[BLOG-LIKE POSTING] On Buju Banton, homophobia, and racism

[rfmcdpei]

Buju Banton, a Jamaican reggae star perhaps best known outside reggae fandom for homophobia, whether the murderous sentiments expressed in songs like "Boom Bye Bye" ("World is in trouble/Anytime Buju Banton come/Batty bwoy get up an run/At gunshot me head back") or for his joining in a mob assault on gay men in Jamaica, has been arrested on cocaine

Comments

[jussi_jalonen]

Let's turn the questions of racism and homosexuality the other way around, Randy. You do remember Pim Fortuyn, right?

Or, for that matter, meet Jukka Hankamäki, an out-loud-and-proud Finnish doctor of philosophy, a "nationalist-libertarian anti-multiculturalist existentialist," who has become one of the intellectual icons of the new Finnish racism:

"The fact that many gays are critical towards immigration policy is perfectly understandable. It is a part of our genuine, inner concern and fear for islamisation."

"Characterizing Geert Wilders as an extreme right-winger was unscrupulous, when in reality, he is a nationalist liberal, who is also known as a defender of gay rights."

... and I'm not going to translate the more inflammatory remarks. You get the drift. He's basically playing the "I'm gay, therefore I have every right to be an islamophobe"-card. Or, at the very least, much as with Fortuyn, his own personal fears as a homosexual, resulting from the homophobic statements of a few reactionary Islamic clerics, are making him unable to recognize the agenda of the new European racist movements for what it is.

Cheers,

J. J.

[lautreamontg]

Well, why not? I mean if you want to protect the rights of gays, would you allow in a large minority of people who are set in a culture that takes extreme violence against homosexuals? It really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. A secular gay Arab would probably get along better in Amsterdam than a native born convert to Conservative Islam, and looking at poll data it's not a "few radical imams". The vast majority of them while not for full implementation of sharia law, aren't exactly going to start petitioning for the rights of sexual minorities in their community or the wider community.

Really, sometimes you can't have your multicultural cake and eat it too. Frankly I'm sick of opposition to immigration and "multiculturalism" being painted as racism. Really.

[jussi_jalonen]

Well, why not? I mean if you want to protect the rights of gays, would you allow in a large minority of people who are set in a culture that takes extreme violence against homosexuals?

And what specific culture might this be? In general, these arguments tend to reek of old-fashioned and outdated cultural fundamentalism, where (usually foreign-born and Islamic) individuals are not judged as individuals, but instead on the basis of their "culture". Also, in this country, most Islamic immigrants have arrived as refugees. Should humanitarian policy be also conducted on the basis of prejudices supposedly justified by the fears of (some) homosexuals?

Especially since those fears tend to manifest themselves only in the case of one single "culture". Curiously enough, Hankamäki and his followers never apply their reasoning to Russian immigration, even though the Orthodox Church isn't exactly tolerant towards homosexuals, either, and bashing the skulls of gay activists has become the new tradition of the OMON forces during the annual Moscow Pride festivals.

It really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.

I've heard this before. I live on this Continent, and I can testify first-hand that the above argument, even if you may not think that way, happens to be one of the favorite euphemisms of the new, slick generation of European racists. The fact is that the basis of their "multi-cultural criticism" is in the assumption that certain cultural traits are immutable. Since "race" is, in the end, simply a cultural construct, and these days increasingly used as an ethnic and even cultural marker, such "criticism", especially when it takes the moral high ground (which it always does), is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racism.

Also, there's the fact that most of this so-called "Islam-criticism" among the European far right is simply Muslim-baiting, an orchestrated attempt to provoke the Muslim minority into desperate acts, after which the public opinion and the political attitude would become receptive to the outright racist demands of the extremists. We've seen all that already before. Geert Wilders' demands of how "Koran should be banned just like Mein Kampf", are indistinguishable from our very own Jussi Halla-aho's statement "Islam is a religion of pedophilia".

We're witnessing a Continent-wide racist propaganda campaign, complete with a sudden upsurge of racist crimes. You have the luxury of not having to live in the middle of it. I don't. From my perspective, people such as Hankamäki are, at best, useful idiots to the extremist elements, and I'm not interested in spending the next decades in a World straight out of some Alan Moore graphic novel, never mind even if the emerging régime would at least have a tolerant attitude towards sexual minorities.

Frankly I'm sick of opposition to immigration and "multiculturalism" being painted as racism. Really.

A couple of years ago, a demented Finnish blogger was found guilty of ethnic agitation in a court of law. His writing had included such wonderful statements as "Africans consider robberies, rapes, nepotism, corruption, clan wars, superstition and spur-of-the-moment-murders as a normal practice. If Africans form a majority of the people in a country outside Africa, this country will transform into another Africa", and other clearly racist statements which I'm not going to quote here. Suffice to say that even genetic traits were finally part of the rhetoric.

How did doctor Hankamäki, our nationalist-libertarian anti-multiculturalist existentialist homosexual philosopher react? He declared the blogger as a martyr of free speech. He didn't even regard the text above as a racist piece of vile trash; no, for him it was simply "criticism of the immigration policy". Draw your own conclusions.

You know what I'm sick of? I'm goddamn sick of the transparent euphemisms of the new generation of European racists and the willing ignorance of their supporters. Racism is racism, and xenophobia is xenophobia. One doesn't get an absolution simply by playing the homosexual card, any more than one gets an absolution from homophobia by playing the "I'm black" card, which was the original topic of this discussion.

Cheers,

J. J.

[lautreamontg]

Then we agree to disagree. I believe far more in the right of people to spread racist filth I disagree with than majority enforced social pieties.

Now putting such ideas into law is another thing entirely, whether it be racist or homophobic, and in that case, I fail to see how allowing in mass quantities of people who when polled are against social acceptance of homosexuality and free speech helps with preserving protection of sexual minorities, with the idea "they'll liberalize, trust us!"

And yes, I'm Xenophobic. The open immigration policies of the Kingdom of Hawaii didn't serve us Hawaiians too well, doncha think?

[jussi_jalonen]

Then we agree to disagree. I believe far more in the right of people to spread racist filth I disagree with than majority enforced social pieties.

Now we're moving to another thing entirely, namely, the freedom of expression.

Previously, you mentioned that you were sick and tired of how criticizing immigration or criticizing Islam is labeled as racism. I gave you some examples, pointing out how there actually is a racist and islamophobic strand in the present-day European "immigration criticism" and "Islam-criticism". Considering that you're now using the term "racist filth" in the above quote, I suppose that you're at least accepting that I just may have a point.

When it comes to the freedom of speech, my personal opinion is that most of those few verdicts passed by the Finnish courts, including the one that I mentioned, had questionable basis at best. The text that I quoted was racist propaganda, plain and simple. But it did not contain any explicit agitation. And yes, I believe that agitation for racial violence or discrimination should be considered a crime (which it is, under the current law). Open incitement for murder, robbery or any other traditionally criminal activities has never been protected by the freedom of speech, either.

Now, an example: if doctor Hankamäki had condemned the text in question as a racist propaganda, while still making it clear that as a libertarian, he nonetheless supports the rights of the person to express these opinions, I might take him more seriously. At least one libertarian blogger in Finland did exactly this; declared his support for the freedom of speech, but made it clear that the text was racist, and that he did not support the content of the text or the expressed opinions in any way.

But in contrast, Hankamäki embraced the text. He saw nothing wrong with it. No, he welcomed it, and described it with the usual euphemisms of "immigration criticism". Another blogger, a notable city councilman in Helsinki, even stated that "on factual basis, it's very difficult to disagree with the text; ideological disagreement is another thing entirely".

So: they were in agreement with a racist.

Now putting such ideas into law is another thing entirely, whether it be racist or homophobic, and in that case, I fail to see how allowing in mass quantities of people who when polled are against social acceptance of homosexuality and free speech helps with preserving protection of sexual minorities, with the idea "they'll liberalize, trust us!"

Again, I fail to see why this "collective identity"-argument comes into play only in the question of immigrants who are arriving from the Islamic countries. The same exact comments could also be made regarding immigrants from Russia.

Besides, when it comes to the refugee policy, most of the people in question have left because of the oppressive régime and attitudes back home. And what was that comment of yours, about majority-enforced social pieties?

"Mister Islam Antirukhnama. You're a Turkmen citizen and you've submitted an application for a political asylum in Finland. Why?"

"I'm a journalist, and I've written articles on the violence of the secret police, corruption in gas and oil industry, and the cult of personality surrounding the president. I've been sentenced to death in absentia, and I cannot return home."

"I see. Do you support equal rights for homosexuals?"

"Well... not really."

"APPLICATION REJECTED."

And yes, I'm Xenophobic. The open immigration policies of the Kingdom of Hawaii didn't serve us Hawaiians too well, doncha think?

Fim agreement, although in most European countries, the immigration policies aren't exactly "open". They're controlled, but for some people, that's not enough, and they've also expressed a desire to eradicate even the pre-existing non-European influence by retroactive means.

Also, none of the EU countries is being threatened or subverted by any neighbouring great power (with the possible exception of the easternmost ones, and in their case, the neighbouring great power is not an Islamic country).

Cheers,

J. J.

[lautreamontg]

There's a bit of a gap between said journalist Mr. Antirukhnama and the likes of Mullah Krekar from claiming asylum. Mr. Antirukhnama isn't likely to start a social movement prompting for more conservative behavior standards in the host country. In any case, I'm all for the oppressive secular regimes offing their religious nutsos if not their secular critics. Oppressive secular regimes tend not to take a globalist approach to their violence at least. It's a matter of seeing two mad dogs fighting. One hopes the less rabid one kills the more rabid one. Besides, the mass of the people aren't either of these people. Their motive is primarily economic, but they're still very socially conservative.

Avoiding racism against oneself is manageable. I did happen to live in one of the most openly racist first world countries for awhile, without getting harrassed by the cops once while I had friends arrested for the crime of being gaijin in the wrong time and place. One just needs to take a very cynical view of things and adapt accordingly. I understand where the feeling comes from, if not how it expresses itself. It's actually something of a personal battle for myself at times, when I have to remind myself "You know, you're actually part Micronesian yourself, you know."