The Insanity of Hate

Being denied the privilege to oppress another does not make you oppressed, fuckwads.

[via:azspot]

The education department of Malaysia’s state of Terengganu sent 66 boys who were identified as overly effeminate for “normal boys their age” to a four-day camp where they will receive physical education and religious instruction in an effort to limit the numbers of transvestites or homosexuals in society, reports Malaysia’s New Straits Times.

Razali Daud (above), the department’s director, is clearly on the gender police squad, stating that if effeminate behavior is “left unchecked, it could become a problem later in life for them, their families, and society” and recommends that parents and teachers should monitor even the slightest effeminacy in male children. Though Daud claims his department isn’t “intervening with process of nature,” he declares, “As educators, we have to do something about it before the young ones misunderstand people and reach the point of no return.”

The point of no return to what exactly, Mr. Daud? Raging faggotry? This is what institutionalized, bureaucratic homophobia and genderphobia sounds like.

+ here

Too funny, especially since it has totally happened before. HOWEVER, let’s not come to believe that all gays are well-to-do homosexualists who could pay the whole bill for four boozy queens, but this exchange by Choire Sicha pretty much sums it up.

Gay: “Give me that check, it is my turn!”

Other Gay: “That is crazy talk, you paid three weeks ago at [name of other equally wonderful spot]! Please, please let me!”

Third Gay: “Oh, you guys, that means it’s my turn, give it here!”

Fourth Gay: [Secretly has already handed plum-colored American Express card to server ten minutes ago, and now all the gays realized that the check that has just been delivered is merely waiting for a signature, not a card.]

All Gays: “You guys!”

The end. Exeunt gays. Everyone hugs repeatedly!

Consequences for Being Gay in Iran

(via theevolutionofalexander)

Yuvraaj Parasher, one of the actors who starred in the groundbreaking film Dunno Y…Na Jaane Kyun which included India’s first gay kissing scene has been disowned by his family before playing a homosexual on-screen and has been thrown out of his home, reports Times of India.

Yuvraaj’s father, Satish Parasher, makes clear that it is his own sense of shame that has driven him to cut ties with his son, saying, “When we heard about the poster and the things he has done in the film, we were shocked, hurt and humiliated. People will make fun of us and we won’t be able to live peacefully ever again.”

Drama perhaps runs in the family with what could be one of the most over-the-top, irrational, self-involved reactions by a family of a Bollywood actor; Satish continued:

We are a respected family and I’m appalled that he is playing a gay man’s role. We’re finished. All the dreams and hopes we had built around him are over. For just a film role, he has lost out on his blood ties. We don’t want to see his face ever… not even when we are dying.

+ here

1950s Homosexual Warning Film

I resent the characterization of “Ralph” the homosexual. I mean, a homo in the 50s would NOT have that hideous mustache!

But seriously, kindness being equated with homosexual predatory pedophilia is many flavors of wrong. What they should have focused on in this film is what a dumb-ass Jimmy is to hitchhike hundreds of times before. Jimmy’s a wanker.

Wow. What a tool. And her surname is Wong. One of my people. Disgracefully complicit to her own oppression, especially for the first out, homosexual cabinet minister in Oz.

It seems you can’t count on Lesbian politicians to support gay rights down in Australia!  Oh no, openly gay Minister for Climate Change  –  Penny Wong  says she completely  agrees with her party’s opposition to same sex marriage. Yep, that’s right, an openly lesbian politician doesn’t want equality and doesn’t want gay marriage!

The Australian Labor politician told Aussie TV Network 10  ”On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect,” today.

“The party’s position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.” and she said that she supports the party view.   Wong, is first openly homosexual cabinet minister in an Australian government and although she said she was proud of what the party had achieved in recognising the value and importance of same sex relationships, she doesn’t believe in gay marriage.

[via: projectqueer]

DIGNITY & RESPECT - An Army Training Guide On Homosexual Conduct Policy (2001)

A fascinating comic geared to train military personnel in the early era of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on homosexual conduct, admission of homosexuality, and harassment based on perceived homosexuality.

Read the full comic here.

Even in the UK, the fight for equality is most fruitful in the courts. It has been the judiciary, and not the legislature, that has historically been at the forefront of progressive change. This is why we must be so discerning about our nominees for the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts so that further decisions and clarifications of law like below move us forward rather than backwards.

As the U.S. took a giant leap backwards late last night, with the veto of same-sex civil unions legislation in Hawaii by Gov. Linda Lingle, across the pond an historic court ruling paved the way for a potential change in British asylum policy when it comes to LGBT people.

For years, we’ve heard horror stories of people deported (or scheduled to be deported) back to their home countries, despite the fact that those home countries have egregious reputations when it comes to homosexuality. We’ve watched gay people in the United Kingdom get told that they can go back to Iran and live a “discreet” lifestyle, even though that means facing execution if one’s sexual orientation is ever discovered. Same goes for Senegal, Iraq, Sudan, and more, where LGBT people regularly face persecution.

But now UK asylum policy has been slapped upside the head, to use a figure of speech, by Britain’s Supreme Court, in a case that surrounded the UK’s decision to deport two gay men back to Cameroon and Iran, respectively. Up until the decision, the UK had argued that these two men could go back to their homelands and live in the closet. But the Supreme Court said that using that line of defense as one’s barometer is akin to saying that Jews should have been asked to stay in Nazi Germany and hide in attics.

“To compel a homosexual person to pretend that his sexuality does not exist or suppress the behaviour by which to manifest itself is to deny him the fundamental right to be who he is,” the Court said, in a statement that in many respects gives me chills for its immigration and asylum implications. Oh, and the decision was unanimous, meaning that there was no dissent among Britain’s most senior judges.

Paul Canning, a friend of ours here and a tireless champion for LGBT asylum rights in the United Kingdom, welcomed the decision as historic, and said that it will most definitely have broad implications.

“This is a clear victory. It is one in the eye for the last government,” Canning said. He’s right, and that’s a point not lost on Theresa May, who is the UK’s new Home Secretary. She seemed to echo Canning’s statement by saying that the Supreme Court decision fits in line with the position of the new coalition government, and that she was proud that the UK would no longer be a place where LGBT people seeking asylum are told to go back to dangerous places.

“I do not believe it is acceptable to send people home and expect them to hide their sexuality to avoid persecution,” May said. “From today, asylum decisions will be considered under the new rules and the judgment gives an immediate legal basis for us to reframe our guidance for assessing claims based on sexuality, taking into account relevant country guidance and the merits of each individual case.”

In a nutshell, here are the new rules (or, rather, questions) that govern when someone is being considered for asylum based on their sexual orientation:

• Is the person seeking asylum gay, or could s/he be perceived as gay in their home country?
• Is there evidence that within the asylum seeker’s home country, someone has been persecuted for their sexual orientation?
• Would the asylum seeker live openly as gay back in their home country, or would they have to live “discreetly”? If the answer is “discreetly, then one last question gets asked.
• In living “discreetly,” is the person seeking to avoid harm or persecution by society and the government?

If the answer to that last question is a “yes,” then that person should be granted asylum. Or, as the Court put it, “[To] reject his application on the ground that he could avoid the persecution by living discreetly would be to defeat the very right which the [Refugee] Convention exists to protect — his right to live freely and openly as a gay man without fear of persecution.”

[via:movingforward:Change.org]

It takes a real man to be gay!

But that’s no secret.

[via:maxmorphing:kosmokrator]