Savour Milk

Credits: http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/festival/fp10/presimages/HarveyMilk.gif

If you missed the Pope’s latest message of love and peace a few days ago, I will try to capture one of the essences. The Pope rightly reminds us that it is not only humanity’s responsibility to safeguard the “earth, water, and air as gifts of creation”; we must also ensure that the “order of creation” and the “nature of the human being as man and woman” be respected. Any “devaluation” of that order will lead to the “self-destruction of man”.

The general media is right to quickly jump to the conclusion that this is the latest attack on homosexuality, something that the Pope had earlier labelled as a "tendency" towards an "intrinsic moral evil”. In the true spirit of Christmas, the message of brotherhood, love and peace continues with His Holiness’ call to “defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity”, and to defend “the nature of man against its manipulation”. According to Benedict XVI, modern conceptions of “gender”, so “often expressed and understood”, has led humanity astray, driving man to “act alone and to dispose ever and exclusively of that alone which concerns him”, even if it means “living contrary to the truth”. So much for his Orbi et Urbi speech a few days later proclaiming that “hope – the heart of the Christmas message – is meant for all men and women” and that “the grace of God has appeared to all”. The words and emphases are His, not mine.

It is sad that such a message comes out of the mouth of one of the most influential religious figures, who is supposed to be God’s representative on Earth. And this coming three decades after the first openly-gay American politician Harvey Milk was cold-bloodedly assassinated.

Milk’s political career and rise is wonderfully captured in the movie with the same name. A somewhat soft-spoken man, he ran for office from his little camera shop on Castro Street of San Francisco. He mobilised the gay community and gay-friendly businesses and associations, galvonised workers’ unions and ethnic groups on a liberal platform. Milk’s campaigning would become a grassroots and integrated political process that championed not only equal rights for homosexuals, but also social welfare for the disadvantaged and marginalised. After a number of elections, he finally became a city supervisor. During his term in office, he spearheaded the passage of a gay rights ordinance in San Francisco, despite the fact that all throughout the US various counties and cities were rolling back equal protection of rights to work and privacy for gays.

America in the 1970s was marred by Christian fundamentalism. In the aftermath of various bans on same-sex marriage in various states of the US in November 2008, it is perhaps striking to draw parallels with America of then and today, which is similarly lead by a (neo-)conservative political force buoyed by a strong religious right wing. Then, with the likes of Anita Bryant, the ‘Save our Children’ campaign aimed to spread “Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and the perceived threat of homosexual recruitment of children and child molestation”. Today, through similar Bible thumpers and orthodox religious fundamentalists, such fabrications of truths and false propaganda are still being perpetuated and sanctioned with people’s blind faith in God. The spreading of fear about threats to core family values, myths about the “gay plague” and the “corruption” of children is used to startle and scare. It would be only a matter of years before people ‘came out’ to reveal the hypocrisy and “true nature” of priests who on the one hand preach against homosexuality and condemn child abuse, yet on the other hand commit such ‘sins’ behind the altar.

In messages and words similar to Obama today, Milk emphasised hope, and the need to give people hope. It is hope that can lead peoples previously sidelined and forgotten to unite and believe that change is possible. It is hope that can transcend the imaginary boundaries of sexuality, gender, class and race to forge an unstoppable force connected with shared longings for equality and social justice. It is therefore no wonder that Time proclaimed Milk one of the 100 most influential persons on the 20^th Century.

Shortly before Milk was assassinated, he uttered these bold words:

“If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door.”

Indeed, as the bullet pierced through his head that took his life, the bullet symbolically opened the doors of many previously closeted gays and lesbians. The assassin, a political rival of Milk, was left off lightly. An anti-gay jury agreed that junk food caused chemical imbalances in the perpetrator, and this defence was enough to lower the sentence to five years imprisonment for manslaughter.

Milk’s death, and his life of political activism, however, set an example for other gay-right activists to follow, and set a precedent for the gay-rights movement. Milk’s refusal to be silenced or to admit defeat when the country seemed to be against him, were based on that firm belief enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence: that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.

I end where I began, and return to the enlightened message that not only the current Pope, but also many before him, have repeatedly brought across to millions and millions of believers, young and old.

Lest you have forgotten, salvation comes to those who does the Creator’s work, and lives by the Creator’s rules—despite the fact that this same Creator, His very grace and benevolence, are supposed to have appeared “to the whole of humanity”. Though the Creator has created all men equally, the Pope kindly reminds us that the perversion of sexuality and sex is a great threat to the human race—a s great a threat as global warming and the continued destruction of the Earth’s fragile eco-system. If we do not recognise and deal with these threats, we are on a path to self-destruction. We must live the Truth, and defend the message and one and only “nature of man and woman” that our Creator has willed and created. That is the work and responsibility of the devout and the true.

This kind of message is also the seed of discord, intolerance, and wilful ignorance that has led to countless crusades, inquisitions and the spreading of despicable acts and words of violence and hatred in the name of religion.

Nothing says it best, or better, than Milk’s own words—or perhaps warning too: “That, THAT my friends, is true perversion”.

Amsterdam Gay Pride 2007

To be very honest, I'm not at all into the whole gay scene... and even less into pride events.
I guess it maybe just me, being very shy and quiet by nature, which is the complete opposite of what a gay pride is all about.

What is it all about? Being out, loud, and proud! Dancing, jiggling, screaming from the roof tops that "We're queer, we're here, and we're here to stay!"

There's nothing wrong with that, and I would never want to undermine the need to make ourselves known in a world built and dominated by heteros. There is still a lot of discrimination, misunderstanding and bigotry, even in this country, which is supposed to be the most liberal and open-minded in the whole world. But why does it all have to be so 'in-your-face' and create such a stir?

I was at the famous annual Amsterdam (A'dam) Gay Pride yesterday, where I walked around and took a lot of pictures. Every year, on the first Saturday in August, hundreds of thousands flock to A'dam to catch a glimpse of the unique pride which takes place on one of the many canals. Instead of traditional floats, here it's with boats, but no less exotic and extravagant.

It was really busy and crowded everywhere. I walked literally all around town, following the procession as it slowly circled the city. It's supposed to be the biggest event since it started in the late 70s, with over 70 boats taking part. Some were sponsored by clubs, others by companies which wanted to show that they take pride in the pride of their workers. A few boats belonged to gay-interest associations and organisations, and had a political message to them. For the first time, there was a boat with minors on it, and also one with straight people who wanted to show their solidarity with the gays. There was also one with elder people, the over 65s, but they too were enjoying the music and the wonderful weather as the crowd on either side cheered them on. Everywhere, pink sashes, rainbow flags, and colourful confetti flying all over the place.

Then... of course, and as expected at a gay pride, there were the drags in exotic Brazilian carnival-style colourful customes, alongside Moulin-Rouge-style drags in high fishnets and oversized feathered headgear. There were also hairy 'Bears' dressed in leather hot-pants, equipped with whips, their greased-up skin shimmering in the summer sun. And how could you miss the construction workers, dancing around almost completely naked in thongs, flagrantly dangling their 'tools' for everyone to see. Exotic. Erotic. Shocking. Anything goes...

I guess seeing those things were what made it a bit of a turn-off... No problem with people dressing up (or down) as they want, but why perpetuate the 'gay stereotypes' of sex, sex, sex, and screaming fags and drags? Can pride be shown in more subtle ways, instead of being so provocative and outrageously aggressive?

I mean, what makes gays different from other people is NOT the fact that we love pink and worship the rainbow flag, and love to go topless and put on make-up or weather feminine clothes.

What makes us different is that there is no difference at all! We just like and love people of the same-sex, what is 'different' about that? People are just people, with feelings and fears, emotions and desires. Man, woman, woman, man... what does it matter? Love is just love, and is blind towards who you portray it to, who you receive it from, or who you make it with. Why place so much emphasis on sex and gender, when what it all comes down to is just people engaged in the most human and basic instincts?

I don't like telling people "I'm gay". It's not because I don't want them to know, or I'm ashamed. If people ask, I answer honestly. There's nothing to hide, I've not done anything wrong. It's just that if there's one thing I dislike, it's labels. Why do I have to be 'gay', or 'Asian', 'a boy' or 'allochtone' (coloured foreigner), or anything at all? It simply makes people associate with certain ideas and stereotypes, and makes them ignorant and short-sighted by preventing them from seeing beyond the label. Why do I have to tell people I'm gay, when other people don't need to say "I'm straight"? The craziness of it all, and how confused this world is by placing so much emphasis on labels and identity, but forgetting and missing the individual and everyone's uniqueness as a human being.

Anyways, after walking around for a good few hours I felt a bit sick and wanted to get away from it all, to get away from the loud noise and excitement. Only when I managed to find a place to sit down quietly did I realise how exhausted I was from it all.


For more pictures of the gay pride, see here.

Interesting signs at A'dam Gay Pride 2007

"How did your mother react when you said that you were straight?"

"You don't look gay at all?"

Tolerance United is a campaign during the Gay Pride to bring together football and gays.
This year's pride event happens to coincide with football matches (Amsterdam Tournament) and the city government openly admitted that it couldn't guarantee safety of gays in the city. Mores specifically, a huge number of English football fans, who are often associated with hooliganism, will be in Amsterdam together with a large number of gay tourists.
A number of licenses of gay bars and restaurants to sell liquor and food were not given, because the police said they didn't have enough people to keep the peace.

The campaign aims to raise awareness and spread tolerance and respect.

"Slogan of the A'dam Gay Pride 2007: We Are"

It's a play on the slogan of the Amsterdam Tourist Office which uses 'IAMsterdam' as a slogan.

Watch out for these bands!!!!

For those people who fear the way “homosexuality invades family life through popular music”, fundamentalist gay-bashing bigot evangelical priest Donnie Davies has the solution. The proud founder of the CHOPS programme (CHANGING HOMOSEXUALS into ORDINARY PEOPLE) has kindly released a list of bands that are to be considered ‘dangerous’.

So, friends, for your own sake and for the sake of God, next time you hear Queen, Elton John, The Rolling Stones and Frankie goes to Hollywood, or Frank Sinatra, do remember to cover your ears and say your prayers. Or else you might just begin to have struggles “with undesired same-sex attractions”.

Instead, be humble and do tune into to songs that spread the wonderful message of God’s grace, love and tolerance, like “The Bible Says”:

“God hates a fag.
God hates a fag.
God hates a fag.
If you’re a fag he hates you too.

Read the Bible and you’ll be sure
to enter Heaven, there’s no back door.
Righteous man, get on your knees.
There lies no virtue in sodomy.”

Gay news...

Roundup of things in the papers I read but didn't have time to write about.

• Read in the papers two weeks ago that the Dutch are 'leaders' in the support for same-sex marriage and legalisation of sof drugs. Thus whereas only 44% of Europeans support same-sex marriage, in the Netherlands this is 82%. On legalisation of soft drugs, 49% in the Netherlands are for, compared to only 25% in the rest of the European Union. Go Holland~
  

• Shocking news carried by the Sunday Times, that scientists in the US are trying to ‘straighten’ gay sheep. By injecting hormones into male rams that have a preference for same-sex rams, the scientists at the University of Oregon report “considerable success”. Potentially this could be used on human embryos to alter the sexuality of the unborn child.

Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

• A Belgium paper reports that the end of Saddam’s regime doesn’t mean the end of persecution of gays in Iraq. According to the Internal Ministry of Iraq, as many as 50 homosexuals are abducted every day, while ho-le-bi interest groups are continually being threatened. September last year, a transsexual was burnt to death by a gang; in January a 27 year gay was killed by militia on the streets; in May a 14 year homosexual was shot dead by a policeman. Since ayatollah called on the public to murder homosexuals in March, some 350 people have been killed. Who said the American-led invasion and regime-change was supposed to bring about greater freedom…

• Apparently, among the Navajo Indians in the USA, being gay is considered 'sacred'.
  Navajos live in preserves, and have their own separate nation, as well as laws. They believe that homosexuals have two souls, one female, one male. Native American anthropolgists believe that the tradition that men could, if they wished, wear a woman's clothes, died out through the influence of Christian missionaries. See here for more on the row on the ban on same-sex marriage last year that was vetoed by the Navajo Nation president.
  
  
• Switzerland became the first country in the world to hold a referendum on same-sex partnership in 2005, and the law came into effect this week.
  
  

Gays represented in the UN!

For the first time ever since the estblishment of the United Nations, gay-interest organisations have been granted consultative status which allows them to vote in the Economic and Social Council!

The recognition of three gay-interest organisations-- the International Lesbian and Gay Federation--Europe (ILGA), Danish National Association for Gays (LBL) and Lesbians, and German Lesbian and Gay Federation (LSVD)--means that the UN is taking the rights of the LGBT community seriously.

Previous applications for consultative status were rejected because of strong oppossition from countries like Iran, Poland and the Vatican, and many church-based non-governmental organisations.

Chairman of the oldest gay-interest organisation in the world, the Dutch COC, a founding member of ILGA, said:

" The decision is an important step to get the rights of all gays, lesbians, bisxuals and transgenders recognised as human rights. It is a struggle against those countries where homosexuality is still in the criminal code, if not then [punished] with the death sentence."

The status of COC will be dealt with in 2007, and should be approved easily since it has existed for as long as the UN, and even been granted Royal recognition here in the Netherlands.

There seemed to be some commotion about the granting of consultative status today, because apparently various gay-interest NGOs applied, but only three managed to get approved. Many states complained that the approvals and rejections were done in haste and were very arbitrary and no reasons were given for the decisions that were made.

Finland, representing the European Union argued “the United Nations must try to ensure diversity in the representation of those groups. That was especially true of non-governmental organizations whose mandates fell under the competence of the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies , since much of their work dealt with matters of health, gender, development and human rights and HIV/AIDS”. It is unrealistic that some 2800 NGOs, representing a range of issues, some espousing “ views that were not in keeping with those of the European Union”, are already in the ECOSOC, whereas gay-interest NGOs are not.

Norway (also in favour, and speaking on behalf of New Zealand) complained that the Non-Governmental Organization Committee which admits NGOs into the ECOSOC did not consider the applications of various gay-interest NGOs objectively. Some organisations had their applications rejected without any substantive discussion and no reason given, despite the fact “there was extensive evidence of violations of the rights of people, based on their sexual orientation and gender identity”. Canada (in favour) also supported this view, and argued “it was crucial for non-governmental organizations representing diverse constituencies to be able to express their views in United Nations forums”. Germany (for) expressed similar concerns,

China (against) on the other hand expressed concern granting consultative status to gay-interest NGOs, saying that it might undermine the “credibility” of the Committee, and hoping that today’s decision would not “create any precedents for its future work”. Benin (against) called the decision a “masquerade”, because the hasty way that consultative status was granted was sowing “confusion for the benefit of certain organizations”. Russia also voted against, for similar reasoning.

Related
ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 provides the criteria for eligibility. An NGO must have "aims and purposes of the organization shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations", and must "have been in existence (officially registered with the appropriate government authorities as an NGO/non-profit) for at least two years, must have an established headquarters, a democratically adopted constitution, authority to speak for its members, a representative structure, appropriate mechanisms of accountability and democratic and transparent decision-making processes".

It's hard to see how it took so long to have gay-interest NGOs included in the ECOSOC. I mean if the 'International Organization for Biological Control of Noxious Animals and Plants' or the 'International Music Council', the 'Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs', and the 'International Black Sea Club' can be included why not LGBT interest groups?

No disrespect to those groups, but it's just a little bewildering that it took 61years for the UN to recognise that gays need representation too...

Gay marriage in South Africa~

South Africa became the first country in Africa to legalise same-sex marriage a couple of days ago. The first (legal) gay wedding was held on World AIDS Day, momentously marking the fifth country in the world where same-sex unions are recognised in law.

This comes after a groundbreaking South African case in December last year, where the Constitutional Court said:

“The common law definition of marriage is […] inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid to the extent that it does not permit same-sex couples to enjoy the status and the benefits coupled with responsibilities it accords to heterosexual couples.”

The court asked Parliament to change adapt a law within one year to realise same-sex couples rights to marriage. And here we are.

meeting with a minister

(lady with the mike...)

I’m not the biggest fan of the minister for integration and immigration, Rita Verdonk. Under her watch, children asylum seekers have been put in jail, people who’ve been living, some even born, in this country (illegally) for years have been forcibly deported, and at one point she was even on the verge of deporting homosexual Iranians back to their country. Her favourite motto seems to be ‘rules are rules’.

But then as the minister for integration, she has somewhat been more vocal on homosexual affairs than the rest of the cabinet ministers of this centre-right coalition government. Her VVD party (Party for Freedom and Democracy) places Article 1 of the Constitution on non-discrimination on whatever grounds above all else, and this includes sexual orientation.

So with the elections in ten days, she was invited by the biggest ho(mo)le(sbian)bi(sexual)-interest group COC for a ‘meeting with the gay voters’ in Amsterdam. Especially since the discussion was centred around ‘Homosexuality and ethnic minorities’. This I just couldn’t miss.

So I ordered a drink and sat around in the gay lounge/bar. The place was crowded with reporters and journalists and other prominent parliamentarians and ‘the common gay voter’. I was pretty nervous actually, as I always am in ‘strange’ places with strangers. Besides, I really rarely go to gay places, and everyone else seemed to be so much older and were all mingling and chatting in groups or couples. Sat around, fidgeted with my drink, read and re-read the brochures and election pamphlets, and tries to look interested, all the while hoping the show would start soon…

Finally after half an hour the minister showed up…fashionably late. She looked pretty much the same as on TV, though being just a metre away from her made it all the more exciting. A bright, long red scarf wrapped around her neck, dark blazer over a white blouse. As she walked toward the podium, she stopped and chatted to people. Most were friendly and shook hands with her, exchanging chit chat. Though one or two were not so impressed.

“Whoever pays a visit brings a gift”, she began. And she started off almost immediately with a pledge of seven hundred thousand Euros to COC and the National Bureau against Racial Discrimination (Landelijk Bureau ter bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie). A grand gesture, which sent the audience wild and applauding.

Her ‘masterplan’ is to make homosexuality accepted and discussable in society as a whole, and in particular within ethnic minority groups where a lot of intolerance and misunderstanding exists. As Verdonk said, though 90% of Dutch people accept homosexuality, in reality and practice the situation is much more different. Some 30% of Dutch natives still have a problem having a homosexual friend, whereas this within the Turkish and Morrocan communities stands at a staggering 80% (according to a recent survey in Rotterdam).

This man came on stage and told of his torments when a group of ethnic minority teens set his house on fire. Hate crimes are on the rise, but existing legislation don’t specifically refer to homophobia as one of the causes. So this money will try to combat all that. Applause. Applause.

At one moment this old lady went on stage and gave an impassioned speech about the plight of homosexual seniors. About how lonely they are, about how retirement homes don’t cater for their needs, and how they are the lost and forgotten generation because of the taboos in the past.

Much of the pledged funds will target schools, where a lot of young people still have much problems coming out, and recent reports have revealed that even teachers are going back into the closet. In much rehearsed jargons she reiterated the importance of equality and non-discrimination as the key foundation of ‘virtues and values’ of this country, and that there can be no compromise of these principles. Ethnic groups should be engaged and (made to) accept homosexuality as a norm, just as heterosexuality is accepted. Being gay cannot be a “taboo”, everyone should be able to live freely and openly as they choose to. Surprising, Verdonk says, that some 30% of people still don’t dare to come out at th work place. Why should it matter who you sleep with if you do your job well? The crowd cheered and applauded some more.

I felt at times I was at a party convention, and that this 'meeting with gay voters' was no more than part of a election campaign. Deep down I wondered how much of that money will really improve anything. With my usual sense of cynism, I left after the debate finished.

Gay leader

While voters in seven US states voted to define marriage as strictly an union between a man and a woman, the next leader of one of the biggest parties in the Dutch parliament may very well be a homosexual.

The incumbent Prime Minister Balkenende said in an interview that there would be no problem for his Christian Democratic Party to be led by the next favourite party-member Joop Wijn. The current minister for Economic Affairs is openly gay, and given the fact that his party may be the biggest party in the upcoming elections, and therefore be leader of the coalition government, there may be a chance that the Netherlands will get a gay prime minister in the future.

Once again I'm confused, perhaps baffled... why is it that the supposed champion of equality and human rights is still in the grips of religious conservatism and unable to separate state from religion, while on the other side of the Atlantic having a gay prime minister is a non-issue?

Just shows there's really more that divides Europe and the USA than just the ocean.

Policy toward homosexuals

In the run up to the parliamentary elections, PvdA (Labour Party) leader Wouter Bos expressed his views in an interview on the need to put homosexuals on the political agenda. As the most likely contender to the position of prime minister, he criticised the incumbent Christian Democrat Jan-Peter Balkenende for his lack of ‘moral leadership’ toward homosexuals. During a trip to Indonesia, the prime minister proudly announced that he had personally voted against the ‘gay marriage’ legislation, whereas he is the very person who has been preaching the importance of ‘virtues and values’, and the need for tolerance and respect for one another.

Wouter Bos:

“The reason why we now have a separate paragraph in our election campaign about homo(sexual) emancipation has to do with the fact that the equality between homo(sexuals) and hetero(sexuals) is no longer self-evident for everyone in the Netherlands. At some schools teachers are going back into the closet, young gays are being bullied and in some neighbourhoods gays are harassed or even threatened. […] Netherlands can be proud that we have as the first country in the world ‘opened’ civil marriage for homo(sexual) couples as well. That really is equal treatment. […] Our example has inspired homosexuals and lesbians in the whole world and (given them) hope. [The Labour Party] will always stand for an undivided and tolerant Netherlands. A country in which everyone gets the same chances, man or woman, young or old, born here or coming from elsewhere, homosexual or heterosexual. And where all those people, with all their differences and all their characteristics, live together on the basis of respect and equality.”

The current Minister for Immigration and Integration, Rita Verdonk, also gave an interview on the issue. Her Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has always insited that Article 1 of the Constitution on non-discrimination is above all other articles, including the freedom of religion. Thus civil servants should not be able to reject performing same-sex marriage registrations. She has also been much criticised in recent months for wanting to deport homosexual Iranian asylum seekers back to their country, where she argued it was safe to be. She focused on the issue of homosexuality in ethnic minorities:

“Homo(sexuals) and hetero(sexuals) have the same rights and deserve mutual respect. Period. That within some groups there is difficulty with homosexuality is also a fact. But exactly because of that it is important to take away the predjudices and continue to talk to one another. It seems to be really terrible if your parents do not accept you as who you are. And it appears in families with Muslims, Christians and Hindus.”

However, she argues that the government is not omnipotent when it comes to the acceptance of homosexuality:

“There can be no misunderstanding about the basic rules of our society. Men and women are just like homo(sexuals) and hetero(sexuals), ‘autochtones’ and ‘allochtones’ equal. […] the government [is not] the big problem solver. You cannot as government declare the acceptance of homosexuality per decree, however much I would like that. It must also come from society itself. Taking your own responsibility and talking to one another is important.”

Increasing intolerance

Hm… worrying trend of increasing intolerance in the Netherlands toward homosexuals reported in the paper today.

In recent weeks there have been repeated incidents of assaults targeted at homosexuals in the country. In one province, a couple of years ago there were only a dozen incidents of homophobia related crimes, now there are a hundred. Especially in and around the big cities, ironically, there have been increasing instances of verbal abuse, and at other times spitting, to the extent that couples don’t dare to walk hand in hand on the streets. Activists say the problem is related to ‘sham tolerance’: “In principle people have no problem with homosexuality, as long as they don’t see anything of it.” At schools, there’s been a noticeable increase in the use of ‘gay’ as a swear word. Teachers report having to tell gay pupils and colleagues to hide their identities for personal protection.

Now that elections are coming up (Nov 22), some parties have taken put in extra effort to raise awareness about homosexual emancipation. The ho-le-bi (homosexual, lesbian and bisexual) organisation COC produced Gayvote—a website which informs voters which party does more for the gay population in general.

As predictable, the Christian parties, despite their claims to uphold virtues and values and championing social decency and unity, do not offer much. Let’s not forget the incumbent prime minister (proudly) admitted that he voted against the act legalising homosexual marriage.

The Labour Party (Partij van de Arbeid) seems to be more active in this area, and wants to introduce harsher punishments for homopobia- related crimes, and wants to work toward the recognition of registered partnership through the European Union. Also GroenLinks (GreenLeft), which has done a lot in the past for the emancipation of homosexuals, started a campaign entitled “Hands off our gays” [“Poten af van onze homo’s”.] The party actually has an English language site worth looking at, and a summary of its activities in the past year (also in English). Did you know:

“The word cruising originates from the Dutch language (‘cruisen’), was exported into American/ English, and re-imported into Dutch.”

The GreenLeft party also produced this revolutionary proposal to abolish the male/female demarcation [in the public sphere]:

“Gender registration is considered to be a proper way to recognise a person. […]The systematic gender registration that we have in our societies only shows that gender is still a basis for discrimination.”

Another gay-interest webpage produced a list of all gays/lesbians who are candidates in the parliamentarian election.

Netherlands safe for (Iranian) homosexuals!

After wrangling on for months on whether it is safe to deport two Iranian homosexuals back to Iran, the minister for Immigration and Integration FINALLY decided that it is not. She did this on the basis of a letter from Human Rights Watch, which stated that the Netherlands would be in breach of its international obligations should the Iranians be sent back. Back in February, Minister Verdonk ridiculously suggested that “simply keeping one’s sexuality covert and one’s selfhood hidden is a safe and acceptable response to the likelihood of persecution.”

What kind of persecution do homosexuals face in Iran?

“Iran is distinguished by the overt severity of the penalties it imposes on consensual, adult homosexual conduct. “Sodomy” or lavat—consummated sexual activity between males, whether penetrative or not—is punishable by execution. (Article 111 of the Islamic Penal

Code states that “Lavat is punishable by death so long as both the active and passive partners are mature, of sound mind, and have acted of free will.”) Tafkhiz (the rubbing together of thighs or buttocks or other forms of non-penetrative “foreplay” between men) is punishable by one hundred lashes for each partner, according to Articles 121 and122 of the Penal Code. Recidivism is punishable by death on the fourth conviction. In addition, Article 123 of the Penal Code further provides that “If two men who are not related by blood lie naked under the same cover without any necessity,” each one will receive ninety-nine lashes. Articles 127 to 134 stipulate that the punishment for sexual intercourse between women is one hundred lashes and if the offense is repeated three times, the punishment is execution.”

I don’t think anyone with a vague understanding of the Iranian regime and its stringent application of Sharia would doubt that sending back Iranian homosexuals is the same as a death sentence.

“As is well known, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 called for homosexuals to be extirpated as “parasites and corruptors of the nation” who “spread the stain of wickedness.” In a further sign of the general judicial attitude to homosexual conduct, Ayatollah Musavi-Ardebili, at the time the head of the Supreme Council of Judiciary, said in a sermon delivered in 1990 at Teheran University: “For homosexuals, men or women, Islam has prescribed the most severe punishments… Do you know how homosexuals are treated in Islam? After it has been prov[en] on the basis of Shari’ah, they should seize him [or her]…they should keep him standing, they should split him in two with a sword, they should either cut off his neck or they should split him from the head. He will fall down. They get what they deserve” (BBC Monitoring, May 21, 1990).”

A year ago two Iranian teens were hanged for being homosexual. Despite this, the minister earlier this year said there was no threat posed to people to be sent back to Iran. Because of this, the minister won herself a place in HRW's Hall of Shame. Under pressure from Parliament and the public she had to freeze the deportation order. It was feared that granting asylum on the grounds of homosexuality would flood the country with those who declare themselves to be gay overnight. COC, the largest holebi interest group in the Netherlands, says this is ridiculous:

“With this decision it is ridiculous to think that tomorrow dozens of Iranians [will stand] at the border with the claim of being gay. Many Dutch gays find it difficult enough to tell them surroundings that they are gay or lesbian. Let alone if you as a straight man come from a completely homophobic country like Iran and have to, through an interpreter from your own country, tell to a government official in the Netherlands with a straight face that you have feelings for people of the same sex.”

The minister decided that “homosexual asylum seekers who have to fear persecution or risk inhuman treatment at return, are eligible for a residence permit”.

APPEAL! Gay couple to be forced apart

Just when you think that the Netherlands is a progressive country when it comes to gay rights, you're made to think again.

I came across this story of a Dutch man who fell in love with a Taiwanese man eight years ago. They subsequently got married as soon as same-sex marriage was normalised. But when the Taiwanese man went to renew his residence permit back in 2001, the Immigration Service rejected the application. Apparently the man still had not completed his compulsary military service in Taiwan, and by law must return to Taiwan to complete his duties. Representatives of the Taiwanese authorities confiscated his passport, and by law everyone who resides in the Netherlands is required to have some form of identification papers, or will considered and illegal immigrant and be forcibly deported!

Until a few years ago gays were not allowed in the Taiwanese military, and instead you had to undergo two years of 'psychiatric help'. That's changed, but still if the Taiwanese man has to go back to serve in the army, he faces eighteen months of forced separation from his partner, and a possible two to five years of imprisonment for defying a military order. Scandalous, and an utter disregard of the rights of individuals to a private and family life... and the Dutch government has done nothing to prevent this from happening, and instead is assisting by deporting the man out of the country!

The couple took the case to the highest court, and after five grueling years of court action and waiting for a response from the Immigration Service the appeal was rejected. The court actually argued that interfering in the couple's marriage was justified "in the interest of the economic wellbeing of the Netherlands and protection of public order". A twisted argument based the ridiculous assumption that all foreigners will be a burden and threat to the country, even though the couple have the economic means to support themselves! This case again underlines the inhumane immigration policies of this country and absolute disregard for human rights, and more specifically the current government's disregard of the importance of equal rights for homosexuals. This right-wing Christian conservative government MUST BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE IN NOVEMBER!!!

Excerpts from a website set up by the Dutch husband, called Flikker op!
(‘Flikker op’ means ‘go to hell’…the phrase is interesting in this case, because ‘flikker’ also means ‘fag’.)

"We [were involved in court action] for five years, and did our best to comply to the requirements in order to be together. Five years torn by tension, rejections, disappointments, pain and sadness. Five years falling and standing up, in which love held us together. Five years of [court] action in and out of the country, which in the eyes of the state is still not adequate. Whether that has something to do with our orientation you may just for yourself, I give you the following quote from an official piece that was sent to us:

“ [as far as this case is concerned] if it presumed that there is interference with the right to respect of the [family life], [and] with regard to the applicant and his husband, this interference is justified in the interest of the economic wellbeing of the Netherlands and protection of public order.”

The disrespect for the same-sex marriage appears to be overly obvious to us. It feels as if [the Ministry of] Justice does not recognise our marriage, and sees it as unworthy. This hurts, because I can assure you that our love is not less than the love of every other person, and our marriage is not less than that between a man and a woman."

Are there still people who want to fight with us against this injustice? Are there still people in politics who know what human rights are? Help us! I fear that we [will] loose each other! We love each other, and proud to be homo(sexual), but afraid for what our ministers mean by protection, and a “just and humane (immigration) policy”. They want to separate us and for [the ministers of this country it does not matter if my husband goes to jail].

At the moment I am ashamed that I am Dutch. Who makes us proud again?”

I was moved to tears when I read this...

This was reported also in the Gaykrant:

"Officials of the IND [Immigration and Naturalisation Service] assert in an official document that "[there is] doubt as to the legitimacy of the homo(sexual)-marriage" They write this in a report about a homosexual couple that made use of the 'liberalisation' of civil marriage in the Netherlands in May 2001. [link mine]

If the reasoning of the civil servants is followed through by the minister, there will from now on be a two-fold division in marriages, that for heterosexuals and that for homosexuals."

Utterly unconstitutional if this were to really take place. And non-discrimination on whatever grounds is the founding principle of this country. The article continues:

“The Dutch [Ministry of] Justice called it ‘[not a] real divorce”, says a defeated Veenhof [the Dutch partner]. “Ridiculous of course. If we don’t get to see each other for up to seven years, there is nothing left of our marriage.” In the meantime he is, according to him, embittered and fatigued. “We [have come to a dead halt]. I have done everything to prevent this, and it is still happening.” Trust in the Dutch government he has completely forgotten. “It appears as if the government want to deport as many people as possible, and this even though [Minister for Immigration and Integration] Verdonk had clearly promised not to separate married people. I hear nothing about [Prime Minister] Balkenende’s ‘virtues and values [propaganda], of [Minister of Justice] Donner’s promise of protection. I am scared of everything and everyone—and to be honest I am ashamed to be Dutch.”


What you can do to help!

The campaign is in Dutch, but you could still help by visiting this page and putting your signature down as a show of support for the couple:

Uw naam:
[Your name]

Uw e-mail adres:
[Your email address]

If you can read and write Dutch, then you can help by writing to MPs, the Prime Minister and interested parties. There’s a model letter on that same page.

UPDATE 28 Sept2006

A member of the GroenLinks (GreenLeft) party has asked Minsiter of Immigration and Intergration Verdonk for clarification on this matter. MP Naïma Azough argued that in all other preceeding cases of foreigners married to a Dutch national the minister had prevented deportation and extended a residence permit. The question is why this case is treated any different.