True that, and it’s a dilemma of our time that I don’t know that very many of us have really figured out how to deal with as effectively as we could. So far be it for me to be too caustic with others who are struggling w/that dilemma.

There is however a point of convergence between the seemingly-unrelated issues being discussed here, which is that debates over visa/immigration policies both here and to a much greater extent in Europe since 9/11 have frequently been about what kinds of “threats” immigration policy should recognize and seek to prevent — and in particular, whether ideological exclusion can be justified in order to preserve the liberal character of European/North American national communities against extremism with respect to, for example, women’s rights and LGBT rights in addition to political extremism. (For example, in the Netherlands, where increasing numbers of progressives are as anti-immigrant as the farthest reaches of the right wing.) I’m not so sure that to raise that issue in the context of a discussion of Tariq Ramadan is automatically “shape-shifting” — though it may well have been in the comment you have in mind above — since the two forms of extremism are often understood, at least in everyday understandings held by many people, to be deeply intertwined, at least among some of their adherents. In a discussion of ideological exclusion on the basis of alleged political “Islamic extremism,” it doesn’t strike me as that much of a stretch that these other aspects of that supposed “extremism” might come up as part of the mix, and that they might be a legitimate part of the conversation — at least generally speaking.

okay, back to lurking.

peace

but that said, certainly in this thread i also see examples of what i was identifying — questioning motives (and related, in at least one example, discounting the sincerity of an equality-based critique because it did not come from an “LGBT activist”), not engaging arguments directly (or in their strongest formulation rather than their weakest/straw man like form), calling people ignorant (“at best”), accusing them of using LGBT people as “ragdolls.” and at least one sigh, just like al gore (which of course went over really well in the debate w/bush.)

and at the end of the day, avoiding the underlying issue, at least to some extent. there is a legitimate tension to be discussed here: liberal principles in speech and migration policy — which i believe in deeply — can be strained and placed under tension when they protect people who do not share the same commitment to those principles. (the aclu defending the nazis, yada yada.) that isn’t something to avoid discussing, it’s something that we absolutely must engage directly and respectfully if we are to ensure that those liberal principles survive. now, whether or not ramadan himself legitimately falls into that category, i haven’t the foggiest. and i’m sure that for many of us, the resolution of that issue doesn’t feel all that difficult to figure out because we’ve thought about it long enough and in enough different contexts to understand almost intuitively what we believe.

but that isn’t true for everyone, and it doesn’t mean that the issue isn’t a “hard” one in the formal sense. and i don’t think that we do ourselves any favors by attacking people who raise the issue, even if it seems like some of them might be doing so as a cover for some other agenda. because even if some of them might be, in general there are plenty of other intelligent and thoughtful people who are not, and who struggle with that tension sincerely. the last thing we need to be doing as progressives (i think) is to suggest that by struggling with that tension, they are merely ignorant-at-best tools of the right who don’t really care about equality for LGBT people in any sincere way, but rather are predisposed to use LGBT people as ragdolls, and to do so as a matter of convenience. “hearts and minds,” and all that — applies here at home as much as it does abroad.

for that reason, i don’t think that it’s just a to-may-to/to-mah-to thing, really, for as someone who shares many of saurav’s political commitments much of the time, i don’t like to see arguments that seem likely to alienate people who might otherwise be persuaded to what i believe in. nor, however, should i have reacted as if the sky were falling.

**

actually, siddhartha, in this discussion i have scrupulously remained a lurker until now. and believe it or not, i am somewhat bemused.

Unless, that is, you’re too busy protecting us from a Muslim scholar who was denied a visa on ideological grounds by the U.S. government

Apparently you’ve somehow failed to notice I support Ramadan’s visa (posts 55,59,116).

You seem to have your mind made up, to the point that you’re not even willing to engage in a debate about the visa (you only engage in a meta-critque of the other’s thinking). It’s almost as if it is a matter of fact that the visa denial is oppresive and that there are no reasonable arguments on the other side, and that those who think different are either “naive, a racist, or some combination of the two.”

so stop lurking and say it better than me, yo I’ll begrudgingly shut up

Thank you, oh great and wonderful hetero messiah, for bringing to mine eyes the light of truth! For verily, I say, without your guidance and powerful strength, our moral resolve would fall apart. We, the homosexuals in your midst, would begin to welcome the beatings and murders of our own people due to our own cowardice.

rolls eyes

For the record, your “right wing” views actually make it more difficult to deal with the intersection of homophobia and Islam because you would eliminate the space for conversation by tarring people with the label of “homophobic” for the purposes of other arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with protecting LGBT rights or people.

In any case, since you’re such a passionate and unwavering defender of LGBT rights and people in all contexts, I expect to see you all protesting the government of Iran, the government of the United States, the government of Poland, the government of Russia, and the NYPD all of which have undermined LGBT rights and LGBT people’s well being in different ways in the past month. You can find out more here. Let me know which demonstration or actvitiy you’ll be going to, publicizing, or otherwise supporting.

Unless, that is, you’re too busy protecting us from a Muslim scholar who was denied a visa on ideological grounds by the U.S. government–clearly the most serious threat to the LGBT communities of the world

!!!

but hey, to-may-to, to-mah-to and all that.

peace

where your(Saurav’s) position may put you in the same boat with say, castro-apologists, viloent anarchists, communists, etc

Manju,

If you are looking for a common thread that brings together LGBT activists, illegal aliens, Feminists, Communists, Islamists etc – it’s the Economic Policy. Despite their huge conflicts (Illegal Aliens are homophobes and pro-life, Communists and Islamists are at each others’ throats elsewhere in the world etc etc), they come together because all of them want a free ride at the taxpayer’s expense. All of them worship at the altar of the New Deal.

In pre-New Deal era America , one had to save and pinch pennies like a Marwari in order to have any status in society. The Government did not take care of anyone in their old age, so they had to fall back on their savings, children and the goodwill accumalated with relatives (all of which drive LGBT and Feminists up the wall). In pre-New Deal America, an immigrant had to work his/her ass off like a Gujju Motel owner and serve in the armed forces like a Sikh before he became eligible to expect anything, least of all free medical care (all of which drive Illegal aliens up the wall). In pre-New Deal America, there was no Welfare, so women actually kept their legs crossed like a south-indian belles and did not produce children out of wedlock like rabbits(all of which drive Feminists up the wall). In pre-New Deal America, bums did not get paid by the State. They starved to death in the cold winter (which drives Communists up the wall). In pre-New Deal, there was little state-support of education, so anybody who came to America with the notion of denigrating it faced the wrath of society (which drives Islamists up the wall).

It’s an alliance of convinience to stiff hard working taxpayers using Government dictat. The moment you start giving people something for nothing – it’s over.

At least America is not as bad as Europe, which I feel is on its last legs. A 2000 year old civilisation will be exitinct by the next century.

M. Nam