There are many different and gradiated responses to the recent tragedy in Orlando. Some are coherent and desirable (for instance, demands for greater controls on the sale and purchase of firearms). Most are blame-oriented (whether of people or public legislation). And a depressingly decent-sized number are outright objectionable.
Never mind that banning further Muslim migration to America wouldn’t have had any impact upon a man born in New York. Disregard the fact that easy access to firearms quite clearly had an obvious role to play here. Who cares if it turns out that the shooter’s about as nominally Islamic as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is either democratic or something other than a hereditary monarchy. During a full-on election season frenzy, right-wing (Islamophobic) conservative commentators clearly know what’s up!
And so they’ve come forth streaming from the woodwork, en-masse. People who, perhaps less than a year ago were jumping up and down in opposition to the passage of equality of marriage in the US – in some cases outright demanding the continued marginalization of gay people and other sexual minorities in their local polity’s national discourse – are now queuing up to condemn overtly homophobic violence.
Is this a win?
Well, arguably yes – but in actual, practical terms almost certainly not.
For you see, nothing’s actually changed other than the target of the derision and conservative opprobium. This isn’t seriously a “nobody picks on our gays but ME” moment (as deplorable as even that sentiment would be). Instead, it’s a point at which the narrative shifts (or they seek to have it do so), and the flailing, hate-mongering minorities (who, lets be clear, while they’re often from arid, religiously conservative and well-armed backgrounds almost invariably seem to be Texans rather than Taliban) attempt to get large swathes of us all of the rest of us to go along with their bigoted agenda.
Or, in other words … they haven’t changed what they believe – only the way in which they package it up and try to get portions of ‘middle society’ to go with them on it. Occasionally with some marked degree of success – you now semi-regularly get theoretically liberally-minded people who ought know better making the sort of demands you might expect from a well-ensconsed and superfluously educated religious academic about the need for ‘religious reform’ and movements away from ‘strict exegetical literalism’.
In short, a lot of people professing an ardent desire to (at lest rhetorically) “Defend The Gays”, are no friends of the gay community at all. And are instead merely doing so in a bid to find a liberal-amenable justification for Islamophobia.
It’s an insidious trend, a depressing trend, and all too often it’s the contemporary trend.
But what started me thinking about this curious profusion of conservative bigotry dressed up in liberal clothing (and assuredly attempting to co-opt liberal struggles for its own nefarious ends and purposes) wasn’t the events of the weekend. Instead, it’s been something that I’ve been observing for some time.
One of the best examples of which took place at a meeting late last week.
There, a small knot of Islamophobes (at least one of whom turned out also to be a Hinduphobe, much to my rising choler) made a great show of demanding that “certain groups” be “encouraged” to “leave New Zealand”, on grounds that their religious heritage and practices have “no place in New Zealand” due to, inter alia, how women are allegedly de facto and in all instances disempowered by same.
This is, on the face of it, a Liberal argument (albeit of the sort of character of un-intersectionalized ‘liberalism’ which started falling out of fashion and favour some decades if not almost a century ago).
But watch what happened next:
The only woman present at the meeting fairly immediately piped up, and drew upon her own experiences living elsewhere and engaging with the “certain groups” in question to argue against what had been said and point out that the older white males with the Islamophobic agenda had, in fact, gotten things fairly far askew wrong.
Their response was to talk over her, and tell her rather vigorously to shut up.
Almost immediately, my mind processed the irony I had just witnessed. Here were a group of self-declared conservatively minded people who’d just talked in fairly glowing terms about the progressive need to protect women’s empowerment from the sadly benighted scourges of religious difference … presently demonstrating the utter lie to their nominal convictions by attempting to silence and disempower a woman who dared to speak ‘out of turn’ in opposition to their agenda. Truly, “the revolution needs protecting from itself”.
So what this exchange fairly conclusively proved to me, was simple. That many a modern ‘conservative’, when they speak out against misogyny (or, in this Orlando case, homophobia) and urge stringent, rigorous action against a religious demographic rhetorically identified as being fundamentally incompatible by its mere existence and presence with same … they aren’t doing so because they actually have any deep nor abiding belief in the desirability of a more tolerant and progressive society.
In fact, quite the opposite.
What they’re instead seeking to do is find a more modernly-acceptable surface justification with which to garb their hidebound and objectionable personal-curmudgeonly agendas. A way to earn ‘PC-brownie points’ and semi-enthusiastic head-nodding from modernists who do (usually) know better by spouting largely the same prejudicial statements they’ve always believed but haven’t, for some time, found as ardent an audience for.
In short, they aren’t abjuring bigotry with this sort of pontificating and posturing – instead, they’re ardently pursuing it.
And it isn’t ‘our’ agenda that winds up triumphing out as a result.
In fact, come to think of it, we’ve been down this road before.
A little more than a decade ago, Christopher Hitchens decided to cap off a fairly impressive writing and polemical career as something of a darling of modern liberalism … by enthusiastically endorsing George W. Bush’s mangled and botched-up invasion of Iraq as a stirling defence of ‘liberal’ values.
History has recorded with disdain what you might term the ‘consequentialist’ interpretation of the outcomes thus delivered (it is certainly hard to argue that much of modern Iraq is more secular-amenable or liberally-“enlightened” now as compared to 15 years ago); but Hitchens’ example remains relevant as an apt demonstration that even the seeming gleaming, glittering intellects amongst our number who apparently make it their business to be culturally and politically discerning … can find themselves co-opted and lead astray.
And in the process do serious damage by affording a liberal veneer and credibility to fundamental(ist)ly (neo-)con values.
So when considering the reaction to the Orlando shooting, bear in mind that not all is what it seems. Regardless of whether it’s seriously possible to take the mentally-ill rantings of a homo-cidal mass-murderer seriously when he rants down a phone line to Emergency Services to profess nominal loyalty to ISIS, people (and particularly those in or adjacent to the political sphere) are going to attempt to use this abhorrent incident as the basis for frenetically objectionable rhetoric and attempted-policy.
Defence of minority communities – whether sexual or religious in origin – is a worthy and noble cause.
But bear in mind that not all those seeking to capitalize nor cash in upon this most recent devastation truly or even incidentally bear that as their enduring objective.
Death to false pretenses.
“So when considering the reaction to the Orlando shooting, bear in mind that not all is what it seems. Regardless of whether it’s seriously possible to take the mentally-ill rantings of a homo-cidal mass-murderer seriously when he rants down a phone line to Emergency Services to profess nominal loyalty to ISIS, people (and particularly those in or adjacent to the political sphere) are going to attempt to use this abhorrent incident as the basis for frenetically objectionable rhetoric and attempted-policy.”
Funny, ain’t it, how those same people who label ALL muslims as terrorists because of a tiny minority don’t seem to label ALL christians as terrorists when fundamentalists bombs an abortion centre or shoot doctors who perform abortions.
And then there’s the whole Nthrn Ireland thing when Catholics and Protestant were at each other’s throats for decades. That was never a “Christian problem”, I gather?
The difference is that those who attack abortion clinics do so without the endorsement of their faith. Whenever we have one of these all too frequent acts of Islamic terror, the act is endorsed by a whole raft of Islamic leaders.
Maninthe kiddle, well that’s a load of crap to start with. Have you see this?
Pastor Roger Jimenez of Sacramento’s Verity Baptist Church delivered a sermon praising the Orlando shooter and lamenting that The tragedy is more of them didn’t die…. I’m kind of upset he didn’t finish the job!”
The pastor also said that the killings had made Orlando safer and added that his preference would be to line lgbtq people up against a wall for a firing squad to “blow their brains out.”
Ref: http://boingboing.net/2016/06/15/baptist-pastor-praises-orlando.html
And,
Jimenez preached to his congregation that they should not be grieving the homosexual victims of the shootings, comparing those killed to pedophiles.
“Are you sad that 50 pedophiles were killed today?” asked Jimenez. “Um no. I think that’s great. I think that helps society. I think Orlando, Florida, is a little safer tonight. The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is I’m kind of upset he didn’t finish the job – because these people are predators. They are abusers.”
Ref: http://www.abc10.com/news/local/sacramento/sacramento-baptist-pastor-praises-orlando-massacre/243211965
(pinched from one of Frank’s posts)
So there you have it. The first one of the block to congratulate the shooterr was a fucking so-called CHRISTIAN!!
As usual, you masquerade bigotry as fact.
What has that to do with my comment about people who attack abortion clinics? That’s right…nothing. And yet more labels. When will you put forward a coherent argument without them?
You do relies Trump is anti abortion and pro killing dr’s who terminates pregnancies.
You know very little about Americas Bible Belt or the topic in which you speak about the
Actually, Mr Maninthemiddle, I think ALH84401 has raised a valid point. It seems to me you’re the one dodging the issue and unable to answer what he’s raised.
Come on, man up and respond. Or admit he’s right. Frank found the evidence to show you’re woefully wrong in your prejudice against ordinary muslim people.
Admit it. You. were. Wrong.
No, the reply had nothing to do with my post. Which was about bombings at abortion clinics. Cheerlead all you like, it doesn’t make it any more relevant.
So, maninthemiddle, you only pick arguments and facts to suit your preconceived prejudices? Ok, noted.
Explain to me how a pastor endorsing the Orlando shootings has anything to do with bombings at abortion clinics.
If you don’t understand that, MITM, you’re a bit thicker than I realised.
Go back to primary school you right-wing bumpkin.
Maninthemiddle, didn’t you say “The difference is that those who attack abortion clinics do so without the endorsement of their faith. Whenever we have one of these all too frequent acts of Islamic terror, the act is endorsed by a whole raft of Islamic leaders.”
Frank pointed out that the only one endorsing the Orlando shootings was a BAPTIST pastor.
So he’s answered your question.
You just don’t like the answer because (a) you weren’t interested in an answer and (b) the answer shows you up as the racist that you are.
Have a nice day.
Maninthemiddle, you said, “Whenever we have one of these all too frequent acts of Islamic terror, the act is endorsed by a whole raft of Islamic leaders.”
Has any mainstream Islamic leader endorsed the Orlando shooter?
Oh I like your insertion of the word ‘mainstream’. Is that the new criteria?
Tell me Curwen, which of the following do have a place in NZ culture?:
Relegation of women to status of male property
Death penalty (including stoning to death) for adulterers (only if female)
Death penalty (including stoning to death) for apostates of the Islamic religion.
Death penalty (including stoning to death) for homosexuals
Death penalty (including stoning to death) for blasphemy
Female genital mutilation
Establishment of religious policing
Mandatory dress codes enforced by religious police forces
Outlawing of musical performance.
Establishment of religious codes as law for all citizens.
Personally, I’m phobic toward all of the above and toward any religion, doctrine or ideology that promotes any of it.
But your mileage may differ, so let’s hear your point of view.
Actually, no, I’m not phobic of the above practices, just fearful and willing to stand against them.
That’s not irrational at all, nor extreme.
phobia
noun
an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something
None of these issues are happening legally in NZ & as far as I know there is not any credible attempt to introduce them. While you think writing about these evil actions will support your views you are not brave enough to travel to countries where these problems exist & speak against them.
NZ culture, what is that? What is actually New Zealand “culture” these days in a multicultural, multi-ethnic, very diverse, to some still rather liberal society, where we have basically only the law and the rules of business “bind us” together, but little else.
Every person has her or his version of what “culture” may mean or should mean in an excessively individualised, commercially driven consumer society.
Religion may mean a lot to some, and nothing much to others, marriage may mean something for some, nothing to others, collective effort and solidarity may mean something to some, and nothing much to others.
I read a lot of different views and interpretations on what happened in Orlando, Florida, but re the killer, he simply appears to have been a very confused, angry, mentally unstable, probably mentally ill person, who decided to send a signal, and wanted to get back at a part of the community he despised most.
Yet there are bizarre witness accounts now, stating he himself had repeatedly or regularly visited the club where it happened, ordered drinks and so forth, and spent a fair bit of time there. He was even commented on having appeared on gay dating sites.
Then yesterday it was said, he claimed allegiance to the IS leader in Mosul, but also to the bombers of Boston, and then to a US suicide attacker in Syria, who actually was linked to Nusra Front.
There seem to be many lone and lost souls out there, some ready to go this far, and that tells me our society is screwed up massively, such things do not happen here, because the chance is lower given the comparatively small population, but for no other reason. We had incidents of most violent rapists and killers, we know about it, some having cut up bodies and stuck them into suit cases.
We had other nutters, this stuff can happen here too, I am sure, and it need not have much to do with ISIS or other extremists, these may just offer a convenient “excuse” to go nuts and kill, pretending to have a “mission”.
Here in Auckland we are becoming just another urban jungle like big cities all over the world, so the time will come where we have similar things happen, I fear.
Richard, stop enabling the right-wing racists!!
It would be funny if it wasn’t so grim watching regressive lefties like you tying themselves in knots trying to not blame radical Islam for this one. No mention of the homophobia of much of the Islamic world…just Christians/conservatives who may not be so keen on Gay marriage.
Pathetic
Ironically, “Armchairwarrior”, us “lefties” as you put it usually have a better track record of supporting LGBT issues than the Right Wing. Go to any right-wing blogsite and count the number of commentators in support of LGBT equality.
You’ll need less than the fingers of one hand.
No Frank,
These commentators you refer to support equality for all persons irrespective of sexual orientation and refuse to make special arrangements for “identity” groups privilege.
I have yet to see a cogent and complete defining of what LGBT equality means without it seeming as being special pleadings by one group.
It is LGBTQI now (after adding Queer and Intersex). It is getting to the point where the acronym will need its own acronym. And yes, its special pleading.
Maninthemiddle – “special pleading”? What, specifically, are you and Michael referring to?
“Special Pleading: a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.”
LGBTQI groups claim exceptions to the rule of equality for all. They seek ‘special privilege’, e.g. safe spaces, curbs on language and free speech, access to opposite sex bathrooms etc etc. These things are anathema to those of us who believe in liberty and equality for all.
“They seek ‘special privilege’, e.g. safe spaces, , access to opposite sex bathrooms etc etc. These things are anathema to those of us who believe in liberty and equality for all.”
What a load of homophobic rubbish.
And it’s a bit rich for you to be decrying “curbs on language and free speech” when, at the bottom of this page you’re slamming others for using “labels”!!
Hypocrite and homophobe much?
What I find remarkable is the difference in attitude between the left and the troll right on this issue.
What angers the right most is not the fact that someone went crazy with hate and gunned down more than 50 innocent people, they are more angered by the reaction of decent people.
“How dare they want peace” the trolls splutter indignantly.
I wonder why that is?
I suspect it is a guilty conscience, knowing that their vitriolic hate mongering, which they imagine they made up themselves, has manifested itself yet again in a society which they like to hold up as the paragon of everything good, except that it clearly isn’t
Well ain’t life a bitch, Andrew, I’m (never) Right and the rest of the troll brigade. You lot can keep up the hate, we on the left will keep demanding tolerance and peace.
What do you think of Winston Peters’ comments today linking Orlando to the refugee intake?
According to latest from Benjamin Fulford overview, the Orlando false flag massacre was the brainchild of the Khazarian/Mossad thugs deliberately designed to cause psychological grief and disruption : http://benjaminfulford.net/
Helena, 1000%
“deliberately designed to cause psychological grief and disruption”
http://benjaminfulford.net/
And its working judging by the way these blogs are going eh!
“Defence of minority communities – whether sexual or religious in origin – is a worthy and noble cause.”
The noble and worthy cause is defending the equal liberty of ALL citizens. For many the ‘defence of minority communities’ is Orwellian speech for special privileges for the few. No thanks.
Comments are closed.