Galloway on being gay in Iran: fact from fiction

George Galloway, principle 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.

On the Wright Stuff Show on Channel Five, Galloway comments on the Independent story "peers call upon Smith to halt deportation of gay Iranian". The article highlights the potential deportation of a gay Iranian, Mehdi Kazemi, from the United Kingdom and the subsequent struggle to prevent this.

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]

Lesbianism is conceptualised within the Iranian Penal Code as "homosexuality of women by genitals". Defined as 'Mosaheqeh' within the translation provided by the Iranian Queer Organisation [4].

Lesbianism remains distinct from male homosexuality within the criminal code. Feminist authors Julie Dorf and Gloria Careaga note that "legal distinction between gay men and lesbianism is that sodomy is defined as uniquely male" [6].

As for lavat and takfhiz, the punishment for moshahegeh involves a form of Ta'azir punishment, 100 lashes for each party, the first three times a confession is gained, while a death sentence will be issued the fourth time [3].

As the original Independent article notes, Medhi's former partner has been executed within Iran. In response Galloway makes the claim that Parham, Mehdi's boyfriend was hung "not for being crime. for committing. um. six crimes. er. against young men" [1]. Pausing briefly to expand upon this point a number of points are worthy of consideration.

In a statement released by Mehdi he notes that "I was 15 years old when I started dating one of my class mates in school. His name was Parham" [7]. What followed was a relationship that lasted up until the point at which around March 2006 Parham had been arrested and mentioned Mehdi's name to the government under 'interrogation'.

The first point worth making is that there is no way of ascertaining if Parham was executed for the crimes stipulated within the Iran Criminal Code, however this execution was committed in a context in which, as queer organization Outrage! note:

Claims of rape are made to save the family's honour or to save the passive partner from execution, and are part of an Iranian government propaganda offensive to scapegoat and demonise gay people

In this context, it seems a highly credible explanation that Parham was executed for the crime of homosexuality, and his naming of Mehdi as involved in these acts would seem to have formed part of this investigation into this offense.

Speaking at the 2008, March 15th Stop the War demonstration Galloway commented, in reference to protests from the audience, that “the khaki war machine now has its pink contingent” [8]. This remains a slur on those anti-war activists who combine principled opposition to Invasion of Iran with a commitment to the rights of those Lesbian and Gay individuals within Iran George Galloway seems not to recognise.


[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou1es7fNTpk
[2] http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2005/December/Homosexuality/index.html
[3] http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=3ae6b51b8
[4] http://www.irqo.net/IRQO/English/islamicpunishment.htm
[5] http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=3ae6b51b8
[6] [Women's Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives: 325]
[7] http://www.irqo.net/IRQO/English/pages/43.htm
[8] http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/gallway-and-the-colour-pink/

The Left & the Homosexual Question: Germany

The reaction of the socialist left to the 'homosexual question' has a rich and varied trajectory, I will attempt to provide a brief outline to some of the main themes. In order to understand the nature of the left's reaction to the issue of what we would now term 'gay rights', an understanding the historical contexts occasioning the call or protection of marginalized sexual minorities is needed.

At the end of the 19th century there occurs a particular tightening of laws in reference to 'homosexual' or same-sex sex acts, this is expressed in the UK in the form of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 and within Germany via Paragraph 175 of the German Legal code.

Paragraph 175 of the German Legal code introduced a provision of the German Criminal code from 1871 onwards punishing "unnatural fornication" among "persons of the male sex" as a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment and potential "loss of civil rights"[1].

It may be noted that during a period following the introduction of Paragraph 175 "until Hitler's accession to power in 1933", movements of opposition to the criminalisation of same-sex acts, among both "homosexual emancipation movement" and socialists remained unrivaled in neighboring european states; a fact partially reflected by the petition of the Reichstag by the formation of what has been termed the first "gay liberation organization" in the form of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, formed in 1897 [2]. The extent to which we can logically align this organisation to the political trajectory of "gay liberation" is deeply questionable, yet it’s formation does say something about the response the law engendered from a range of Germanic society.

We find an expression of opposition among socialists expressed by many of the leading members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) during this period. August Bebel, co-founder and parliamentary leader of the SPD of Germany was the first politician to speak within the Reichstag against the criminal code in 1989, supporting a petition calling for the repeal of the statute. Bebel noted that in a society in which so called 'unnatural fornication' is prevalant among "all sections of society", enforcement would require the Prussian state to "build two new penitentiaries just to handle the number of violations against Paragraph 175 committed within the confines of Berlin alone" [2].

Sections of the Social Democratic reichstag representatives delegates "distanced themselves firmly" from Bebel, while a commitment to the rights of Homosexuals did not remain an approach articulated within the political programme of the SPD [3]

However Bernstein would not be an isolated figure in opposition to Paragraph 175, other prominent members of the German Social Democratic Party would oppose the statue and raise issues of relevance to the rights of persecuted sexual minorities. Within one of two articles published in Die Neue Zeit leading SDP theorist Eduard Bernstein elaborated a view upon the trial of Oscar Wilde, prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, within the United Kingdom. Bernstein including an acknowledgment that

within the German social-democratic movement, very far-reaching differences of opinion regarding the position society should adopt towards those sexual activities which do not fall within the ambit of what passes for normal [4]

In understanding how to characterise the 'crime' for which Wilde had been persecuted, Bernstein rejects judgements "based on more or less arbitrary moral concepts" instead noting the historic variability of what are considered 'unnatural acts' in reference to the historic prevalence of same-sex sex acts within Greek and Roman society.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175

[2] http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/pride20610.php

[3] Leftist Sexual Politics and Homosexuality: A Historical Overview

[4] http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/wilde/homosexual.htm

The National Union of Students (NUS) and the struggle for gay liberation

In order to understand the prominence of commitments to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights within the organizational structures of the National Union of Students an understanding of the historical trajectory and emergence of such rights is necessary.

The formation of Gay Liberation movements during the 1970s reflected a rising level of 'radicalized' anger among marginalized of LGBT minorities, influenced most clearly by the 1969 Stonewall Riot in New York. The Stonewall Riot followed a 'raid' upon a gay drinking establishment in Greenwich Village, as punters turned their attention to the invading police force and met the routine harassment with resistance. The Stonewall Riots would influence the formation of 'Gay Liberation' movements within both America and the United Kingdom.

Despite the eventual dissipation of the Gay Liberation, under the pressure of conflicting internal differences, the organization would prove influential. Its legacy is expressed, albeit in a partial and conditional form, in the formation of a gay and lesbian 'movement' within NUS. As the NUS document 'Liberation officers in Every Union' notes, while there existed no "formal national campaign" in the early 1970s during the movements height, by 1971 the "first explicit policy on lesbian and gay liberation was passed by annual conference", while by the mid 1990s a specific LGB Campaign had been formed [1].

A degree of representation of minority groups has been ensured by utilising organisational structures for this purpose; regular LGBT conferences are meant to "democratically set the policy that gives the political direction to the campaign" alongside the election of LGBT officers [1].

While there rightly exists structures to ensure the representation of marginalized groups within the NUS, part of the proposed Governance Review of 2007/08 includes proposals that would attack 'Liberation' sections such as that of the LGBT Campaign.

Proposals include attempts to split the existing NUS national executive into a "board" and a "senate" in which the senate will include representatives of each liberation campaign, in contrast to the 'non-political' board that will meet a limited number of times a year and be comprised in part by external appointees. The board has been created to over-see "legal policies, the “strategic planning framework”, the wages of senior management, development of budgets and estimates, scrutiny of financial performance, scrutiny of senior management and appointments" [2]. It remains the case within the existing proposals no Liberation officer is ensured a place on a board that will possibly scrutinize their work.

Communists must be at the forefront of those defending the autonomy of the campaigns as the most consistent supporters of the rights of minority groups, however beyond simply seeking to defend the existing structures of NUS, questions must be raised about the reasons for dwindling LGBT conference sizes and the failure of many of the Liberation campaigns to resonate with students.

Priority campaigns are those said to be "based on the policy" decided upon at NUS LGBT conference meaning broadly that the LGBT committee, proposed of those elected at LGBT conference, "decide upon the priority areas for the year ahead" [3]

The existence of many of the campaigns remains unknown to most students, while the limited scope and visions they express reflect a growing apolitical trend within student politics. The mismanagement of these campaigns is assured by a situation in which so-called ‘independents’ have been able to secure election as LGBT officers. This is a process aided by the general lack of awareness of most students that annual LGBT conference is even taking place.

Accommodation by the left to the narrowness of the campaigns proposed is likely to result in the depoliticisation of many students, who have and will continue to turn away from the increasingly sectional, individualistic and apolitical politics pursued by the campaign.

The need to raise demands that speak to everyday existence of LGBT students remains clearly evident. As Lenin once noted Marxists must seek to "react to every manifestation of Tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects"[4] on the basis of an understanding that the project of Marxism is the project of human emancipation, possible only on the basis of collective liberation in which the opportunity for each individual's self-development is recognized and made a reality. This remains the only way that emancipation, irrespective of individual sexuality, may be won and sustained.




[1] A Liberation Campaign In Every Union

[2] http://www.free-education.org.uk/?p=393

[3] NUS LGBT Priority campaigns 2005-06

[4] Lenin, What is to be done?

Mob beat cross-dresser in Jamaica

I wanted to draw attention to an article on the Jamaica Observer website:

Mob beats cross-dresser in Jamaica

A cross-dreser was set upon and severely beaten by a mob in Falmouth's Water Square yesterday morning.
The news of the man's presence in the community spread rapidly and in a matter of minutes scores of angry residents converged on the scene and began to rain blows all over the cross-dresser's body with sticks, stones and whatever weapon they could find...

Full article here

The only LGBT rights organization in Jamaica is the Jamaican Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays - J-FLAG. As a recent TUC article highlights, J-Flag are opperating in a dire political and economic context, with "appalling financial difficulties" faced by the organisation. Any donation you can spare would i'm sure be warmly welcomed by the organisation.

Tory MP worried by polygamous gay immigrants

Conservative MP Mr Davies has warned that human rights laws and equality regulations could open the door for gays to demand similar recognition for multiple partnerships, with groups of men or women presenting themselves as polygamous 'families' according to the Mail.

The old fear of the promiscuous gay male has reared its head again, this time articulate by this particular backbench Conservative MP. The point is entirely baseless because, as noted within the article by Stonewall: "In all countries that have legalised gay marriage or any other form of same-sex recognition, polygamy is illegal" - so essentially this is a bit of a non-news story with little actual legislative relevance. What is interesting however is the language used to convey the fear of such an occurrence ever happening.

The way Davis phrases his points may be familiar to many: the fear of accepting a "pretended family relationship" (Sychin) as normal in law. What this story tells us in part is that good homosexuality requires bad homosexuality, Davis utilises the imaginary scurge of the polygamous gay immigrant to illustrate this point. Many of the arguments that have been made criticising same-sex civil partnerships also recognise this fact, suggesting such pairings effectively render those partnerships (such as polygamous pairings) that are not recognised by law - 'queer'. Many of the debates surrounding Section 28 involved an implicit acceptance that by articulating or codifying the gay male and female in law they may be subject to greater scrutiny ("By amending the law, we will make them part of a civil and civilized society" as one Labour MP once up it - Stychin 2003).

The progression towards acceptable forms of partnership and activism has been elsewhere acknowledged and commented upon (Warner 2000). It's not hard to find example within a UK/US political context; Stonewall, started as a riot, and is now a fairly servile state-depentent pressure-group participating in Pride events with corporate-backing that would rival the Olympics. Stonewall speak out, if only to assuage the fears of the 'confused' Member of Parliment.


Stychin: Governing Sexuality, 2003
Warner: The problem with normal, 2000