In Iran, we don’t have people who engage in ________________ like in your country.
Beeman is suggesting that by ‘phenomenon’ he may be referring to the way in which same-sex couples relate to each other in the whole, not just when it comes to sexual activity.
The key word is therefore ‘phenomenon’.
So what observable occurrence can be seen in same-sex couples in America that cannot be observed in Iran?
In Iran, we don’t have people who engage in ________________ like in your country.
Beeman is suggesting that by ‘phenomenon’ he may be referring to the way in which same-sex couples relate to each other in the whole, not just when it comes to sexual activity.
The key word is therefore ‘phenomenon’.
So what observable occurrence can be seen in same-sex couples in America that cannot be observed in Iran?
The answers are really in the article
There has been a recent phenomenon of Western-style “gay culture” emerging in Iran – replete with gay bars, clubs and house parties – but this is very new, largely limited to the upper classes, and likely not known to President Ahmadinejad, whose social milieu is the middle and lower-middle class. This recent Western-style gay phenomenon is distinct from ordinary same-sex behavior as practiced traditionally in Iran. Indeed, there was not even a word for homosexuality in Persian before the 20th century. It had to be invented. The term used by President Ahmadinejad was “hamjensbaz,” a neologism that literally means, “playing with the same sex.”
Might as well post the relevant part of the transcript:
QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks—Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
AHMADINEJAD: Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom. We have two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they’re present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active—in the political realm as well.
It’s not—it’s wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.
Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I’d like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?
People who cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don’t you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.
In Iran, too, there’s capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran—or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran.
And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye , before the public eye. It’s a law, based on democratic principles.
You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they’ re executed or they’re hung. But the end result is killing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn’t about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.
AHMADINEJAD: In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals, like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.
But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It’s not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who is given a girl, they are 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are.
They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect, culturally given, to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, respect for women. And we are proud of this culture.
That comma after ‘homosexuals’ - who decided that should be there?
Indeed, there was not even a word for homosexuality in Persian before the 20th century.
Well, the English word homosexual wasn’t created until the 19th century if that has any bearing on the matter. And the so-called Western-style “gay” culture in Iran isn’t exactly being embraced by the government in Iran . . . in fact it’s being repressed. So I seriously doubt Ahmadinejad is clueless as to what’s going on in his own country. What is unbelievable is the fact that Iranian laws recognize, forbid and punish what Ahmadinejad says is absent there.
Emotional relations are very different. Men and women both may become exceptionally attached to people of the same sex, to the point that Westerners would swear that they must have a sexual relationship. It is not necessarily so. Kissing, holding hands, weeping, jealousy, physical contact and all the signs of partnership can exist without any sexual activity or, indeed, with an undercurrent of absolute horror that it might take place, because of the active-passive split in sexual classification and men’s fear of being pegged as a passive partner. A man who truly loves another man doesn’t want to degrade him by making him a passive sex partner.
This is part of the “culture” . . . but only part of the culture. The entire “culture” includes sexual acts between like sexes. And the laws in Iran forbid homosexual acts. That is one of the reasons there is an underground “Gay and Lesbian” organization in Iran promoting acceptance of their desired lifestyle . . . which includes sex.
Ignoring the comma, Ahmadinejad said in effect “no homosexuals like in America” or no “gays like in America” or “no hamjensbaz like in America” (where hamjensbaz can mean sodomy in Iranian). In any case his statement is a contradiction of a known fact.
Emotional relations are very different. Men and women both may become exceptionally attached to people of the same sex, to the point that Westerners would swear that they must have a sexual relationship. It is not necessarily so. Kissing, holding hands, weeping, jealousy, physical contact and all the signs of partnership can exist without any sexual activity or, indeed, with an undercurrent of absolute horror that it might take place, because of the active-passive split in sexual classification and men’s fear of being pegged as a passive partner. A man who truly loves another man doesn’t want to degrade him by making him a passive sex partner.
This is part of the “culture” . . . but only part of the culture. The entire “culture” includes sexual acts between like sexes. And the laws in Iran forbid homosexual acts. That is one of the reasons there is an underground “Gay and Lesbian” organization in Iran promoting acceptance of their desired lifestyle . . . which includes sex.
So is there proof that he was talking about (a) the general culture, or (b) just the sex act, or (c) both combined?
I don’t think there is, which leaves us to speculate.
Ignoring the comma, Ahmadinejad said in effect “no homosexuals like in America” or no “gays like in America” or “no hamjensbaz like in America” (where hamjensbaz can mean sodomy in Iranian). In any case his statement is a contradiction of a known fact.
The comma may make all the difference. So there is no ‘in any case’. I would say there might be reasonably clear evidence in one case (no comma), but with an explanation such as provided in the article I posted, I say the existence of the comma provides a different case, one open to speculation.
Well, CM, since the orginal question was in regard to executions of Iranian citizens who are “homosexuals”, and Ahmadinejad dodged the question (like he did many other questions the day before during a TV interview), and since he was redirected from his dodge back to the orginal question about excutions with the term “sexual preference” being used, and since Ahmadinejad then proceeded to come up with what was yet another dodge of the issue, it’s clear to me he was avoiding the entire issue.
As for Beeman, clearly he’s trying to point out that Ahmadinejad may have meant that there is no American-style gay culture in Iran which is patently false. So Beeman then excuses the entire series of statements as possible ignorance of Ahmadinejad of that style of gay culture in Iran, but the avoidance and dodge of the execution issue, which Ahmadinejad understood with crystal clarity—and the reason for it—cannot then be disputed.
In other words, Beeman can obfuscate the issue by throwing out differences in cultural practices, and make it sound like Ahmadinejad may have been “technically” truthful, but he cannot deny Ahmadinejad was avoiding the question . . . which in my opinion is a very strong indication Ahmadinejad understood the question.
All of this reminds me of how “Death to America” doesn’t really mean “Death to America” . . . or Americans. I guess I didn’t get the nuance of 9/11. (I’m sure biafra can explain it.)
All the irrelevant semantic jibber-jabber aside what about he said all that really matters is what actually happens in Iran. The rest is just fucking stupid masturbation and a distraction.
BTW, nice work GLAAD and NOW. You had a chance to confront a seriously bad guy and you could not bring yourselves to do it.
So, in summary, the difference isn’t the attitude towards, or prejudice against, gays, but what happens to them. So the outcry is not so much what Ahmadinejad thinks about gay people, just about what happens as a result of that? Yes?
Let me ask you if you believe that people should be judged more on their thoughts or their actions? When stated that plainly, it’s probably pretty obvious that judging peoples’ actions is the only reasonable thing to do, as accurately determining peoples’ true thoughts is difficult if not impossible outside of Orwellian literature. Yet in his writing, Juan Cole is comparing (and judging) the thoughts of Ahmadinejad and “the Christian Right”, neither of which he is really privy to, while essentially dismissing the actions of the Iranian government! The rhetorical contortions he had to go through to gin up a moral equivalence were the bulk of the work! I’d like to think that you just posted this for comment, but your next post indicates that you believe it to a large degree too:
CM - 28 September 2007 06:29 PM
Oh I absolutely get the fact that not only does he take advantage of his power to kill/maim/whatever, but he also possesses the inhumanity to do it.
I’m just saying that their ‘theory’ on homosexuality is the same. They share some kind of hatred or fear or something similar, based on religious principles.
So I thought what Juan Cole was saying was that, on that level, the religious right can’t really attack him. To a certain point, the opinion is shared. It certainly takes a wide divergence at a particular point, so yeah they can take issue with that. They can say ‘yeah I hate gay people as much as he does, but I’m not sure that we should be killed for it’. Or ‘yeah it’s a sickness, but it’s up to God to eradicate it’ or whatever.
I’m talking about the fundamental Christians here. The ones the conservative movement have courted for a long time now (despite Sl0re trying to tell us that it’s only the left that courts and accepts the extremes).
But how do you know that their theory on homosexuality is the same as Ahmadinejad? How do you know it’s “hatred” or “fear”? Do you have any additional insight into the Christian Right, or do you just take this from Cole? Later in this thread, you’re casting doubt on what Ahmadinejad even meant. Are you giving any similiar benefit of the doubt to the Christian Right? How can you compare the two when you have little or no exposure to one, and doubt the translation of the other? How does it work, comparing a stereotype of a whole group to the words of one man and the actions of his government?
Getting back briefly to your first reply, above, not only are actions the only reasonable things to judge, there might even be a significant difference in the attitudes, but you wouldn’t know it from Cole. Personally, I would say that the differences in actions towards gays demonstrates a difference in attitudes.
Sorry to go on like this, but what Cole did was establish a convoluted rationale for comparing the incomparable, and you seem to have run with it, above. This example of Cole’s is exactly why I tend to blow off citations of him, Chomsky, and The Nation. They may sound academic when read superficially, but it doesn’t take a very deep reading of their work to figure out when they pull arguments and justifications out of their asses. I can’t figure out why they get so much play in political dialogue, at least from the left, when I can see so clearly how shallow their thinking is on the political subjects for which they are cited.
So now that I’ve finally actually critiqued a work of Cole rather than just blown it off as it deserved, I’d like to know if you have any objections to my critique. I was kind of disappointed I didn’t get more feedback, considering how much you wanted the work critiqued instead of the author.
Well, CM, since the orginal question was in regard to executions of Iranian citizens who are “homosexuals”, and Ahmadinejad dodged the question (like he did many other questions the day before during a TV interview), and since he was redirected from his dodge back to the orginal question about excutions with the term “sexual preference” being used, and since Ahmadinejad then proceeded to come up with what was yet another dodge of the issue, it’s clear to me he was avoiding the entire issue.
As for Beeman, clearly he’s trying to point out that Ahmadinejad may have meant that there is no American-style gay culture in Iran which is patently false. So Beeman then excuses the entire series of statements as possible ignorance of Ahmadinejad of that style of gay culture in Iran, but the avoidance and dodge of the execution issue, which Ahmadinejad understood with crystal clarity—and the reason for it—cannot then be disputed.
In other words, Beeman can obfuscate the issue by throwing out differences in cultural practices, and make it sound like Ahmadinejad may have been “technically” truthful, but he cannot deny Ahmadinejad was avoiding the question . . . which in my opinion is a very strong indication Ahmadinejad understood the question.
All of this reminds me of how “Death to America” doesn’t really mean “Death to America” . . . or Americans. I guess I didn’t get the nuance of 9/11. (I’m sure biafra can explain it.)
Good post.
I’ve probably exhausted the possibility that he isn’t just an evil f*ck. I’ve tried, but I think I’ve got little choice but to side with the argument that he was denying their existence.
I’d like to see Beeman answer some of these questions.
All the irrelevant semantic jibber-jabber aside what about he said all that really matters is what actually happens in Iran. The rest is just fucking stupid masturbation and a distraction.
I thought that’s why we were here - for fucking stupid masturbation.
What really happens in Iran - how much do we really know?
So, in summary, the difference isn’t the attitude towards, or prejudice against, gays, but what happens to them. So the outcry is not so much what Ahmadinejad thinks about gay people, just about what happens as a result of that? Yes?
Let me ask you if you believe that people should be judged more on their thoughts or their actions? When stated that plainly, it’s probably pretty obvious that judging peoples’ actions is the only reasonable thing to do, as accurately determining peoples’ true thoughts is difficult if not impossible outside of Orwellian literature. Yet in his writing, Juan Cole is comparing (and judging) the thoughts of Ahmadinejad and “the Christian Right”, neither of which he is really privy to, while essentially dismissing the actions of the Iranian government! The rhetorical contortions he had to go through to gin up a moral equivalence were the bulk of the work! I’d like to think that you just posted this for comment, but your next post indicates that you believe it to a large degree too:
CM - 28 September 2007 06:29 PM
Oh I absolutely get the fact that not only does he take advantage of his power to kill/maim/whatever, but he also possesses the inhumanity to do it.
I’m just saying that their ‘theory’ on homosexuality is the same. They share some kind of hatred or fear or something similar, based on religious principles.
So I thought what Juan Cole was saying was that, on that level, the religious right can’t really attack him. To a certain point, the opinion is shared. It certainly takes a wide divergence at a particular point, so yeah they can take issue with that. They can say ‘yeah I hate gay people as much as he does, but I’m not sure that we should be killed for it’. Or ‘yeah it’s a sickness, but it’s up to God to eradicate it’ or whatever.
I’m talking about the fundamental Christians here. The ones the conservative movement have courted for a long time now (despite Sl0re trying to tell us that it’s only the left that courts and accepts the extremes).
But how do you know that their theory on homosexuality is the same as Ahmadinejad? How do you know it’s “hatred” or “fear”? Do you have any additional insight into the Christian Right, or do you just take this from Cole? Later in this thread, you’re casting doubt on what Ahmadinejad even meant. Are you giving any similiar benefit of the doubt to the Christian Right? How can you compare the two when you have little or no exposure to one, and doubt the translation of the other? How does it work, comparing a stereotype of a whole group to the words of one man and the actions of his government?
Getting back briefly to your first reply, above, not only are actions the only reasonable things to judge, there might even be a significant difference in the attitudes, but you wouldn’t know it from Cole. Personally, I would say that the differences in actions towards gays demonstrates a difference in attitudes.
Sorry to go on like this, but what Cole did was establish a convoluted rationale for comparing the incomparable, and you seem to have run with it, above. This example of Cole’s is exactly why I tend to blow off citations of him, Chomsky, and The Nation. They may sound academic when read superficially, but it doesn’t take a very deep reading of their work to figure out when they pull arguments and justifications out of their asses. I can’t figure out why they get so much play in political dialogue, at least from the left, when I can see so clearly how shallow their thinking is on the political subjects for which they are cited.
So now that I’ve finally actually critiqued a work of Cole rather than just blown it off as it deserved, I’d like to know if you have any objections to my critique. I was kind of disappointed I didn’t get more feedback, considering how much you wanted the work critiqued instead of the author.
I think people should be based on what they say, and also what they do. More by what they do. I don’t know what they think, unless they come out and say it, or act on it.
There is no evidence of the thoughts of the Christian Right on homosexuality available anywhere? We are all just making it up? I really don’t know what to say about that.
I don’t believe it’s dismissing the actions of the Iranian government to say that the same prejudice is held. Obviously it’s FAR FAR worse to then kill someone because they are a homosexual, as opposed to go on a march against them with a placard, or pray for their soul, or whatever. That kinda goes without saying. But the religious prejudice is still that it is ‘not natural’ and ‘against God’. If you don’t agree, then by all means explain in detail how the basis of the prejudice differs.
I’m not saying that fundamentalist Christians can’t still be appalled that gay people are killed for being gay in Iran (it would be good to get some stats/info on that, as opposed to us all just assuming that if you are gay then you get killed. I guess whatever we get, the reliability factor may be highly questionable).
I think people should be based on what they say, and also what they do. More by what they do. I don’t know what they think, unless they come out and say it, or act on it.
There is no evidence of the thoughts of the Christian Right on homosexuality available anywhere? We are all just making it up? I really don’t know what to say about that.
Of course there is some evidence of their thoughts out there, but neither Cole nor yourself cited any of it to suport the claim that the Christian Right has the same fundamental theory as Ahmadenijad. The claim was just made and then run with. Conversely, I’m claiming that the very stark difference in their behavior towards homosexuals belies the notion that they share the same fundamental theory. One supports them being hung while the other just doesn’t support them getting married. What single fundamental theory would lend itself to both ideas being the maximum prejudices in our two respective countries?
Furthermore, Cole’s part in that claim also rested on his prior ludicrous claim that “the ultimate in denying one’s rights is denying they exist”. I already showed how that was just a rhetorical machination, with no real meaning.
I don’t believe it’s dismissing the actions of the Iranian government to say that the same prejudice is held. Obviously it’s FAR FAR worse to then kill someone because they are a homosexual, as opposed to go on a march against them with a placard, or pray for their soul, or whatever. That kinda goes without saying. But the religious prejudice is still that it is ‘not natural’ and ‘against God’. If you don’t agree, then by all means explain in detail how the basis of the prejudice differs.
You’ve squished together two different things I was saying. I explained one above. What I meant by “dismissing the actions” of Iran is that Cole barely gave their actions any notice. He refers to it as “denying they exist”, then offhandedly mentions that they are “punished severely”, without even mentioning the death penalty. He spent one downplayed sentence on the part of it that is really the Big Issue.
I’m not saying that fundamentalist Christians can’t still be appalled that gay people are killed for being gay in Iran (it would be good to get some stats/info on that, as opposed to us all just assuming that if you are gay then you get killed.
Cole seems to say exactly that. Or at least that they shouldn’t register that they’re appalled until they’ve changed their own view. Trouble is, if they acted like Cole thinks they should and declined to act appalled, they would rightly be criticized for it. Cole doesn’t want to treat the Christian Right fairly here. He wants to try to trap them in an artificial Catch-22. But the artificial nature of his rhetorical construct is its very weakness.
I guess it wasnt cited because it’s universally understood, in the same way that ‘gays are murdered in Iran’ is universally understood.
In order to prove he was making light of something so serious, then I guess we need the facts on homosexuals being put to death in Iran. Not just offhand comments. I presume the same standard needs to apply.
I disagree with Cole about there being any comparison in terms of ‘denying they exist’. I don’t agree with everything he said. It thought it was an interesting point about a shared religious basis of homosexuality being wrong/unnatural.
What single fundamental theory would lend itself to both ideas being the maximum prejudices in our two respective countries?
Maximum prejudices? What does that mean? I’m talking about a basic prejudice based on religious belief. Somehow you are trying to say that one group doesn’t have that prejudice and the other does.
There are various reports of the death penalty being applied for homosexual conduct, and as this sentence has often been carried out against dissidents, it may be a tool to silence political dissent as much as to oppress homosexuals.
According to The Boroumand Foundation [8], there are records of at least 107 executions with charges related to homosexuality between 1979 and 1990.[9] According to Amnesty International, at least 5 people convicted of “homosexual tendencies”, three men and two women, were executed in January 1990, as a result of the Iranian government’s policy of calling for the execution of those who practice homosexuality.[10] In April 1992, Dr. Ali Mozafarian, a Sunni Muslim leader in the Fars province (Southern Iran), was executed in Shiraz after being convicted on charges of espionage, adultery, and sodomy. His videotaped confession was broadcast on television in Shiraz and in the streets of Kazerun and Lar.
On March 14, 1994, dissident writer Ali Akbar Saidi Sirjani was charged with offences ranging from espionage to homosexual improprieties.
On November, 12 1995, by the verdict of the eighth judicial branch of Hamadan and the confirmation of the Supreme Court of Iran, Mehdi Barazandeh, otherwise known as Safa Ali Shah Hamadani, was condemned to death. The judicial authorities announced that Barazandeh’s crimes were repeated acts of adultery and “the obscene act of sodomy.” The court’s decree was carried out by stoning Barazandeh. Barazandeh belonged to the Khaksarieh Sect of Dervishes. (Islamic Republic Newspaper - November 14th 1995 + reported in Homan’s magazine June, 10 1996).
The execution of Ali Sharifi was reported in Hamadan by the Washington Blade in 1998. Sharifi was hanged for having gay sex, adultery, drinking alcohol, and dealing drugs.[citation needed]
In 2005, two Iranian teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, were both sentenced to death for what some human rights groups claimed was “consensual gay sex” while Iranian authorities asserted that the two were part of a criminal gang that raped a thirteen-year-old boy. Again, the government claims were disputed by international organizations and progressive domestic groups. Based on information available at the time, Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, said “It was not a gay case,” taking issue with the Human Rights Campaign’s statement that was quick to condemn the execution as anti-gay. “We would welcome HRC’s involvement in demanding that our government speak out on human rights violations. It was just the wrong case,” she said.[11]
At the discretion of the Iranian court, fines, prison sentences, and public lashings may be used instead of a public execution. As the Islamic law covers all aspects of Iranian society and culture, no public discussion of homosexuality is permitted, no gay rights organizations are allowed to exist, and no political party that supports gay rights will have their candidates on the election ballot.
All the irrelevant semantic jibber-jabber aside what about he said all that really matters is what actually happens in Iran. The rest is just fucking stupid masturbation and a distraction.
I thought that’s why we were here - for fucking stupid masturbation.
