I slam Islam - My Problems with the Faith

I’ve tried writing this several times, once about the perils of multiculturalism and once again about the compatibility of Islam and democracy, when truth be told, once I stripped away the meandering introductions all it really boiled down to was an articulation of my distaste for Islam. Now that that’s out in the open, I’m sure the cries of Islamophobe will come rolling in – which is one of the reasons I’m not too keen on this religion of peace. (That would be the same religion of peace that is currently engaged in internal civil war, with Shia and Suuni factions bitterly opposing one another)

This is something that should really go without saying, but I feel the need to preemptively defend myself – I don’t hate or dislike Muslims, it’s the ideology I have a problem with. To coin a phrase, I’m hating the sin and not the sinner. While I’m at it, I should point, in the interests of fairness, I have no great love for Christianity, much less any organised religion. But here I am, talking about Islam and not Christianity, because today Christianity is like a muzzled dog, there’s no bite.

This a difficult topic to discuss because any concern or critique is immediately seized by the twin hands of Islamophobia & Racism, and the life is throttled out of the discussion before it’s began. (Much in the same way any criticism of Israel is immediately anti-Semitic). Strangely, it’s usually those on the left that are quick to toss around labels, the very same people who are normally guardians of ideas like feminism, equality, and gay rights. But there’s a danger to shutting down debate, if valid concerns are ignored, if people are derided as racist or Islamophobic, their views are driven underground, If people are pressured into silence, then in the end it is unsavoury groups on the far right that champion the cause. Do not underestimate how many voters are single issue voters.

If we take a memetic¹ approach to religion then its function is to replicate and survive, and in order to do that it must contain a set of processes which allow it to remain intact, or adapt. One of the ways a religion can secure its future is by preventing criticism, in other words, it has defence against environmental threats. This manifests as a belief that holy texts are divine revelation - the true, infallible word of god; it is therefore perfect and to question it would be to criticise god himself. This memetic trick is quite clever, it presents claim and evidence as one entity – this knowledge comes straight from god, god has given you this knowledge, therefore it is true. The memetic defence can go a step further by dictating punishments for those who do question or criticise its authority, acting as a deterrent to would be blasphemers and punishing the inquisitive souls who raise uncomfortable questions.

The Abrahamic religions have a rich tradition of punishing those who blaspheme, yet there is only one which continues to do so, both in the United Kingdom and the Middle East. Admittedly, in the UK the punishment is not delivered by the law courts as blasphemy laws were abolished in 2008, instead retribution comes from the public. Take the case of gymnast Louis Smith who drunkenly mocked Islam in a private video which was leaked; he was given a two month suspension and also received death threats for his actions. Imagine if this video had been mocking Christianity, it wouldn’t have made the news. This is how de facto blasphemy laws work, by creating such a social taboo around a subject that there is no need for the courts to intervene. The Church of England is the state church, and it wouldn’t dream of acting in such a manner, it respects the hard won ideals of the enlightenment - that no idea is above criticism, beyond reproach, or immune to mockery.

If practitioners of any faith wish to hold their belief system in such high esteem that they consider it unquestioningly perfect, fine, but do not expect non-believers to hold it to the same standard; nor should us heathens and kuffars be expected to self-censor for fear of offending believers - nor should we be expected to receive censorship for that which may provoke a reaction, e.g. the drawings of a prophet. Again, argue bad taste until you’re blue in the face, but the fact that a simple satirical cartoon can elicit such a violent and quite literally lethal response is unacceptable in the modern world. If you disagree with the violent response but in the very same breath qualify your disdain with “...but you know the reaction you would get”, you are an apologist. Let us not deflect – the real issue is not the drawing (no matter how offensive or in bad taste you declare it to be), but the reactions.

There’s also the small issue of the findings of a fairly recent ICM poll which suggested over half of Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal – which is a far cry from taking umbrage to the notion of same sex marriage. Now, I certainly don’t think a person is homophobic for having religiously based reservations on the topic (I do think their beliefs are homophobic). Wanting to criminalise my lifestyle on the other hand? A touch homophobic. In the interests of fairness, I did hear a Muslim say homosexuals were condemned only when they conducted their affairs in public, but keep it behind closed doors and it was all fine. Ah, yes, nothing like an entire life lived in total secrecy – because as soon as someone were to find out, either by mistake or wilfully, then it was over, time for condemnation and punishment.

Of course, some would argue this is all down to interpretations of the text, that those who would profess such views are twisting the faith, are not true Muslims, just as those preaching literal (or ‘radical’) interpretations of the texts would level the same charge. It’s a simple logical fallacy, the ‘no true Scotsman’. Open to interpretations or not, the fact is, the texts offer justifications for the actions in the minds of adherents.

And yes dear reader, I’m perfectly aware that ‘Not all Muslims...’ - I’m perfectly aware there are moderate Muslims who do not think or react in the ways mentioned above, but then clearly we’re not talking about that denomination of the faith. (I thought we were supposed to mock Not all x responses? Or is that only when it comes to men and white folk?)

When it’s stripped away, and I’m being honest, I resent the pedestal Islam is put upon – I dislike the social taboo surrounding criticism of the religion, the violent reactions to satirical cartoons, and the apologetic responses from non-believers to those attacks. I dislike the fact non-believers constantly proclaim Islam as ‘a great faith’ - if it’s so great why aren’t you apart of it? These are things afforded to no other section of society, it elevates an imported religion above the church of the state, and we are forced to capitulate to it, to surrender our right to freely criticise and mock in order to keep the peace and not offend anyone. We spent too long winning freedoms from one religion to simply surrender them to another.

A few years ago there was an outcry about Halal meat sold in high-street restaurants and big-name supermarkets without being labelled as such. The idea of the packaging remaining unlabelled is curious – if you are trying to attract faith-conscious shoppers, why skip the label? Unless you think the label will put off more people that it would attract? So then what is the purpose? One can only assume it has something to do with the logistics of the supply chain - buying a Halal meat, selling a portion in unlabelled packages, and marketing the remainder as Halal. As a former vegetarian I never accepted the argument against Halal on animal welfare grounds, most Halal meat is stunned before the blood is drained, just as typically slaughtered animals are stunned (although there still remains a small percentage where this is not the case). What is of concern are those members of the public who hold religious views and are unknowingly eating Halal meat; for some, eating meat that has been blessed in the name of another god is idolatrous – and if we are now in the business of respecting all faiths, then it would be unethical for such meat to remain unlabelled.

We laugh at other traditions, but we’re commanded to revere Islam, which, just as many other religions do, has precepts so fantastic, every rational person should pause for thought – child brides, winged horses, and splitting the moon in two. There’s also the wholly voluntary practice of women not at all being forced to cover their hair, face, or entire body – because they should be modest - lest they stir up (apparently) uncontrollable urges in men, which then...victims blames. (If the woman was modest she wouldn’t have been raped!) I suppose in that sense modern feminism and ancient Islam are compatible, all men are rapists.

The lack of criticism allowed is a problem, it does a huge disservice to the modernisers and reformers within the Islamic community; members who are so very often on the front line of abuse. We need to make it clear that rational debate and criticism is allowed; that concerns about religious practices or extremism are not ‘Islamophobic’, and they’re certainly not hateful.

1Memes are cultural units of expression which are analogous to genes. Ideas and practices which are repeated and replicated, transmitted across a population and down through generations. e.g. ear-rings as decorations

Homophobia Did Not End With Marriage Equality

Just the other day it was the 50^th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, a piece of legislation decriminalising sex between consenting men aged 21 or over. Just for a moment, especially if you’re straight and happen to be reading this, think about that. The state went from criminalising all sex acts between men at any age, to only criminalising sex acts to those under 21. This what is meant when someone throws about the phrase ‘policing our sex lives’. And yes, while you can make the case of state policing in all sex lives, it was not the heterosexual population which were held to a different standard, or discriminated against.

We’ve come quite a way since being judged criminals in the eyes of the law, but let’s not forget how we got here; those responsible for the rule of law did not have miraculous Damascene moments throughout their lives...It was only through the brave efforts of those who came before us, the drag queens, the people of colour, the camp queens, and the muscle Marys, all taking a stand, and a great risk, in demanding equality. The next time you scoff at the idea of a pride parade, pause and consider the riots and beatings of those who came before us, and have a little respect. We all know the parades of today are a different beast to those of the past, that happens, things change, and while it’s a commercialised day of drinking – the point is, for all the leather and boxer-briefs, 8 inch heels, and toned torsos contorting to Kylie, we are visible and we’re not going away.

The south of Ireland can get married, as can the rest of the UK, but the gays of Northern Ireland cannot – we’re forgotten by the Republic, and ignored by Westminster. This isn’t to say marriage equality is a panacea, far from it – if you can get married, that’s great, get down on one knee, but try falling asleep on a train while holding your husband’s hand, or resting your head on his shoulder. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/police-hunt-men-over-horrific-homophobic-attack-on-londonbound-train-a3480886.html) LGB people are twice as likely to attempt suicide as heterosexual people, a quarter of homeless people are LGBT, and 80% of us have experienced bullying in school because of something we have no control over. The word ‘gay’ is still used as a pejorative. Nazi symbols are still spray painted on our bars. Marriage equality has not fixed that.

Those fortunate enough to live in bustling big cities can forget what it’s like, a cruel irony, given that most of us flock to those big cities to escape the everyday homophobia or ‘micro-aggressions’ that small town living can bring.

Let’s not forget that winning the right to marry was only one more milestone, another battle won, not the end of the war. We must continue to fight for the little things - being able to walk hand-in-hand without fear of abuse or embarrassment, to part ways with a kiss free from retribution, and for what we are to not be used as a playground insult. I am thankful we are in a position that these are the troubles we face, and I am saddened that our brothers are still being rounded up by states, tortured, and even killed.

We must continue to speak out and fight for equality, to exist as we are without conforming to what others deem acceptable, whether that’s from within or without. It is bad enough when the rest of the world rally against our existence, we do not need it from our own. That internalised homophobia only serves your oppressors, you can be as masculine as you like, but at the end of the day you still like dick. I’ve seen gay people say camp queens and effeminate men ‘give the rest of us a bad name’ - no, they don’t – you do. It was those queens that took a stand so that we may take for granted all that we’re afforded today. The effeminate guys have bigger balls than all those bro-for-bro fellas put together, they aren’t trying to blend in, they live their life as they like, with not an ounce of fear.

We must continue our fight for equality, and we must make sure that it is equality, not assimilation.  

Queer Conservatives Confuse Me

The introduction of gay marriage in 2014 was the death knell of the gay rights movement, and rightly so; now that we can finally get married, just like our SBFs (straight best friends) what is there left to fight for? We can all settle down in our little right-to-buy, with our cat familial, debating the pros and cons of adopting a Korean vs Hungarian orphan, while sipping premium brand artisan gin & Fever Tree tonic.

Antipathy to our cause has naturally been on the rise after the activism of the late 20^th century waned – as social attitudes towards homosexuality changed, there was less need to be so vocal, or radical; in short, we no longer needed to be so angry. Pride parades today are less about the struggle, and more about the party; angry marches demanding rights replaced by gyrating hot pants and dancing all night. We can’t be sacked for being gay, and now we can marry – but two thirds of of us are likely to experience mental health problems, LGBT youth are still more likely to find themselves homeless compared to straight counterparts, with 77% believing the family rejection and violence was because of their orientation or gender identity.

There have always been gays in the Tory party, some secret, some out, but through the ages they’ve been there – they had their hypocritical hands on levers of power, and they worked against their own because they themselves were protected. Brian Coleman writes in the New Statesman that droves of gay men flocked to Thatcher, which I find hard to believe given Section 28. But then, the gays do have a tendency to idolise strong women, and as we internalise a lot of homophobia, we’re not above acting against our own interests – so it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he’s right. Is it once again another strong woman in power and pearls which attracts our kind to the nasty party?

I’m not old enough to have seen the introduction of Section 28, and neither are the young gays flocking towards the Tories, but that doesn’t mean it should be ignored – it is apart of our history. An Act introduced by then PM Margaret Thatcher, prohibiting local councils from ‘promoting’ homosexuality or ‘pretended family relationships’ cited by many to be responsible for high level of homophobia. Of course Section 28 was repealed in 2003 (but only after Baroness Young [Tory Peer] died, leaving no one to lead the opposition). In fact, Tory-led Kent Council has its own version of Section 28 still on the books.

When it comes to the 80's AIDS epidemic the Toy government were slow to start in offering their help with the epidemic, some even going so far as to say they were indifferent to the scores of men dying from the disease. Mrs Thatcher even denied a ministerial broadcast on the matter, despite the idea having cross-party support. By this point, ‘quite enough’ had already been done because of a few PSAs. Tell that to the dead.

Maybe it’s a side effect of the vapid and vacuous narcissistic era we find ourselves in, the notion that if it doesn’t effect me, it doesn’t matter. Let history be resigned to the books, they say, the world’s no longer like that, they say, after all, we can marry now.

Maybe history is irrelevant for these young new Tories, perhaps it was the great moderniser, David Cameron that brought them to fold - he managed to more than double the their youth vote (10% to 20.5%). Because of this great and glowing Tory, we have same-sex marriage, hooray! Of course, it would be unfair to give the PR PM all the credit for gay marriage, after all, more than half his party opposed the move, with the motion passing only because of Labour votes, but still, with just one of many policies picked from the Labour manifesto, he will be remembered as the PM who introduced gay marriage, or he would be, if it wasn’t for that other thing...no, not that one, the other thing.

It seems that for every bit of equality we get, we become more homogeneous. We will get married, we’ll emulate the whole straight thing. We’re going to be gay, but we’ll do it on your terms, because you were nice enough to let us get married it would be a shame if we all didn’t settle down, get a dog that can fit in a carrier bag, and resign ourselves to the same dreary existence as our straight brothers and sisters.

It seems strange that after what is usually a torturous adolescence, there would members of our own ranks that would seek out the opposition (at worst) or apathetic (at best). Is it a weird manifestation of Stockholm Syndrome, or is it an extension of this modern need for constant validation and approval? We always want what we can’t have and always crave that which kills us.

Perhaps, dear reader, I am simply bitter and holding firmly to a grudge I should let die. But I can’t easily reconcile recent history and a reluctant reception to the party. A fiscal outlook, it isn’t enough for me to betray the years or hardship caused by a nasty party.

Years or hardship still caused, only now they're directed at someone else.

Defending *that* Homophobe

In defence of the homophobic gay guy.

If you’re gay you’ve probably seen that article from Gay Times- or at least the headline in all it’s baited glory. You’ll also no doubt have seen the comments, or the quoted retweets. Scum! Get into the sea. Shut the fuck up! Umm, no! Etcetera etcetera etcetera. (If you haven’t already read it,click here and give it 5 minutes of your time.)

The headline itself does what its supposed to do; evoke a response, in this case anything ranging from disbelief to rage. Perhaps it made you feel a bit too much, commenting or retweeting your disdain without having read past the byline, but read on and you’ll find things aren’t quite as they appear…

The article starts as you would expect, the questions one faces when coming out, nothing shocking there. We’ve already been prompted by the headline to expect homophobic themes throughout – they’re blatant, but you don’t need two thirds of a psychology degree to spot the confusion staggering from start to finish. This confusion, or cognitive dissonance, gives us context and an insight in the mind of a gay guy with some internalised homophobia.

It’s important to note that when we talk of homophobia regarding this GT article, we’re talking about casual homophobia as opposed to outright homophobia. The latter is your bog standard ‘kick the queer’s head in!’ kind, while the former is more ‘I don’t have a problem with gay people, I just don’t want them rubbing it in my face’. (Rubbing it one’s face usually means ‘please don’t kiss in front of me, two men kissing is gross’ - more on that later)

Cereal Killer (CK) lets us in on the fact he was a victim of homophobia during school – just as many of us were. He freely admits it left its mark, and yet towards the close of the article he reveals that in a recent interview he claimed homophobia never had much of an impact. How does he explain this cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. He probably isn’t even aware he said the two conflicting statements, but he has admitted this homophobia confuses him. The mental disorientation doesn’t end there - after telling us he accepted being gay when he was sixteen, CK then confides that eighteen years later he still hasn’t accepted it 100%. Again, the disparity is addressed by neither CK nor interviewer – again probably slipping under the gaydar.

There is another telling bit where he refers to his sexuality as forced – what this means I do not know. Is it an act? Can one feel pressured into being gay? I’m at a loss.

And as if this isn’t enough, the home run comes at the end -

“Am I happy in my sexuality? Yes. If I could shake a magic wand and make myself straight tomorrow would I? Yes. Am I happy about that? NO.”

Stop. Look. Read. In one sentence the man tells us he’s happy in his sexuality, then in the very next breath he tells us he would alter his sexuality if he could. Are these really the words of a man happy and comfortable in his sexuality? One could argue that he couldn’t really be in love with his ‘amazing boyfriend’ if he truly thinks this, but people in love (gay or straight) do stupid things all the time, and shocker, they also do things that are selfish and to the detriment of their partners.

This isn’t the interview of someone who deserves to be branded scum, or told they’re harming the gay community, this is the outlook of someone who is realising that Dale Winton and Julian Clarey, tank tops and Kylie, are not the four corners of the gay community. This is someone who needs a cup of coffee and a weekend with The Velvet Rage.

Internalised homophobia is a thing – it has reared its ugly head in all of us at some point – some still have it – from the masc4masc guys who hate queens to the closet cases who can’t understand why we even need Pride. Some of us get over it, some of us don’t – but it does take time, and an understanding of others and ourselves.

I’m tempted to paraphrase Mean Girls and I’ve yet to resist temptation, so I shan’t start now – We have got to stop calling each other names, it only tells straight people that it’s okay to call us names. This is the interview of a clearly confused individual, one who has yet to become comfortable in their own skin. Accepting who and what we are is never easy, and the problem is only compounded when you’ve got a world telling you you’re not quite right – we should be helping and supporting others, not raining down righteous condemnation.

Let’s put this in perspective, CK never called for the stoning of fags, nor banning the mention of us in school, his biggest crime was saying he’s still not comfortable with other gay guys showing affection in public – just as he is not comfortable showing gay affection in public. Yes, gay affection, because I have no doubt he’d have no issue kissing a girl in public.

There’s enough hate directed at us from the outside, let’s not start attacking from the inside too.

Coming Out(?)

Coming Out.

For as long as your parents have told you they love you, society has told you it hates you – you’re not quite right; you look like a regular human, but you’re not really deserving of the same rights, perks or privileges, or the same easy life granted to your straight friends and family. Instead, you go through school carrying your school bag, PE bag, art folder, and what seems like something you'll never tell anyone...

When the word gay appears in an English text, you pray no one looks your way, that no one’s going to pass comment or make a joke. Every jib, joke and verbal salvo avoided is a personal victory. You watch as the effeminate guys, and the boys whose voice has taken a little longer to break, get called faggot or queer – you say nothing. You know they’re not gay, they’re just unfortunate to be late bloomers, have little interest in football, or have a naturally higher-pitched voice. Either way it doesn’t matter, the attention isn’t focused on you. The changing room after P.E. is a minefield, get in, get out, don’t make eye-contact, don’t let your gaze linger on anything, foot, towel or football boot, it doesn’t matter. If you aren’t facing the wall, boring holes, they’ll know. Accidental eye-contact? You’ve just outed yourself. They’ll know there’s a faggot in the changing room; letters will be sent home to parents, you’ll have to get changed somewhere else, for their own safety of course.

You navigate your way through the day, mostly with ease, until you need to take a particular corridor or stairwell, and at a time you’d rather not. You missed any bother on your own lunch period, but now you need the toilet and you’re stuck in a geography classroom at the back of the school, and unlike the girls, you’ve gotta go alone – that’s when you get the names, and the smugness – don’t bother coming this way, we’ve got our backs firmly to the wall, so mince on. It’s unpleasant, you think to yourself, but at least it’s not physical, And at least you’re alone – there are too many red faces when you’re with friends, they're flush with embarrassment, you're scarlet with shame.

Despite the odd name calling, you hide it well enough, you think. You’ve had girlfriends for the early part of secondary school, but you only hold hands and kiss, and go to the cinema, and debate buying one of them a ring from the Argos catalogue. Eventually that stops as you come to realise you can’t keep stringing girls along, it’s not fair, and to be honest, you just can’t be bothered. You know eventually it’s going to have to come out.

You dance around the issue for a while- until you build up the courage to tell your friends. I’ve got something to tell you – and they reply, as they wave invisible placards - “Are you gay? We support you.”. They laugh and smile and they say it like they’re joking, but you know they mean it – they already know. (They’ve probably known a lot longer than you give them credit for – but they’re your friends, and they’ve let you come round in your own time.)

It’s out, and suddenly you feel lighter, it's a different sort of smile, a happiness that you can’t feign. And for what it's worth, it's one that belongs only to us. You don't get to smile with that sort of relief if you're straight.  You’ve made the first steps towards coming out and the world still turns. Gradually you tell your other friends, of course some try and make it about themselves, “He went out with me/It’s my fault/I turned him gay” but none have a problem with it – in fact, quite the opposite. You’re the hottest new accessory, thanks for Will & Grace. You’re the gay best friend, and bonus points for being the socially acceptable Will. (Also great, because being offended when someone says you’re more like Jack...who needs that?)

It becomes something of an open secret at school, until one night you meet your first ever real-life, fellow gay. This isn’t chat over Faceparty, or email, or MSN, this is real, in-the-flesh, friend-of-a-friend gay. Of course you kiss - you’re gay, he’s gay, it’s taken you 16 years to meet one, who knows when the next one will come along. For the first time you feel what it’s like to have teenage stubble rub against your face and bring to your face the red flush of excitement and rawness of stubble rash. This of course all happens outside, behind a wall, near school, on an Irish autumn night – which is very much like a harsh English winter’s night; it’s dark, and it’s very windy, and you’re both wearing awful denim jackets that provide no insulation at all. But you can feel the heat of a guy’s torso against your own for the very first time.

While it’s taken you 16 years to get your first real kiss, you can only savour the intimacy for an evening, because the next day in school, everyone will know. How? Who told them? Was it not only friends there that night? Well, the genie’s out of the closet now and suddenly what used to be your favourite thing in the world – suddenly becomes the worst. The history teacher wheels the tiny 24” CRT TV to the front of the room and makes a hasty retreat to the staff room for a fag of his own. Suddenly, something that never happens in fourth period history - there’s an engaged and inquisitive class, unfortunately the topic this week is Contemporary Homosexual History, very contemporary in fact.

You try to avoid the questions, pretend you haven’t heard them, but the colour of your face tells everyone you have. Your eyes dart around the room, looking for an ally. There are none. You don’t know how to respond until suddenly from across the room, like late the entry of the USA into WWII, someone comes to your aid. It’s the girl who sits beside you in Spanish class, o-fucking-le, indeed. And she’s right, it’s none of their fucking business, and so what if you did kiss a boy? I wasn’t doing anyone any harm. And why are you so interested anyway? Are you jealous? At least I was getting some. Now turn round and shut the fuck up before she makes you. The class goes wild, there is laughter, there are cheers, but most importantly, there is relief.  

Gradually you come to realise the whole world isn’t against you, it just looks and feels that. You have friends that support you, classmates who defend you, and parents of friends who accept you.

You slowly start to come around to the idea of telling your own parents, you painstakingly start to build up the courage, to find a way to bring it up in conversation, but you’re ambushed! They ask you – well, your mum does, dad doesn’t want to know the answer, or rather, he doesn’t want it confirmed.

And so you tell her, you tell your mother. And you know what? You were right all those years ago, and still continue to be right today. They’re your parents, and they love you unconditionally. That’s not to say coming out didn’t have awkward conversations or hurtful, ignorant comments, you may not have been allowed to work with children (!!) but at least you weren’t disowned.