How the homophobic Muslim became a populist bogeyman | Moustafa Bayoumi

US Muslims are now more tolerant than many Christian groups. If you listened to Trump, Le Pen and Anne Marie Waters, youd believe that was impossible, writes author and academic Moustafa Bayoumi

Heres something you may not have thought likely. A majority of American Muslims now believes that its fine to be gay. The latest Pew Research Centre survey, published on 26 July, tells us that most think homosexuality should be accepted by society. The poll further shows how dramatically acceptance has risen, nearly doubling from 27% to 52% since 2007 (among millennial Muslims, its 60%). Muslims may lag behind the general public, for whom the corresponding figure on this issue is 63%, but they poll at exactly the same percentage as Protestants and far above white evangelical Christians, a mere 34% of whom believe that homosexuality should be tolerated.

If you have actually spent some time with American Muslims you wont be surprised by these numbers. Im not. This is a multifaceted group of people, representing many different and sometimes conflicting tendencies and traditions. But the Pew data shows us that the overall tilt of the community, even while it is itself contending with high levels of discrimination, is progressive andoptimistic.

Youd never know it if you listened to populist leaders. Whether in the US, the UK, or on the European continent, the idea that Muslims represent a civilisational threat to the west because of an intrinsic ultra-conservatism, which includes a violent hatred of gay people, is so widespread that it is seen as a truism. Not only is this tidy titbit of political wisdom false, it also ends up obscuring the degree of homophobia in other parts of society, and in our politics.

Rightwing populism is especially devoted to this narrative. From DonaldTrump to the Netherlands Geert Wilders, Frances Marine Le Pen and Ukips Anne Marie Waters, todays demagogues seek to convince the public that they are the true defenders of freedom, courting LGBT votes by dangling the caricature of a dangerous, intolerant and homophobic Muslim in front of their eyes. But this apparent support for LGBT rights is often only skin-deep.

During the US presidential campaign, Trump frequently argued that he was the best candidate for LGBT voters because Hillary Clinton was soft on Muslim immigration. At the Republican convention, Trump stated: As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Now Trump is proposing to ban all transgender people from serving in the military.

During the French presidential election Marine Le Pen surrounded herself with gay advisers and claimed that she alone would protect LGBT people from the Muslim menace. France isnt burkinis on the beach. France is Brigitte Bardot, she said, and claimed during a televised debate that Emmanuel Macron was supported by a French Muslim organisation that sponsored speakers who hated Jews and homosexuals. (I think its terrific to see you speak words in defence of homosexuals and Jews, Macron cleverly responded.) But Le Pen also opposed gay marriage (and, just in case you wondered, not from a principled point of criticism of the bourgeois roots of marriage), legal in France only since 2013. The fact is, she isnot a true defender of LGBT rights, just an opportunist.

Geert Wilders animosity towards all things Muslim is so over the top that it appears to be turning his hair peroxide-blond. (It has been reported that he dyes his hair because his original dark curls drew racist jeers as a child.) Day after day, for years, we are experiencing the decay of our cherished values, he said in January. The equality of men and women, freedom of opinion and speech, tolerance of homosexuality all this is in retreat. Again, its hard not to conclude that the greatest threat to the Dutch tradition of tolerance isnt Islam but people such as Wilders. The good news is that neither he nor Le Pen succeeded in their campaigns.

Ukip leadership candidate Anne Marie Waters at an anti-Islam protest in London last year. Photograph: Vickie Flores/REX/Shutterstock

But now a bid for the leadership of Ukip is under way by none other than Waters, founder of Sharia Watch UK. Her manifesto demands the party publicly acknowledge that Islamic culture is simply not compatible with our own. Shes been quoted as saying that sharia law has terrible elements to it in terms of treatment of women, antisemitism and homophobia. And yet it was Roger Helmer, one of Ukips leading lights, who once asked: Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to turn a consenting homosexual? He is also said to believe there are that there are different degrees of culpability in rape cases.

Oh, the brave men and women of the right. Ever ready to proclaim the threat of Muslim homophobia, they cynically depend on incorporating LGBT concerns into their divisive narratives without in fact providing them full rights of inclusion.

Last month in Germany, for example, lawmakers voted to approve gay marriage (and adoption) in a historic vote. The anti-Muslim populist party Alternative for Germany opposed the measure on ideological grounds, while all six Muslim members of parliament voted in support of the bill. Incidentally, Chancellor Angela Merkel, now widely seen as the pre-eminent guardian of western liberal values, voted against the bill.

The underlying point here is not that Muslims arent homophobic. Some clearly are. Some undoubtedly arent. Rather, the crucial point borne out by the Pew data is that positions can change over time.

In the UK, Muslims are still dealing with fallout from a Channel 4 documentary What British Muslims Really Think that purported to show how different they were from other Britons. It included the statistic that 52% of UK Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal, which is shocking in isolation. Its a different metric, but consider this: in 1985, only 9% of British Catholics believed that same-sex relationships were not wrong. By 2016, that had leapt to 62%. Catholic doctrine had not changed in the interim; attitudes had.

How such change happens is whatweshould pay attention to. Lastyear, Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a horrific attack on a gay nightclub he had previously been a patron of in Florida. Sincere discussions have sincebegun between LGBT and Muslimcommunities in the US, with spaces also opening up for LGBT Muslimsthemselves.

Imams and scholars issued a statement condemning the attack and, while falling short of full acceptance of gay Muslims, underlined the liberty to pursue happiness as each sees fit. Muslim LGBT groups, such as the Muslim Alliance for Sexual and Gender Diversity, have grown in prominence. Philanthropic organisations such as the Contigo Fund are backing initiatives thatunite LGBT, Latin and Muslim communities to battle homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia and other forms of discrimination.

The health of any society is premised on its ability to face its fissures squarely, but that is not what anti-Muslim populists are doing. By arguing that Islam and the west are forever incompatible, they construct a Muslim bogeyman while denying both their own homophobia as well as the living, breathing Muslims in their midst.

Moustafa Bayoumi is an author and a professor of English at City University, New York

Read more:

How Facebook groups bring people closer together neo-Nazis included

Mark Zuckerbergs new mission is to bring the world closer together. But Facebook groups can unite extremists as easily as they serve hobbyists

Ricky Caya was looking for something. A 43-year-old postal service worker and father of two in Quebec, he felt unsettled and unconnected. The great social movements of the 1960s, the American civil rights movement, flower power, the big trade union movements people today dont have that, he said.

So when a Facebook post crossed his news feed promoting a new organization that sought to bring together good people without a voice to finally allow them to have strength in numbers, Caya requested membership to the group and quickly became an active participant and leader.

In many ways, Caya could be a poster child for Mark Zuckerbergs new mission for Facebook to bring the world closer together through the power of meaningful Facebook groups.

But its unlikely that Zuckerberg will be touting Caya and his Facebook friends in a branded video anytime soon. Because Caya is a member of La Meute, a virulently anti-Islam Facebook group with 50,000 members.

On 16 July, La Meute, whose founders express a political affinity with Frances Marine Le Pen, notched a real-world victory when voters rejected the establishment of a Muslim cemetery in a small town near Quebec City. The burial ground had been proposed after the families of six people massacred at a Quebec City mosque in January had nowhere nearby to bury their loved ones. La Meute (it means the Wolf Pack in French) helped lead a campaign to force a referendum, prompting many Qubcois to blame the group for the votes failure. (The organizations leaders did not respond to a request for comment.)

In the end, what people want is to be united in something bigger than them, said Caya. A sense of belonging.

Or, as Zuckerberg said in a June speech when he announced Facebookss new mission statement: When you bring people together, you never know where it will lead.

As Facebook has grown to more than 2 billion users, and as Zuckerberg has embarked on a post-2016 election attempt to understand the social impact of his creation, Facebook groups have become the centerpiece of his messaging around the companys ability to change the world for the better.

In a lengthy manifesto published in February, Zuckerberg revealed a preoccupation with Americans well-documented decline in membership in local organizations such as churches, unions, parent-teacher associations and sports teams an idea apparently cribbed from Robert Putnams classic sociology text, Bowling Alone.

Such groups provide all of us with a sense of purpose and hope; moral validation that we are needed and part of something bigger than ourselves; comfort that we are not alone and a community is looking out for us, Zuckerberg wrote. It is possible many of our challenges are at least as much social as they are economic related to a lack of community and connection to something greater than ourselves.

In June, at the inaugural Facebook Communities Summit, Zuckerberg returned to the theme: For decades, membership in all kinds of groups has declined as much as one-quarter, he said. Thats a lot of people who now need to find a sense of purpose and support somewhere else. This is our challenge.

Zuckerbergs solution to the decline in what he calls social infrastructure and Putnam calls social capital is, perhaps unsurprisingly: more Facebook. Specifically, more Facebook groups.

Setting a goal of helping 1 billion people join meaningful groups, he told a cheering crowd of Facebook group administrators: If we can do this, it will not only turn around the decline in community membership weve seen for decades, it will start to strengthen our social fabric and bring the world closer together.

Its impossible to say whether Zuckerbergs stated belief in the transformative ability of his own products is naive or cynical. It is undoubtedly true that many Facebook groups are meaningful to many people.In his speech, Zuckerberg singled out for praise audience members who had founded groups for disabled veterans, adopted children, lonely locksmiths and black fathers in Baltimore.

But Facebook groups like any social capital can just as easily be used for ill as good. And social capital is not an unalloyed good. A 2013 study by New York University political scientist Shanker Satyanath, Bowling for Fascism, found that dense networks of social organizations and clubs in Germany helped promote the spread of nazism. And even a cursory search of Facebook unearths networks of extremists using groups to recruit and organize.

Take the Soldiers of Odin, a far-right, anti-refugee organization founded by Finnish white supremacist Mika Ranta in late 2015. The vigilante groups anti-Muslim message spread from Scandinavia to the Americas quickly, with a network of Facebook groups developing in the US and Canada by early 2016, according to separate studies by the Anti-Defamation League and Yannick Veilleux-Lepage of the University of St Andrews Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence.

In many ways, these organizations are entirely dependent on social media, said Veilleux-Lepage, who used social network analysis to find extensive ties between the Canadian and Finnish groups, despite the fact that the Canadian chapters have distanced themselves publicly from the Finnish extremists. Veilleux-Lepage pointed out that the same feature that has made social media a powerful force in democratic movements the fact that it lowers the barrier for political participation is also what makes it useful to extremists. The barrier to engage with these groups is much lower than it ever was, he said.

Many far-right groups appear to use a combination of public groups, which anyone can join, closed groups, which anyone can search for but which require approval to join, and secret groups, which are invite-only. Prospective members request entry to a closed group, then are required to go through a vetting process, such as uploading a video pledging ones allegiance to the cause or submitting to an interview over Skype.

That process makes it easier for extremist organizations to evade Facebooks moderators, said Keegan Hankes, an intelligence analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

A lot of Facebooks moderation revolves around users flagging content, Hankes said. When you have this kind of vetting process, you dont run the risk of getting thrown off Facebook.

Facebook has been working on developing technology to complement its human moderators, and is already using artificial intelligence to crack down on terrorist content. But the sheer volume of content on the platform and complexity of deciphering meaning and intent make combating hate on the platform a herculean task.

Most groups on Facebook are connecting for good from addiction recovery to support for new moms but if any group does violate our community standards, we will remove it, Facebook vice-president Justin Osofsky said in a statement.

But many groups appear to be aware of Facebooks rules for hate speech, so they enforce their own rules against offensive language despite espousing hateful ideologies. Facebook will only remove groups if it finds they are dedicated to promoting hate against protected characteristics such as gender or race, a bar that apparently is not cleared by Soldiers of Odin or La Meute.

Still, getting kicked off Facebook can be a critical blow to such organizations, Hankes noted, because they rely on social networks to find new members.

These are the spaces where you talk to people who arent already in your movement, Hankes said of social media sites. Recruitment is always at the center of this. The alt-right and white nationalists are extremely conscious of the fact that they are in the minority, and they are always trying to get more members.

Hankes also argued that Facebook has shown considerably less commitment to policing its platform for domestic extremist groups than it has to cracking down on Isis and al-Qaida.

In 2016, the SPLC sent Facebook a list with links to more than 200 pages, profiles and groups affiliated with SPLC-designated hate groups. A Guardian audit this month found that at least 175 of those links remain active, including closed groups for neo-Nazi, white nationalist and neo-Confederate organizations. After being contacted by the Guardian, Facebook removed nine additional groups.

Theyre not using [Facebook] just to send each other nice notes, Hankes said. Were talking about hate groups who are taking the work of creating a white ethno-nationalist state very seriously, and theyre doing it all on the platform.

Mark Zuckerbergs 2017 personal challenge to visit and meet people in all 50 states has triggered an avalanche of speculation that the CEO is considering running for political office. How else to explain the billionaires decision to break bread with a steelworkers family in Ohio, attend services at a black church in South Carolina or discuss public safety with Dallas police officers?

But whats striking about the newly political Zuckerberg is precisely how un-political he manages to be. I used to think that if we just gave people a voice and helped them connect, that would make the world better by itself. In many ways it has, but our society is still divided, he said at the communities summit. Now I believe we have a responsibility to do even more. Its not enough to simply connect the world, we must also work to bring the world closer together.

Both versions of this mission statement lack any kind of political framework to discern that, actually, the world might be better off if some people remain disconnected and far apart.

Zuckerbergs skill at ignoring these complexities makes him better fitted as an evangelist for the Church of Facebook than a political candidate. I know we can do this, he pledged to the crowd at the communities summit. We can reverse this decline, rebuild our communities, start new ones, and bring the whole world closer together.

Or, as Ricky Caya put it in a Facebook message: Facebook helps connect people, and those people can use it to organize themselves. It is also a tool of choice for the Islamic State, and thousands of other groups, on subjects from macrame to cycling to politics, to extremism.

Everyone is there!!

Read more:

Taiwan’s same-sex marriage ruling could cement its place as Asia’s liberal beacon

Landmark court case this week is likely to determine the success or failure of draft laws currently before parliament

Chi Chia-wei will find out on Wednesday if his decades long fight to make Taiwan the first country in Asia to legalise same-sex marriage has been a success.

Chi, 59, a pioneering Taiwanese gay rights activist, is the celebrated face behind one of the most controversial legal cases the island democracy has seen in recent years, where 14 judges must rule if the civil code, which states that marriage is between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

The constitutional courts landmark ruling will not only determine the success or failure of draft new parliamentary laws to introduce marriage equality, but could cement Taiwans reputation as a beacon of liberalism in a region where the LGBT community faces increasing persecution.

Chi, an equal rights campaigner since he first came out as a gay teenager in 1975, remains pragmatic about making civil rights history. If it doesnt work out this time, Ill keep on fighting for the people, and for human rights, he said in an interview with The Guardian.

But he is determined that one day, the fight will be won.

Somebody has to do it. I dont want to see any more people commit suicide because they dont have marriage equality, he said.

Last October the suspected suicide of French professor, Jacques Picoux, who was unable to marry his Taiwanese partner of 35 years, Tseng Ching-chao, became a rallying call for Chi and other LGBT activists.

His struggle is also personal. Chis lawsuit, launched two years ago and supported by the municipal government in the capital, Taipei, is the latest of several attempts to get legal recognition for his 30 year relationship with his partner, who wishes to remain anonymous.

In 1986, when the nation was still under martial law, Chi was imprisoned for five months after submitting his first petition asking for gay marriage to be recognised.

As a flag bearer for equality, he hopes to inspire other LGBT activists fighting a crackdown across Asia.

On the eve of Taiwans court ruling, two gay men face a public caning in Indonesia. In South Korea, the military has been accused of carrying out a witch-hunt against gay recruits. In Bangladesh, 27 men were arrested last week on suspicion of being gay, a criminal offence.

Back in Taiwan, the political stakes of Wednesdays decision are also high.

When President Tsai Ing-wens ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) passed the first draft of a bill to legalise same-sex marriage in December, it prompted a fierce conservative backlash.

The issue has split Taiwanese society and vocal protests from a coalition of religious and right-wing family groups have caused many legislators to have second thoughts.

The fate of the legislation, soon to face a second reading, now lies in the hands of the court, believes Yu Mei-nu, the DPP parliamentarian who drafted it.

If the court ruled clearly in support of same-sex marriage and President Tsai offered her unequivocal support, it would embolden wavering legislators to vote in favour of the new laws, she argued.

If the grand justices make a decision that is not very clear, and it depends on a legislative yuan [parliament] vote, then it will be difficult. I think most legislators will abstain, she said.

We want her (Tsai) to be braver. If she can come out and say yes I support it then it will be passed.

Ahead of her election last year, Tsai voiced her support for marriage equality in a Facebook video. In the face of love, everyone is equal, she said.

But as she marked the first anniversary of her inauguration this weekend with low public approval ratings, Tsai faced criticism from all sides over her handling of gay marriage.

Its a little bit depressing for us. Before the election, she was really pro-gay rights. But now she has kind of disappeared, said student Vic Chiang, 23, at a Taipei rally last week on the International Day Against Homophobia.

Meanwhile, Robin Chen, a spokesman for the Coalition For Happiness of Our Next Generation, which links support for gay marriage with increased HIV infections, criticised the government for rushing the laws through.

The majority of the population does not know whats happening, he said. We need to discuss things on different levels because family is the foundation of society.

His fears were shared by Father Otfried Chan, secretary-general of the Chinese Regional Bishops Conference, who believes the court will likely back gay marriage. There is no debate, he said. Its a one-sided game.

Nerves are frayed ahead of the ruling, with both sides intending to demonstrate outside the court.

But for

Chi, the choice is simple.

To legalise marriage would mean that Taiwans civil code and constitution will say that gay people are people, he said. If the law can be changed, Taiwans gay community will have human rights.

Read more: