Originally Posted by Nobbi
Thanks for posting an interesting link. Unfortunately when we travel as GLBT people we have to be aware that not all regimes are as morally upright as Canada, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands. There certainly are other countires and jurisdictions who are beginning to move in the right direction such as France, Germany, the scandinavian countries, the US state of Massachusetts, and some other places I forget. Then there are some places which clearly discriminate against us (probably the majority of countries).
Moral rectitude (the misguided "religious" kind) and permissive attitudes towards homosexuality rarely correlate.
The countries listed - Canada, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands as well as France, Germany and the Scandinavian sountries - all are
liberal democracies.
Spain was a dictatorship until 1975, and I doubt that present attitudes were to prevail had Franco still been around today.
There are plenty of other countries which have tolerant social attitudes towards homosexuality but are some way from legislating to protect those rights.
Places I have visited and of which I have first hand experience not mentioned above; the UK, most of the European Union countries (things are moving along more slowly in the Eastern European countries), Australia, Thailand are generally socially tolerant and are at various stages of moving towards legal recognition of minority sexualities.
It would be unrealistic to expect every country to be at the same stage of development on this issue, so I think it is beholden on us as a community to respect and understand that our own acceptance will take time, though also to ensure we do our utmost to influence the debate.
Though we would expect attitudes to move more quickly these days, a similar example would be the 200 years it took from the abolition of slavery by the British in 1805 to the end of Apartheid in South Africa in the late 20th century - and still some way to go
it appears.
We can best achieve equality by travelling both within and outside our own countries, becoming economically and socially valuable as individuals and by conducting ourselves in an appropriate manner according to local customs, while defending our right to do so.
It is the practice of advanced liberal democracy (to be distinct this is not the same as the US edict that "freedom" should be imposed on other non-conforming regimes) which grants such rights to minorities, rather than moral rectitude.
Originally Posted by Nobbi
Then there are some places which clearly discriminate against us (probably the majority of countries).
But then there are the countries that have barbaric laws against us, usually due to religious fundamentalism/theocracy. Some countries (due to their system) can freely impose the religious judgements and exercise their punishments. Others (due to legal restraints, laws, due process, etc.) cannot imprison, torture, or punish fellow citizens (in the broad sense) for breaking the "laws" of their faith, despite the wish of the elite in power to do so.
It is an interesting premise to suggest that "probably the majority of countries discriminate against us". I would probably agree that most countries officially discriminate, but it is important to clearly assess how you define dicrimination.
The USA, for instance, makes it a requirement of entry for visitors that they declare their HIV status as a condition of visa.
This is probably more a public health issue, but the fact that certainly in the 80s and 90s this was a contagion largely confined to the gay population could potentially have been argued to be discriminatory.
The post is abolutely right to highlight that it is generally an elite which imposes its own moral judgement on the society it governs. This is seen in the case referenced in the UAE.
I have only visited Dubai - twice - (and it should be emphasised this is not the same as Abu Dhabi) but I found Dubai to be very tolerant for an Arab state, as long as discretion was exercised.
The rights of gays and the rights of women in these countries are similar - and personally I belive it more important that women's rights be respected than our own (at least initially) as there are more people affected by the represion of women in thee countries than those disciminated against for being gay. Though having written that I suppose it is fair to say the retribution for being gay may far exceed that meted out to a woman who defied her husband.
Originally Posted by Nobbi
At least here on FT, (hosted) in the USA, were have the right to express our views/opinions without fear of retribution.
In that sense (but not in all) we are lucky to be living in/posting in the USA.
I would strongly contend that the USA is particularly "model" in its approach towards gay rights. Sure, the Freedom of Speech is a great defence for minorities.
But US social attitudes are still highly polarised, particularly outside urban centres, in the square states, the South and amongst other minority groups. The appalling Matthew Shephard case illustrates this well.
And the present political regime is certainly not defending rights of minorities (be it racial or sexual).
And to reference the US based hosting of FT, we should all be very conscious of the recent China/Google compromise - when economics takes primacy over morality capitalism dictates that economics will win every time.
So in summary, travel to these countries, influence the debate locally, but be under no illusion that the US as an increasingly less secular capitalist liberal democracy can be held up as a shining example of being a bastion of homosexual rights.
We are but a Profit and Loss sheet away from being oppressed, so guard what we have very carefully.