Extremist ideologues usually react with intense aversion to LGBT rights. 'Anti-imperialism' is a distinctly hteronormative world view as unnuanced as it is depraved, gay rights can only exist in the open societies that extremists loathe yet live in. They react to talk of gay rights with venom as if they are trying to mimic the violence to which their beloved dictatorships treat sexual minorities. They abandon arguments in favor of shouting invented thought terminating cliches like 'pinkwashing' or even more hilariously 'homoimperialism."
John Wight's attack on Stephen Fry for criticizing Putin is an example of that vile tradition. According to Wight Russian gay laws are nothing more than "making it illegal to provide information on homosexuality to under-18 years." Which is false as we can see from arrests of foreign homosexual tourists, police collusion in neo-nazi homophobic attacks and other well documented cases. Even critics fail to grasp the horrors of Putin's new laws which exist to exert control over the bodies of adult citizens. Wight downplays Russian institutional homophobia making himself an apologist for Putin.
John thinks that Fry's criticism makes him guilty "hypocrisy" whch is idiotic as the article opened with praise for how Fry criticized Britain over its foreign policy and gay rights. Wight is under the impression that Stephen's comparison "contemporary Russia to Nazi Germany" over the law is "ludicrous." He thinks that "only serves to trivialise fascism and the huge suffering endured by the Russian and Soviet people in the Second World War."
I doubt that socialist unity has never published any hyperbolic nazi comparisons. Fry didn't say that Russia and the third reich are the same he compared how both states have resorted to scape goats. If Stephen's comparison trivialized fascism and WWII deaths then the Russian state is guilty of that on a massive scale as WWII hyperbole is a common in Russian discourse. Neo-nazism is a growing ideology in the Russian federation, they have become significant political force.
John sees fascists under the bed yet seems to think that an authoritarian anti-secular state like the Russian federation is not fascist. He supports states like Baathist Syria, a classically fascist state that employed Alois Brunner to help them replicate fascism. Wight downplays Putin's homophobia while viciously attacking one of Putin's critics which makes it clear that he fully supports Russia's crackdown on gay teens who want to hold hands in public. The article has no condemnation of Putin's policies, none whatsoever.
Apparently "there are still cultural issues with regard to prejudice against gays in the country, the idea that liberals and activists in Britain have the requisite moral authority to preach to the Russian government over the issue is the product of arrogance." Wight confirmed by his status an apologist and supporter of Russian anti-gay measures by arguing that British activists cannot criticize Russia because he says so. He doesn't other any evidence or arguments in support of his quip which boils down to "shut it you f*ggots." The act of a straight man telling LGBT activists to be silent is abominably pompous homophobia much like a man telling women to be silent about FGM which socialist unity defended with similar arguments.
Next John tries to prove his charge of his hypocrisy by asking "where was the call from Stephen Fry for the 2012 London Summer Olympics to be moved in protest at Britain’s participation in illegal wars responsible for so much chaos and carnage in the Middle East, for example?" He only proved his own hypocrisy since he does not call for the Sochi olympics to be boycotted over Russia's ongoing war in the Caucasus. He mentions torture in the second sentence but he omits that Russian have engaged in torture with the state's blessing. Its even more hypocritical since John supports the Syrian dictatorship which makes him a supporter of a war of chaos, carnage and torture. Besides even he mentioned how Fry criticized British foreign policy in the middle east so no he is not a hypocrite unlike Wight.
Next its back to cultural relativism: "societies remain uncomfortable with homosexuality" that does not in anyway absolve the Russian state. If Britain were to pass similar laws against Muslims or some other worthy minority would John blog about how many countries remain uncomfortable with Muslims? The hypocrisy proves Wight's deep homophobia, sexual minorities are worth less than garbage to him.
Wight tried to save face by writing "there is of course nothing wrong with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice" but only further proves his opposition to gay rights. He expressed support for "freedom to choose any lifestyle a person so wishes" but not for LGBT equality. Like gay cure counselors he sees homosexuals as people who have chosen a 'lifestyle' not as people whose lives and loves are equal to hterosexuals.
Wight justified Kremlin persecution of sexual minorities by arguing that "social attitudes are inevitably buttressed and influenced by cultural traditions." He railed against 'western-centrism' but argued that "Russia’s new law against providing information on homosexuality to minors, while regressive, has to be seen in this context" thus he elevates his own opinion which is mired in bigotry over the voices of Russian gay activists, now thats western-centric!
John writes for a blog which praises peoples like (cli)Che Guevara who had Cuban homosexuals arrested and thrown into concentration camps. He praises Stalin who sent homosexuals to gulags and seems to think that he can tell them what to do. He also engages in apologia for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which gave the third reich a free hand to begin the Shoah.
The article ends with a reminder that "Vladimir Putin is not Hitler and any attempt to conflate him with the fascist dictator responsible for the Holocaust is not just wrong it’s offensive." Fry did not equate the two he compared scapegoating by both states. Perhaps tomorrow he can publish an article that libels George Takei and praises Nasrallah.
Far-left thought is obsolete and has nothing to offer but hate and only attracts people under the delusion that their darker impulses become noble with the right slogans.
No comments:
Post a Comment