HOPI support the Iranian people in their struggle against the dictatorship and also oppose US Aggression towards Irabn.

"It is a largely civilised country and people get a vote just like we do and their elections are not directly rigged. (not that I personally think a vote once every few years is actually worth a shit but its usually the majority accepted view that this is a sign of a healthy democracy)"

Not even a child would be taken in by your lies about the Iranian electoral system! 1,700 reformist candidates were debarred from taking part in the elections which took place 2 weeks ago. All candidates have to be approved by a Council of islamic experts.

"I think George says these things in frustration at the people who bring them up as arguments demonising Iran"

How can you demonise Iran by telling the truth?

" this particular sexual situation, while far from ideal, it pales into insignificance when compared to the large scale death and suffering of muslim people in iraq and other places, and the threat of sanctions and attack by vested interests on Iran, situations he is much more concerned with. "

But why then are you attacking this article? Its written by Peter Tatchell who is an opponent of the US Occupation of Iraq and he also opposes any US agression towards Iran. Tatchell and HOPI also oppose any sanctions.

If you were a genuine activist then you would be writing articles attacking the warmongers rather than supporting the Iranian Dictatorship and a Misogynistic Homophobe like Galloway.

You are not a supporter of Liberty unless you oppose both US Imperialism and the Iranian Dictatorship.

by pat c Sat Mar 29, 2008 18:30

Heres a report of a demo in suport of Mehdi Kazemi. Full text at link.

Over 150 people turned out on Saturday 22nd for a protest against the deportation of Iranian gay 19-year-old Mehdi Kazemi. Even though the Iranian regime has already executed his boyfriend, Mehdi is in limbo, with the Dutch government and the UK Home Office refusing to let him stay. The protest also highlighted the cases of Pegah Emambakhsh - an Iranian lesbian woman - and Jojo Yakob - a Syrian gay man - also under threat of deportation.This turnout was particularly pleasing in that it came despite snowy weather and bitter cold.

Speakers such as Sofie Buckland (NUS NEC and Feminist Fightback) and David Broder (Middle East Workers' Solidarity) highlighted the inherent racism of the immigration system and called for the abolition of borders.

They furthermore pointed to the homophobia of people like George Galloway who call themselves left-wing but have refused to back Mehdi Kazemi, instead leaping to the defence of Iran's theocracy. Opposing war does not mean we have to whitewash the Iranian regime - the anti-war movement needs to be honest if it is to deserve support.Other speakers at the demonstration opposite Downing Street included Peter Tatchell, Scott Cuthbertson (NUS LGBT), Chris Strafford (Hands Off the People of Iran) and Dave Landau .

Middle East Workers' Solidarity will continue to defend Middle Eastern asylum seekers from deportation and highlight the issue of immigration controls, as well as opposing war and supporting unions and social movements in the region.

by Celibate Sat Mar 29, 2008 19:26

Here is the image referred to in a previous post, edited to comply with the guidelines. Removing it significantly reduced the emotive impact of the comment, where it was intended to indicate the levels of hatred of minorities that exist in the very country that trumpets the introduction of harmful sanctions and military intervention in Iran, and much of whose propaganda aimed at the left, rests on the basis of Irans treatment of minorities which, although not good, is within the statistical tolerances expected given the relative demographic of the minority in question.

George galloway is a flawed individual in some respects but a talented orator and a thorn in the side of the US and other imperialists who have their eyes on Iranian and Iraqi natural resources. I understand some of his frustration at always having the issue of gay rights gain centre stage in discussions about Iran and Iraq, when there are much more pressing human rights violations happening on a daily basis due to the disgusting actions of so called civilised "gay friendly" countries. My comment and enclosed photo was intended merely
to highlight this hypocrisy and try to get the gay rights issue into some sort of proportion.

Irans affairs are its own business not ours or americas. US and UK sponsored Intervention has already turned that country from being a secular democracy to a police state under the shah, then the reaction to the brutality of that regime led to a backlash and ultimately to a religious and quite fundamentalist state. This is in the process of evolving towards something better but it needs to be left alone to do that.Outside pressures will distort and affect that process adversely and give strength to the more hard line elements.

We all should just LEAVE THEM ALONE.

If there was no oil there then nobody would care.

There are plenty of things that need changing in our own back gardens. Let the Iranians reform their own country in their own way in their own time.

How would you feel if Iran set up a destabilising media campaign against the Irish government while having its eye on our gas resources. Might feel a bit weird. Yet I can find plenty of material for such a campaign. the treatment of protestors in mayo, the privatisation of hospital services, the run down of education, the general suppression of dissent, removal of posters, Shannon, etc etc.

What gives us the right to poke our noses into Irans affairs. Our interference has caused enough damage already.

IMHO HOPI are a suspect group. There is a case to be made that they are being used by the US to disseminate anti Iran propaganda. Several previous indy posts have addressed this point. We all know the US motives for pushing this stuff in the media and IMHO HOPI are part of the problem

some western countries baying for irans blood aren't all that fond of gays either!!

by pat c Sun Mar 30, 2008 16:17

Here is a report from Ben Lewis of the CPGB on the Mehdi demo. Full text at link.

On Saturday, members and supporters of Hands Off the People of Iran joined in the protest against the threat to deport to Iran Mehdi Kazemi, the 19-year-old gay man whose partner was executed by the regime for “sexual crimes” (ie, being gay).

Around 100 turned out, with the majority of them coming from the National Union of Students LGBT contingent. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the British left, most notably the Socialist Workers Party, were not present.

Hopi’s leaflet warned that “… sections of the establishment and the media have seized upon this case to win support for their threats against Iran. Only a year ago the British media couldn’t care less about cases such as that of the persecuted Iranian lesbian, Pegah Emambakhsh. This propaganda effort is as inexorably linked to the war drive as the sanctions that are currently strangling Iran”.

The leaflet prompted some interesting discussions with an AWL member who was trying to argue the case for economic sanctions against Iran. Indeed, he was also of the opinion that an imperialist-promoted ‘velvet revolution’, were it to incite some activity amongst the masses, would also not necessarily be a bad thing! This is obviously not a majority position, but it says a lot about the AWL that such shameless social-imperialists are able to find a natural home in this outfit.

Speakers included Hopi steering committee member Peter Tatchell, Communist Students candidate for the NUS executive Chris Strafford, and Sofie Buckland and David Broder from the AWL.

by pat c Sun Mar 30, 2008 16:25

Alan Morgan of the CPGB comments on Galloways uncritical support for the Iranian Governments judicial murder of Gays. Full text at link.

George Galloway has so far failed to respond to Peter Tatchell’s challenge to “provide evidence for his claim that Mehdi Kazemi’s boyfriend was hanged for sex crimes against young men”. Kazemi was due to be deported to Iran, where he himself might well have faced execution as a gay.

The Respect Renewal leader, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow and standing as a candidate for the May 1 London assembly elections, made the “sex crimes” claim on Channel 5’s The Wright stuff programme. Galloway repeated the phrase used by the theocratic regime in his efforts to deny the undeniable - Tehran executes homosexuals simply for having gay sex. Mehdi Kazemi’s former partner, Parham, was hanged in 2006, allegedly after revealing under torture the names of men he had had relations with. According to islamic law any active homosexual relationship in itself represents a “sex crime” (lavat), which in Iran is punished with the most brutal and degrading treatment, followed by hanging

On Galloway’s “sex crimes” nonsense, Outrage stated that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that “Mr Kazemi’s partner was a rapist or sex-abuser”. Outrage leader Peter Tatchell accused Galloway of “mouthing the propaganda of the homophobic dictatorship in Tehran”.

It is certainly true that sections of the media are taking every opportunity to whip up anti-Tehran propaganda in order to help George Bush prepare the way for a possible attack on Iran. But how should partisans of the anti-war movement respond? By denying the truth (and, in so doing, implicitly side with the UK authorities in their claim that it is safe to deport gays there)? Or by telling the truth - both about the repressive theocratic regime and about imperialism’s use of such repression to excuse its own brutality?

by pat c Sun Mar 30, 2008 16:43

Galloway isnt just a Homophobe, hes like a fundamentalist minister when it comes to stem cell research:

Not to be outdone by the high priests of the catholic church, George Galloway launched his own attack on stem cell research in his Daily Record column. After ranting against the opening of bookmakers on Good Friday, he argued that the bill “contains the literally monstrous idea to allow boffins to insert human DNA into animal eggs, creating hybrid human-animal embryos” (March 24). This “Frankenstinian proposal” is particularly dangerous because it “blasphemes against the very idea of god”. His pronouncements echo almost exactly those of cardinal O’Brien.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/714/embryoresearch.html

Theres a lot of things Galloway is against, SPUC love him:

We know full well that he is against abortion. He is also deeply conservative on many other social questions - including euthanasia, to which he has often expressed his opposition. He also makes clear that he is a practising catholic and supports the church’s teachings on many other such issues. The website of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children lists him as an MP that voted with the pro-life lobby against the Doctor Assisted Dying Bill in 1997 and against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Regulations in 2000 (www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/uk-mp-votes/).
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/714/embryoresearch.html

Some important information abput the upcoming stem cell research bill which Galloway is opposing:

Supported by more than 200 charities, it is said to be vital in ensuring the continued development of scientific solutions for the treatment, prevention and cure of conditions such as Parkinsons, motor neurone disease, cancers and heart failure.
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/714/embryoresearch.html

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 17:25

Here is an Early Day Motion proposed in the House of Commons By Diane Abbott MP. It has the support of 48 MPs including Jeremy Corbyn, Marsha Singh, Harry Cohen and Mark Durkan. It has not been signed by George Galloway

That this House is concerned by the case of Iranian teenager Mehdi Kazemi who is currently living in Holland; notes reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was forced by Iranian authorities to denounce other gay men, including Mr Kazemi himself; is appalled at reports that Mr Kazemi's boyfriend was then hanged for the offence of homosexuality; believes that Mr Kazemi's life is in serious danger if he were returned to Iran; further notes that the Dutch authorities have rejected Mr Kazemi's appeal for asylum in Holland and are likely to deport him to the UK; believes that the Home Office view that Iran is safe for homosexuals as long as they hide their sexuality is contrary to human rights standards on sexual freedom; and calls on the Government to uphold its asserted position as a supporter of human rights by refraining from sending Mr Kazemi back to Iran and near-certain human rights abuses.

Full list of signatories of motion at link below/

by GiGi Mon Mar 31, 2008 18:56

And see why he is a thorn in the side of the establishment and why he is always a target for smear campaigns.

watch and decide for yourself whether you want george galloway out there
or whether you want him to resign in shame for not signing this petition.

he has his issues but I'm still glad he's out there causing problems for our lords and masters

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 19:10

"why he is always a target for smear campaigns."

Its not a smear campaign, its the truth. Hes there in the vid at the start telling those lies and supporting the homophobic murders carried out by the Iranian Dictatorship.

"watch and decide for yourself whether you want george galloway out there
or whether you want him to resign in shame for not signing this petition."

Do you really want someone like Galloway in parliament? Hes a homophobe, he opposes womens rights, hes against abortion, hes against stem cell research. Does he really support asylum seekers? He actually supports legisation which will restrict immigration to Britain.

"he has his issues but I'm still glad he's out there causing problems for our lords and masters"

Are immigrants our lords and masters? are gays our lords and masters? are women our lords and masters?

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 19:21

Here is a criticism of Galloways record on immigration, not just in the case of Mehdi but in general. Full text at link.

However, even if Galloway were not an apologist for ‘my enemy’s enemy’, he would not be well placed in opposing deportations. At the heart of this case is the right of bourgeois states to decide in the interests of capital who may or may not enter, reside and work in ‘their’ country. This ‘right’ brings with it not only the risk that deportees may sometimes be sent to where they face imprisonment, torture or death, but a whole raft of inhuman measures: detention without trial, tagging and monitoring, dawn raids, the splitting up of families.

Galloway wants to make the system less inhuman. Notoriously he believes: “Every country … must have control of its own borders - no-one serious is advocating the scrapping of immigration controls” (Morning Star February 12 2005). He called for “an economic-social-demographic plan for population growth based on a points system and our own needs” (read the needs of British capital) and claimed that the scrapping of immigration controls would mean “urging all the most accomplished and determined people to leave the poor countries of the world and come to the richest [making] the poor countries even poorer and the rich countries richer”.

In this way Galloway helps perpetuate the prejudice and fears of outsiders - be they black, Asian, muslim or eastern European - that are stirred up by the establishment in order to set worker against worker. But there are many migrants who have bypassed border controls through various means. These are the workers who provide cheap labour for the capitalist machine, picking vegetables for the supermarkets, toiling on building sites and suffering the cruelty of forced prostitution. These are the workers who are employed and exploited with no regard for health, safety and other rights. Morecambe Bay provided an extreme example of how capital profits from their very illegality.

by GiGi Mon Mar 31, 2008 20:03

And his speech in parliament could have been written by HOPI if you believed their stated aims of being against imperialism in Iraq / Iran
Yet strange how much against him they are (judging by the posts of their dedicated member here). Surely I would have thought they coincide on the most pressing issues. Why would a group villify a talented orator who shares many of their stated views and who has the ear of the english parliament?? Seems a bit odd.

some more balancing character defence:
--------------------------------------------------------
GG addresses the english parliament. rather better than bertie don't you think!!
He's slow starting off but he sure gets better towards the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWR0tavb-zo&feature=related
Heh.."the final scene from zulu without the happy ending.!!" who else would have the balls to speak like this in the english parliament. No wonder they want him gone!!

The smear campaign conducted against GG regarding oil for food campaign. GG addresses the senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk

Paxman shows how happy the establishment were at his electoral victory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlE5cTcYZbs&feature=related

nice unbiased starting question jeremy!!

There's lots more GG on youtube. I recommend people to check it out. If nothing else it's most entertaining!! I'm terribly disappointed though. Not much anti gay material. Given he is such a terrible homophobe. I would have expected more. sarcasm

A lot of people don't like GG. Join the club PC. But perhaps they have other reasons than the ones you are offering!!

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 20:20

"And his speech in parliament could have been written by HOPI if you believed their stated aims of being against imperialism in Iraq / Iran"

And Peter Tatchell opposes any US attack on Iran but GG and his fans attack him in a homophobic manner. Galloway does not support the anti-imperialist opposition in Iran. Galloway is an uncritical supporter of the mullahs.

"Yet strange how much against him they are (judging by the posts of their dedicated member here). Surely I would have thought they coincide on the most pressing issues."

If you support Liberty then you must oppose the Iranian Dictatorship as well as US Imperialism. Otherwise you are on the side of the Mullahs imprsoning , torturing and murdering trade unionists, students and womens rights activists.

" Why would a group villify a talented orator who shares many of their stated views and who has the ear of the english parliament?? Seems a bit odd."

How is telling the truth vilifying anyone? All of Galloways reactionary views on women, gays and immigrants are on the record. There are others like Dianne Abbott who also have the ear of parliament. They find it possible to oppose US Imperialism but at the same time they stand up for gay rights and for workers rights in Iran. Galloway takes the bosses side in iran.

"I'm terribly disappointed though. Not much anti gay material. Given he is such a terrible homophobe. I would have expected more. sarcasm"

Your comment is very telling when we are discussing Mehdi who faces death if he is deported to Iran. Yet you think its a subject for humour. That says a lot about you.

"A lot of people don't like GG. Join the club PC. But perhaps they have other reasons than the ones you are offering!! "

My reasons are because Galloway is a misogynist, a homophobe, he opposes stemcell research, he opposes abortion, He supports the Iranian Dictatorship, a regime which bans trade unions and imprisons strikers. Please supply me with more reasons to hate him.

by GiGi Mon Mar 31, 2008 20:34

"Please supply me with more reasons to hate him.

well..for one thing, he's more talented at making arguments than you are!!

Seriously Pat, joking aside, calm down and watch your own video again. Galloway is not the antichrist. He has his flaws sure, but overall he's one of the good guys.

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 20:42

So suggesting that someone who had been executed in Iran for being gay was really a pedophile is making a good argument? Its there in the video. Galloway has produced no evidence to back up his vile lies.

Everything I posted above about Galloway is true. No amount of lies from the supporters of a misogynist homophobe will change that.

All I have done is tell the truth about Galloway.

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 20:59

Heres what Galloway said:

GG: The Independent has a story about Peers calling upon the Home Secretary to halt the deportation of a gay Iranian. In part this is being used as part of the on-going propaganda against Iran. All the papers seem to imply that you get executed in Iran for being gay. That's not true.

MW: His boyfriend was hung though, wasn't he?

GG: Yes, but nor being gay. For uh, committing sex crimes, uh, against young men.

Galloway has been challenged on this but he has refused to provide any source for his lies. Galloway has also refused to sign Dianne Abbotts motion.

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 21:07

Heres an extract from an article in Pink News, yes, its an LGBT paper:

(unsubstantiated conjecture removed - moderator)

Outspoken London MP George Galloway has said that the boyfriend of Iranian asylum seeker Mehdi Kazemi was executed for sex crimes.

The Respect politician made his claims on Channel Five show The Wright Stuff yesterday morning.

Gay rights group OutRage! has challenged Mr Galloway to provide proof of his assertions.

"We are calling on George Galloway to explain the source of his claim that Mehdi Kazemi's boyfriend had committed sex crimes and this was the reason he was executed," said OutRage! spokesperson Brett Lock.

"Neither OutRage! nor any other human rights group has seen any evidence to suggest that Mr Kazemi's partner was a rapist or sex-abuser.

"Mr Galloway's claim that gay people are not executed in Iran is refuted by every reputable human rights body, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch."

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 21:18

Here is another article which deals with Galloways lies about how Iran deals with gays. Full text at the link.

George Galloway, principal representative of the Respect Renewal organisation, has made a number of statements in recent weeks that should trouble those of us who hold principled support for gay rights a cause of worthy support.

Galloway first comment is that "all the papers seem to imply you get executed from Iran for being gay. That's not true" [1]. To understand the factual inacuracy of this statement an overview of the Iranian legal code is needed.

Were Galloway to examine the legal status of those engaging in same-sex sex acts in Iran he would find that his analysis is far from correct. The legal status of Lesbian and gay men in Iran today is established during a period between July 1991 to November of the same year, during which a modified Iran Criminal Code is ratified [2] Articles 108-140 of this criminal code identify the crime of homosexual and lesbian sex acts and the appropriate punishment for those said to have commited them.

For the purpose of understanding these section of the Iranian Criminal Code three translations have been examined, including that supplied by the Iranian Queer Organisation (IRQO) the Movement for the Establishment of Human Rights in Iran (MEHR) and finally the UN Refuge Agency.

We find within these 32 articles an identification of both particular forms of crime pertaining to gay men and lesbian women (identified as Lavat and tafkhiz and Mosaheqeh) alongside an associated punishment of Hadd.

Within the penal code the term Lavat encompasses an understanding of Sodomy as "sexual intercourse with a male". This remains an act identified as a form of Hadd offense, these are serious offenses identifiable in reference to specific punishments. In this instance it is death to be decided by individual Sharia judges having "confessed four times" to having committed the offense [3].

According to the translation provided by all three documents, the criminalisation of same-sex acts is not limited to sodomy. The Islamic Penal Law also stipulates crimes for Tafhiz, defined here as "the rubbing of the thighs or buttocks" committed by two men. This is a crime understood alongside other forms of homosexual act such as the act of a man "kiss(ing of) another with lust".

These crimes are understood as subject to a form of Ta’azir. Ta'azir crimes are understood as involving punishments ranging from six to nighty nine lashes the first three times, the fourth time however "the punishment ... would be death" [3]

by pat c Mon Mar 31, 2008 21:26

This issue is also covered by Tribune magazine.

ON THE subject of mutual respect: a fierce – and rather more serious – row has broken out between Mr Tatchell and George Galloway over the gay Iranian asylum seeker Mehdi Kazemi. Mr Tatchell has accused the Respect MP of “mouthing the propaganda of the homophobic dictatorship in Teheran” after Mr Galloway claimed on talk show television that Mr Kazemi’s boyfriend was executed by the authorities in Iran for “committing sex crimes against young men”. The death, he says, is being “used as part of the propaganda against Iran”. Mr Galloway has so far failed to provide the source, or evidence, for his claim. Mr Galloway claims that young men are not executed for being gay in Iran. It can only be hoped that proof of his error is not provided by Mr Kazemi’s forced return to Iran.

by Peter Moore Tue Apr 01, 2008 05:07

Pat, I appreciate the points you are making about the gay issue, it is clear that Galloway is trying to fudge the issue by making insinuations about abuse, and I agree with your interpretation. But what I think people should find most disturbing is that Galloway - a self-styled socialist - supports the death penalty at all.

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2008 15:45

George Galloway says that he opposes the death penalty in all circumstances. Subjectively he probably means that. The problem is that by denying the reality of executions of gays in Iran he is efectively supporting the implementation of the death penalty.

by pat c Fri Apr 04, 2008 18:06

Alan Morgan of The Weekly Worker reports on how Galloway has the support of the "Trotskyist" ISG. Full article at link.

On the one hand Galloway has acted as an apologist of the first order for the theocratic regime in Iran; on the other, he has sided with rightwing religious bigots in opposing embryo research. Home secretary Jacqui Smith caved in to pressure and is to review the case of Mehdi Kazemi, who was facing deportation to Iran, where he could be executed as a gay. Kazemi’s former partner, Parham, was hanged in 2006, but Galloway claimed that this was not for his homosexuality, but for “sex crimes”. Under Iran’s islamic law any active homosexual relationship in itself represents a ‘sex crime’.

Instead of condemning both the Iran regime for its murderous homophobia and the UK government for its imperialist-driven complicity, Galloway looked at things in a completely one-sided way: “This is a useful story for the war-propaganda machine,” he said. True, but the Respect MP then went on to demonstrate how not to combat that machine.

Those who dare criticise Tehran were playing into the hands of the warmongers, he alleged - in fact by “attacking Iran in the way that he does”, Peter Tatchell of the gay rights campaign, Outrage, had become “the pink end of the khaki war machine”. That Tatchell is also a leading member of Hands Off the People of Iran, whose first demand is “No to imperialist war!”, is apparently irrelevant.

Just a week later, Galloway (after a side swipe against gambling, over which he specifically lined himself up with “pastor Ian Paisley”) launched a tirade against embryo research in his Daily Record column. Respect Renewal, has made no official comment on either issue. But what about the left within RR - in particular the comrades in the International Socialist Group? Surely they would point out that Galloway was not speaking on behalf of Respect and make clear their own opposition to his pro-Iran apologia?

by pat c Fri Apr 04, 2008 18:36

You can read more about Mehdi and other LGBT issues in Iran at the website of the Iranian Queer Organisation (IRQO).

Current articles include:

G.H.C.: Greece grants asylum to Gay Iranian refuge (March 31, 08)
The Greek Homosexual Community (GHC-EOK) is happy to announce that the gay Iranian refugee, known as “Alex”, was finally granted asylum following the reconsideration of his case...

HRW: Private Homes Raided for ‘Immorality’ (March 28, 08)
(New York, March 28, 2008) – The arrest of more than 30 men attending a party in a private home in the city of Esfahan signals renewed efforts by Iranian authorities to enforce “morality” codes, and highlights the fragility of basic rights in a country where police powers routinely undermine privacy, Human Rights Watch...

IGLHRC Announces 2008 Felipa de Souza Award Winners (March 04,08)
IGLHRC announced today that it would award its 2008 Felipa de Souza Award to two outstanding nominees—the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) and Chilean trans activist Andrés Ignacio Rivera Duarte.

by Deirdre Clancy - HOPI supporter Sat Apr 05, 2008 17:09

Galloway seems to stimulate strong emotions in people, one way or the other. I recognised his personality type immediately I saw him speak the first time (when I shared a platform with him in Galway). Charismatic, able, volatile, and highly egotistical; we've all met those types. However, he was definitely on a mission and passionate about the welfare of the people of Iraq, and unlike some egos I've met through the anti-war movement, at least he had some ability and knowledge to back it up.

Before this, an English member of Respect who was in Dublin spoke about Galloway to me as if he was a god - he seems to have that effect on some people, particularly some types of women (the type of semi-groupie who is willing to settle for basking in the reflected glory of a strong, overpowering male leader). I could write the script and I imagine Respect has a pretty toxic dynamic, as a coterie of adoring (probably mainly female) fans continue to warp Galloway's perspective of himself.

I do think Galloway has performed brilliantly at times, particularly in the US Senate regarding the Oil for Food scandal, where he single-handedly made fools out of a whole bunch of powerful people who were clearly interested in getting him shut down for good, to silence critiques of the invasion of Iraq (and probably also to distract from the anomalies and lies apparent from the White House). I believe there were smears against him in that particular area, and that it was in the interests of both the US and UK governments to try to shut him up at that time. Due to Galloway's ability, it backfired seriously, and fair play to him. It would be wrong to say he hasn't had some positive effect.

However, I also believe he is in serious denial about the drawbacks of certain Islamist regimes, and possibly a bit drunk on the adulation he gets from certain powerful individuals in Iran and other places. He's got to get real about human rights abuses in Iran. I am as against an invasion of Iran as he, but I am under no illusions about the regime there. I have met Iranian dissidents. I don't think there should be 'honour killings' (an oxymoron) or hangings of gays, needless to say. Why large sections of the anti-war movement have a consistent need to reiterate the hackneyed 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' line is a mystery to me. To me, it is not that complicated or difficult to exist in a place of balanced awareness of the drawbacks of certain Middle Eastern regimes (including a recognition that the West has had a part in creating those regimes) and also an opposition to needless invasions of the certain Middle Eastern countries. The world isn't always black and white. It jars to go to anti-war meetings and be told things are that simple, and that it's unethical to criticise the Iranian (or in previous years, the Iraqi) regimes. Frankly, it's an insult to the public's intelligence. It's also incredibly condescending and off-putting for those people who want to support the right of ordinary, blameless civilians not to be bombarded by the West, but who also want to support their human rights on the domestic front.

If I had a cent for every time I was on a vigil and some member of the public came up to me and accused me of being a Saddam supporter, I would be a rich woman. Unfortunately, some anti-war groups perpetuate this public impression by refusing to condemn repressive regimes, and we all then get tarred with the same brush. It's annoying, but you can't expect Joe Public always to know the nuances of the different anti-war groups and their policies. I think the anti-war cause is doomed until these issues are faced up to and taken seriously. Although Galloway has done some good work, it's time he stopped defending the indefensible, and it's time the rest of the anti-war movement ceased its chronic denial.

by tomeile Sun Apr 06, 2008 13:34

I don't think there should be 'honour killings' or hangings of gays either , and it used to be the case that support for nations under threat of attack from imperialism didn’t mean support for the controlling regimes of those nations. But since the emergence of the HOPIeire group , which Deirdre Clancy supports, that has changed. Now , those who say Hands Off Iran are subjected to charges of being in favour of honour killings and the hanging of gays . George Galloway has never been in favour of honour killings or the hanging of gays ,but the HOPI group and its propagandists on Indymedia Ireland are insinuating that he does.

I also attended many marches ,vigils etc against the invasion of Iraq ,but didn’t get many people accusing me of supporting Saddam - although there were a few. I told such people that defence of Iraq from the murder and oil-grab that Bush and Blair were intent on ,did not in any way mean support for Saddam. The millions who marched in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq were not doing it out of support for the gassing of the Kurds or the other crimes of the Saddam regime .

I wonder why the HOPIeire crowd constantly need to reiterate the hackneyed old chestnut that “large sections of the anti-war movement have a consistent need to reiterate the hackneyed 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' line”. I suspect that such large sections only exist in the "place of balanced awareness" Deirdre mentioned in her post which is presumably located in somewhere inside her own head , because I have never met anybody in the anti-war movement who has argued such a thing . Which isn’t to say that you can’t have allies ,needless to say.