The status of gay men and women in Iraq has never been good. Gay sex was a criminal offense under Saddam and remains one today. But some gay Iraqis have argued that life was actually better under Saddam's secular regime because there was neither the political will nor the Islamic militias there to pursue a policy of active persecution. Balancing the human rights of this group and the traditional religious beliefs of the country will be a difficult task to be sure, especially as conservatives push to make Islamic law the basis of the country's legal system.This week's article in the NY Times talks about how despite the relative decrease in violence in Iraq, a dangerous atmosphere for the openly gay remains very much intact in Sadr City. In the past two months, 25 men have been killed there most likely due to their sexual orientation and a café frequented by gays was burned down. And so, in a period when other Iraqi citizens are feeling more and more comfortable about going out at night, some gay Iraqis are feeling the pressure to stay inside day and night.
Blame for the killings is not concentrated on the Shiite “death squads” that we hear so much about in the news. Instead, local police say that the murders are being carried out by the victim’s own relatives, who feel that his homosexuality has brought shame upon the whole family.
This article forced me to think about a couple of uncomfortable questions. First, what casualties do we privilege in our death tolls? Of course every week we count up the American soldiers who have died, and sometimes we pay attention to losses in the Iraqi security services or civilian casualties within the theatre of war. But it seems to me that the casualties of “cultural transition” often go uncounted. I hate to admit it, but this is probably especially true as concerns freedom of sexual orientation. It is one of those freedoms and rights that many American supporters of democracy either outright oppose or feel little sympathy for. Even though we Americans have gotten rid of Saddam and supposedly allowed for the establishment of a freer society in Iraq, I don’t know whether we are ready to defend all elements of that freer society equally.
And so I wondered whether the U.S. army has interested itself in this issue at all up to this time or if their presence has inadvertently acted as a mild disincentive to violence? What is going to happen to men and women that push the limits of Iraqi sexual sensibilities when the U.S. army pulls out for good? Frankly, I doubt that the U.S. army gives much concern to the welfare of gays outside the Green Zone, yet I feel like the situation is likely to worsen when they are gone. It seems like the Iraqi police are already acting very nonchalant about these murders, denying the extent of the problem and the role of religious leaders in stirring up hate. Even if they wish that people would not break the law against murder, they do not show any sympathy for the victim in this article. In fact, they are put into the same categories as beggars, liars, and thieves. Furthermore, the families of the victims seem disinterested in cooperating with any investigations or even claiming the body. All this is sort of a perfect storm already for wiping out the openly gay community. And I feel that if the general rate of violence rises after the withdrawal of American troops, then between the general atmosphere of insecurity and the fact that hate crimes are likely to get totally lost in the shuffle, the gay subculture will be forced back underground or into the closet. And thus all of our fighting for a “freer” society in Iraq will have been totally meaningless for these people.
You make a very strong argument about where things will be going once the US military leaves. It is sad to see that the only open space for gay men is within a 3 mile radius in all of Iraq. Even then, what does that "open space" mean? That they won't get hanged or their buildings burned down? There is something different between acceptance and basic tolerance.
ReplyDeleteYet, how do you open a culture that is rather conservative and strictly adherent to their sense of what is written in the Qu'ran? Even in the US, we have this problem. We may some sort of basic tolerance in most places in the US (not where I'm from, though) but only a few places is there acceptance. The first article that you cited even mentioned that women's rights are even hard to come by since they are aligned to the socialist party. It will be a long time before things can change from within versus forced tolerance.
This is a very interesting article. I especially liked what you said about how death tolls are tallied. I think the human cost for war is much greater that is reported, mainly because it is so hard to define what was a result of US intervention. Like you said, according to the local police, these murders were done by family members of the victim. Does that count as a casualty of war? Or was it an inevitable event? Relating to another post, does a drug overdose, a result of a stronger drug trade, which some could argue is a result of US intervention, a war casualty? Or are the actions of shamed family members and drug use something that would have occurred in Iraq regardless?
ReplyDeleteThat many of the soldiers and civilians living in the Green Zone feel they have to stay closeted is probably a sign that only the bare minimum of tolerance exists even in that supposedly secure and progressive section of Iraqi territory. We Americans can hardly claim to set a good example for the Iraqis as we continue to discriminate against gay men and women in the army. Of course, if we did allow soldiers to be openly gay, this would probably just be another point of attack for those religious conservatives who denounce the sinfulness of the West. The fact is that tolerance of homosexuality is really lacking in Iraq, and us trying to "force" tolerance would probably be futile and maybe even downright counterproductive. The development of tolerance will have to be very gradual, as it has been in the U.S., and there will be many casualties along the way, as there have been in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI think it's possible that these deaths might not have occurred if Saddam had remained in power, but on the other hand, would these men have had the courage to come out under Saddam's regime? They'd be alive, but what quality of life would they have had in that case?
One solution would be for the U.S. to offer refugee status to homosexuals in Iraq. However, this could be logistically complicated. How do you really prove homosexuality? How do you prove that you are under threat before it is too late? In addition, how could tolerance of homosexuality ever be built up in a country like Iraq if we simply remove all the homosexual and bisexual people? Should we sacrifice members of the gay community now so that this community might be able to live free at some unknown point in the future? Even if we gave the police monetary incentives to investigate these crimes more seriously, how would they be able to reach any real evidence-based conclusions when the no one in the broader society is willing to come forward and reveal what they might know about these murders? I think there are clearly a lot more questions than answers at this point.