Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Tagged under: , , ,

CEMB March At Pride 2018 In London_ A Victory Against Islamism

Maryam Namazie on CEMB participation in the Pride in London march.



Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain marched in Pride in London on 7 July for LGBT rights in countries under Islamic rule; in 15 states or territories, homosexuality is punishable by death.

The march was a victory against Islamist forces in Britain like Mend and East London Mosque that tried and failed to stop CEMB from marching with accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ aimed at imposing de facto blasphemy and apostasy laws.

Despite their efforts, CEMB marched for the right to apostasy and blasphemy, for asylum and refugee rights, against racism and the far-Right and for the right to love, live and think as one chooses.

CEMB marched in solidarity with all those who could not and will keep on marching until the day when Muslim and ex-Muslim LGBT can love who they want without fear. That day will also be the day women are not second class citizens and apostates and blasphemers can think freely without punishment. Our lives and rights are interlinked as is our common humanity.

To see some photos and video footage of the march, see below.

The Bangladeshi group Boys Love World marched with CEMB at this Pride. If you would like to donate for our work at Pride, please make your donations to this fantastic group.

Notes 

A poem by Jimmy Bangash: 15 states, they kill their gays produced by International Ex-Muslim Coalition

Pride is a Safe Place for LGBT people of Muslim Heritage – A response to Al-Kadhi In The Guardian by Jimmy Bangash (The Guardian did not bother respond to our request for a right to reply)

Provocative? Well yes! and Taking Pride Back by Sadia Hameed

Ex-Muslims: A Community in Protest by Maryam Namazie

For more information, please contact CEMB at hello@ex-muslim.org.uk.






Maryam Namazie is a political activist and writer.

Follow Maryam Namazie on Twitter @MaryamNamazie    

22 comments :

DaithiD said...

Our rights are not interlinked with those under Islamic regimes, and it’s a subtle form of Western chauvinism to claim so.

From documents like Magna Carta, Greek Philosophy and Roman Law, Judeo-Christian spirituality and the Enlightenment through to the emancipatory power of the scientific method, the Western notion of rights has been formed through centuries of deep thinking that then became tradition, we should not demand other cultures not of these foundations to honour them. Neither should we shed ourselves of them when the ‘slowest kids in the class’ voluntarily enter our proximity and feel progressively emboldened enough to threaten violence and discord if we don’t abandon them, essentially the reciprocal of Maryams universal rights claim.

AM said...

DaithiD,

then we are left with a form of cultural relativism which itself becomes a racism - people are considered less than human and as such have no claim to avail of human rights. It is a subtle form of western racism to think that what we want for ours should be denied others

Steve R said...

AM,

But the article is about...

"Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain marched in Pride in London on 7 July for LGBT rights in countries under Islamic rule; in 15 states or territories, homosexuality is punishable by death. "

As Islam is a religion not a race, should I be picky and point out that it should be bigotry implied instead?

And if allowed, as odious as the connotations of the term is, is it such a bad thing to point out the inherent malevolence of another culture in this instance? That being a preference some people are born with invites their murder?

AM said...

Steve R,

Not sure what your point is here.

Discussing this problem years back (http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/MF2206066g.html), my point was that real racism is when we think people are less than human and we demonstrate this by excluding them from human rights we expect to have ourselves. Maryam Namazie has long opposed cultural relativism on the grounds of it being racist.

Opposing Islam is not racist but failing to extend to victims of Islam the same rights we want for ourselves is racism.

DaithiD said...

AM,
How do we extend these rights to, for example, Maryam’s ancestral home of Iran? And can you cite examples that the Western variant of these social contracts are exactly what is being asked for? It seems to me they would never be left alone until they too agree “Desmond is Amazing” (search google). Detailing that our rights come from a tradition, and noting this tradition in peculiar to the West, is not denying others of the aspiration. Its less of a leap to conclude yours is a recipe for Western military intervention.

It seems inconsistent those who claim to value/love diversity have the first instinct to counsel against differences, and reduce everything until the original forms, and thus differences, are lost too. It’s a huge leap from what I wrote to something racist, we are talking ideologies remember. But then this is an increasing tendency in your writing ive noticed, seeing fascists in Lisdoonvarna where I just saw worried people whose concerns were being ignored. Or perhaps you are fortunate to have such deserving enemies.

AM said...

DaithiD,

I think there is a difference between extending the rights to people who do not have them and holding the view that they should have them. Should a woman in Iran have the same rights as your partner in London? Yes. Should Iran be bombed to ensure that she has those rights? No. Is it racist to argue for the London woman to have those rights but not the Iranian woman? Yes.

Much of the racist labelling is a bit like the Islamophobia label - a means to suppress discussion and understanding. The essential racist in my view is the person who promotes
Untermensch - the notion that there are some people born into this world who are not human enough to have the same human rights as others.


I agree wholly about the tradition context to rights that you outline but extend the argument further as in the question I asked you above.

Counselling against difference errs completely; counselling against differentiating being used for the purpose of denying rights doesn't err at all.

I know you have been labelled racist in other threads but never by myself. Nor did I suggest you were racist here. I merely invited you to think something through.

Cite this increasing tendency in my writing that you have noticed and I will comment on it.

DaithiD said...

AM,
Search within twitter : “@AnthonyMcIntyre“ racist “or “@AnthonyMcIntyre“ fascist I.e your username in quotations and the word you want to filter by.

-You tweeted you saw Brietbart fascists invading Lisdoonvarna on 10 Mar.

-“RRR win the Brexit referendum ~ Reactionary Racist Right”.

There are many others, and it made me wonder are these terms any less toxic than traitor when misapplied?

AM said...

DaithiD,

you will need to provide a link for Lisdoonvarna - can't find it. Carrie usually posts re Breibart. I don't.

And the Reactionary Racist Right were the big winners in Brexit.

Where is this increasing tendency? You seem to be struggling

DaithiD said...

You added “big” before winners because it suggests a multitudes of winners, and it changes the original quotes meaning.

Brietbart tweet : https://mobile.twitter.com/AnthonyMcIntyre/status/972441468353818625

You had some unhinged observations regarding Trump too, I could paste but lemme guess , Missus too?

AM said...

yes - that is hers. She usually signs off C.

I always stand over what I say and never shield behind a pen name. So if I wrote it I will tell you.


Paste the unhinged tweets and I will tell you if I posted or not. But I guess little anybody says about that vile entity is unhinged - more a case of writing against the unhinged.

Still waiting on your answer re this increasing tendency.

DaithiD said...

The tweets calling someone a racist , Nazi or fascist :

2014 - 5
2015 - 6
2016 - 3
2017 - 21
2018 - 7

And this obviously doesn’t include specific references to card carrying Nazi’s of the period. Use the search function as I described, the numbers are increasing.

AM said...

DaithiD,

There were a range of winners as in everything but we tend to focus on the main winners rather than the also-rans.

Carrie has just confirmed Lisdoonvarna comment was her own and says that the same fascism fostered by Bannon and Breibart was on display there. She said if you had read the article you would have seen that it was about a Breibart person coming to Ireland and stirring up racism/fascism.

I think she is pretty competent and knows what she is talking about even though I have not read the piece and am not aware of the Lisdoonvarna issue.

AM said...

DaithiD,

don't get all stressed on me now. Just post the links - they are at your fingertips.

AM said...

Daithi D,

Carrie said they are increasing and this is to do with her opposition to the neo-Nazi fascist right and if it hurts your delicate little feelings, too bad. She is going to call it as she sees it on the Nazis in her country of origin and she refuses to dance around it.

So, again if you can show me this increasing tendency in my writings rather than in her tweets ... I would very much appreciate it.

DaithiD said...

I will collate them for you Anthony, and for making me work with 44-ish links I’ll be as generous in my classifications as you have been in yours. I mean your missus, doh. I will do this from a pc not my phone though, you can get a preview via the method I said in the intervening period.

No stress here , Conor versus Khabib is announced , it’s beer o clock dear boy!

AM said...

No need to - they are hers so there is no point. If you can show me where in my writings I have been displaying an increasing tendency to call people Nazis and racists, I will concede the point but there is not a chance of you doing that because as Carrie says I tend to avoid it. Breibart, Gorka, the alt right in the US - not the sort of stuff that catches my attention to any real degree.

To get back to the main point - should your partner in London have more human rights than the woman in Iran? If so, why?

DaithiD said...

That isn’t the main point, I rejected Maryams notion that the rights in either place are linked, and i reject the proposition that parity could be expected given the radically different starting points of the cultures. And given their are no comparable institutions in Islamic countries, no structures to support Western rights, they would fall like seeds on stone even if thrown from apache helicopters. I don’t talk in terms of deserving. I feel their choice of Islam is not a neutral one in considering this further though.

AM said...

DaithiD,

that is not a very clever way of avoiding the question. Regardless of linkage or radically differing starting points, should the Iranian woman have less human rights than your partner? It can't be that hard to answer.

DaithiD said...

Sorry AM my missus wrote that reply .

(Is that better ?)

AM said...

DaithiD,

haven't the time for evasive crap.

Steve R said...

AM,

Ah,my apologies. Got the wrong end of the stick.

DaithiD said...

Im sure its unrelated, but this guy also wants us to give intellectual estate to this topic. At a time when these same rights are being eroded in the West, maybe we will achieve parity, just not the direction previously imagined.Its equality at least.

Secretary Pompeo

@SecPompeo
We are deeply concerned about reports of Iranian regime’s violence against unarmed citizens. U.S. supports Iranian people’s right to protest against the regime’s corruption & oppression without fear of reprisal. We call on the regime in #Iran to respect its people’s human rights.