What does a burly redneck Republican have in common with a flamboyant gay man?

The answer, say some, is a shared political vision. A perplexing trend has emerged across the Western world, where gay voters are supporting ultra-conservative movements. In the last two years alone, Gays for Trump mobilized in America, Germany’s AfD championed a lesbian politician, Alice Weidel, as its leader, and Marie Le Pen wielded the largest gay constituency of any party in the 2017 French elections. But why are gay men rallying for parties known for being anti-gay? What could possibly attract homos towards white nationalism? It’s a phenomenon that Jasbir Puar has dubbed “homonationalism.”

Ultimately, homonationalism is about using queer issues as a façade to justify racism. For instance, after the 2016 attack at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, President Trump framed his anti-Muslim rhetoric as a homonationalist defence of vulnerable queers. By pink-washing his xenophobia, Trump’s racism was rebranded with a rainbow veneer. Of course, politicians like Trump are not genuinely concerned about the LGBTQ+ community, but rather are attempting to sanitize nationalism for the 21st century. J. Lester Feder describes homonationalism as “racism dressed up in liberal drag, helping make nationalism respectable again in the West.”

Trump snatched the strategy of populist pink propaganda from his European counterparts, who have been brewing homonationalism for more than two decades. In fact, the first politician to forge an alliance between the gay community and the Right Wing was Dutch provocateur Pim Fortuyn. Before his sensationalized assassination in 2002, Fortuyn grabbed headlines for his blatant racism and crass sexuality. His shocking tactics, such as describing the taste of semen in a televised interview and defending his policies with quips like “I’m not racist. I have friends in all the colours of the rainbow… I sleep with them,” laid the foundation for the weaponization of queerness in ultra-conservative politics.

One might assume that only assimilated, masculine gay men would find acceptance within the chest-thumping, rifle-toting macho culture of the Right. You’d expect that the queerest of queers would be shunted from white supremacist rallies. Oddly, however, Fortuyn’s flamboyant, hypersexual character served as a perfect tool, and foil, for the anti-immigrant agenda. A stream of controversial quotes proved to be the perfect fodder for headlines, soon sparking support for Fortuyn’s outrageously “honest” and charismatic persona. Fortuyn’s spin-doctor, Kay van de Linde, remarked, “people felt, ‘if he’s that honest about his sex life — something I would never have the guts to discuss on television — he’s got to be honest about the other stuff too.’” Within the Dutch political arena, Fortuyn’s Islamophobia was perfectly tailored for a country that prides itself on its sexual progressiveness. His brazen sexuality encouraged supporters to feel progressive whilst rallying to ban Muslim immigration. Furthermore, Fortuyn’s queerness absolved voters of the guilt that is typically attached to supporting blatantly racist politicians. Sarah Wildman describes the rationale of his supporters, “if you’re willing to back a man who brags about sleeping with Arab boys, how much of a bigot can you really be?”

“Far-right parties have also realized that strategically dangling a few gay people acts as a sort of fundamentalist Febreze that dilutes the stench of their hatred.”
-Arwa Mahdawi

In the same way that Fortuyn deflected accusations of racism by brandishing his queerness, his supporters rallied for his anti-Muslim agenda without a trace of shame. This tactful manipulation of queerness allows white gay men like Fortuyn to claim ‘victim minority’ status and circumvent accountability. In other words, queerness can be used as a get out of jail free card to excuse racism. Under the non-threatening guise of effeminacy, Fortuyn made white supremacy more palatable to moderate voters. As Arwa Mahdawi asserts, “far-right parties have also realized that strategically dangling a few gay people acts as a sort of fundamentalist Febreze that dilutes the stench of their hatred.” Serving as a pink-washing perfume, Fortuyn’s provocative effeminacy seduced voters who might otherwise be wary of Right-Wing nationalism.

After the assassinations of Fortuyn in 2002, and Theo van Gogh (a like-minded queer provocateur) in 2004, a common frame emerged in Dutch media. The press began to sensationalize homophobic violence when committed by Muslim immigrants, while largely disregarding attacks committed by white citizens. This homonationalist framing resurfaced in April 2017, when married couple Jasper Vernes-Sewratan and Ronnie Sewratan-Vernes, were gruesomely attacked in Arnhem by a mob of eight Moroccan-Dutch immigrant men who saw them holding hands. In response to the attack, a homonationalist sense of solidarity was invoked by Dutch men across the globe. Transcending social demographics, various Dutch soccer players, celebrities, police officers and diplomats tweeted photos of themselves holding hands with their male colleagues using the viral hashtag #allemannenhandinhand (translated ‘all men hand in hand’). The symbolism of queer men publically holding hands was instrumentalized as an emblem of Dutch progressivism, and subsequently worthy of patriotic defence.

Of course, underscoring this hashtag was a white supremacist conception of who belongs to the Dutch family. Admittedly, public attacks against Dutch-Muslim women have not stirred collective solidarity and empathy as #allemannenhandinhand did. Moreover, hate crimes against gay men are perceived as a national tragedy, whereas violence against hijab-wearing women is perceived as an unfortunate consequence, or perhaps punishment, for their existence.

The Dutch media martyrized the image of vulnerable gay men being brutalized by savage Muslims. The attackers, who smashed teeth and wielded bolt cutters, were described in political parlance as “problem youth” “kutmarokkanen,” (literally, “cunt-Moroccans”) and “Moroccan scum.”Geert Wilders seized the opportunity to call for the ‘de-Islamization’ of the Netherlands. Wilders argued that “the freedom that gay people should have — to kiss each other, to marry, to have children — is exactly what Islam is fighting against.” Months earlier, the centrist VVD party (which emerged victorious from the 2017 election) launched its campaign with a poster of two men holding hands with the text ‘being able to walk hand in hand without fear. Act Normal or Leave.’ Both the hashtag and the VVD poster demonstrate that the defense of queerness is a nationalistic project that demarcates the boundaries of ‘us’ versus ‘them.’

The assumed vulnerability of gay men is weaponized against the trope of a predatory immigrant. Data from the Anti-homogeweld in Nerland report, however, proves this racist predator-victim framing to be false. Contrary to pervasive representations, the report finds that incidents of hate crimes targeted against racialized citizens are actually more frequent than homophobic hate crimes in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the report revealed that 86 per cent of individuals who perpetrated violence against LGBTQ+ citizens were ethnically Dutch, while only 14 per cent had an immigrant background. This is roughly representative of their proportion in the Dutch population as a whole. Thus, instances of anti-violence committed by racialized, specifically Muslim, citizens are exaggerated to scapegoat Islamic immigrants for all homophobia.

“White gay people feel cheated because they were born, in principle, into a society in which they were supposed to be safe. The anomaly of their sexuality puts them in danger, unexpectedly.”
-James Baldwin

So, why are white gay men irrationally afraid of Muslims? Perhaps the oversensitive perception of threats is based on their social position. Located on the apex of both gender and racial hierarchies, the status of white gay men is solely compromised by their queerness. This precarious and infuriating location—one variable from holding absolute privilege—can fuel a hyper-defensive mentality. Writer and social critic James Baldwin argued that, “white gay people feel cheated because they were born, in principle, into a society in which they were supposed to be safe. The anomaly of their sexuality puts them in danger, unexpectedly.” Similarly, Michael Darer contends, “scrounging for privilege is the story of mainstream white gayness.” These quotes demonstrate the appeal of Wilders’ queer mongering among gay male voters, who are desperate to defend their social position. Simply put, queers are easily mongered. The void left from homophobia is fulfilled by a sense of belonging within Right-Wing rhetoric, and in some cases, within political ranks. Subsequently, white gay men are willing to “throw those with less status under the bus to cling onto their new found privilege.”

Kelvin Hopper, a queer man who has recently begun supporting far right politics, defended his views: “faced with the current threats, particularly from radical Islam, gays have realized they’ll be the first victims of these barbarians.” Thus the extreme measures of ‘de-Islamization’ called for by Wilders seem reasonable to white gay men whose compromised privileged fuels a hypersensitive perception of threats. Darer writes “the daily battle to ensure that whatever is lost to homophobia is replaced two fold by the blessings of whiteness and maleness.” Ultimately, the realpolitik alliance of queerness with the Right-Wing is centred on a promise to defend the precarious privilege of white queer men against the ‘threat’ of immigration.

Homonationalism has gone beyond propaganda; it has become institutionalized. The Dutch immigration system uses support for homosexuality as a pink litmus test to determine who is granted citizenship. Indeed, immigrants are screened, in part, based on how they respond to questions about gay men kissing. One question includes “you’re on a terrace with a colleague and at the table next to you two men are fondling and kissing. You are irritated. What do you do?” Footage of queer couples and topless women at beaches are also shown to potential immigrants to adjudicate whether they will integrate into Dutch society. Noticeably, these questions on homosexuality are not posed when screening immigrants from Canada, Australia or America. This elucidates the assumed correlation between whiteness and queer positivity, as well as the racist assumption that people of colour are intrinsically homophobic.

Tofik Dibi, a queer Dutch politician who is the son of Moroccan immigrants, says that Right-Wing politicians who sound the alarm over anti-LGBTQ+ violence “don’t give a fuck about gay rights.” He contends that, in the 2017 election, the defense of queerness was solely a tactic to legitimize anti-Muslim sentiments. In discussing the Dutch immigration system, Dibi asserts, “of all of these tests, the gay rights is the one that is used the most because they know that that’s the most difficult thing within these communities.” Ironically, homophobia was introduced through Western colonialism, the legacy of which remains entrenched in many immigrant communities. Therefore, using queerness as a pivotal marker to separate ‘medieval’ immigration applicants from the ‘enlightened’ is downright hypocritical. Through tokenizing queerness as a hallmark of Dutch identity, the immigration department can dismiss Muslim applicants with the legitimacy of claiming to protect vulnerable queers. Furthermore, this pink litmus test homogenizes diverse interpretations of Islam and polarizes 1.8 billion people on the single wedge issue of homosexuality.

The most vulnerable within this supposed clash of civilizations are queer Muslims. Indeed, their multidimensional identity is torn by the polarized rhetoric of ‘gays versus Muslims.’ Constructed as mutually exclusively minorities, organizations aimed at combating Islamophobia rarely work in tandem with those targeting homophobia.

“This is what it looks like to be called both a terrorist and a faggot.”
-Mashrou’ Leila

Subsequently, islamophobia is defined through heterosexual experiences, and homophobia through a white lens—erasing the simultaneity of these interwoven systems. Caught in the nexus of ostensibly opposed identities, queer Muslims are unable to grieve tragedies that impact the communities in which they belong. In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, queer Lebanese singer, Mashrou’ Leila, described his frustration, “there are a bunch of us who are queer who feel assaulted by that attack who can’t mourn because we’re also from Muslim families… this is what it looks like to be called both a terrorist and a faggot.”

Rather than being paranoid of Islam, we should be vigilant of the Right Wing. Of course, it is apparent that homonationalism harms Muslims, and queer Muslims especially. But if left untamed, homonationalism will also devour those it claims to protect. The opportunistic alliance between the Right-Wing and white queer men is forged on a shared desire to protect white male privilege. But as trans activist and Burundian refugee Olave Basabose warns “we all know in history when you give the far right room, the next targets are the gays.” Therefore, all privileged gays hold a responsibility to condemn and contest the pink-washed Trojan horse that is homonationalism. Ultimately, in the politics of queer mongering, the only thing to fear is queer itself.

The post Queer Mongering appeared first on The McGill Daily.

When LGBTQ+ refugees arrive on Canadian soil, they must prove what they have been trying to erase their entire lives. Their queerness.

These refugees are interrogated by refugee boards, which cross-examine a claimant’s sexual history, erotic texts messages, intimate journals, and other artifacts to authenticate their sexuality. For many refugees fleeing homophobic violence, the burden of proof is crushing.

Individuals escaping the threat of incarceration, torture, or in extreme cases, execution, have most likely destroyed any evidence of their queer identity in order to survive. But to secure their sanctuary in Canada, they must pass a sort of queer litmus test to verify that they are indeed a “genuine gay.” All too often, however, migrant justice is defined through heterosexual experiences, and homosexuality through a white lens.

This leaves LGBTQ+ refugees at an abyss, as the simultaneity of their oppressions are unrepresented. If an immigration board determines that a refugee doesn’t fit the western mold of queerness, their application is often dismissed. In a case from the British court, an Iranian gay man was initially denied refugee status because “he did not look like a homosexual.” In this way, gay stereotypes influence how immigration courts view “authentic sexualities.” In a similarly disturbing case, a Romanian man was subjected to anal examinations by British immigration officers to “authenticate his alleged homosexuality.” This invasive pseudo-scientific method of screening reduces queerness to a sexual practice, and not an identity. Moreover, the life-or-death urgency of a refugee’s case is undermined if a court views homosexuality as a “voluntary practice,” and not an integral part of their identity. One can’t help but wonder whether these immigration judges view their own heterosexuality as ‘voluntary.’

This invasive pseudo-scientific method of screening reduces queerness to a sexual practice, and not an identity.

Of course, if a refugee hails from one of the 73 countries where homosexuality is still criminalized, they are all too familiar with the lack of choice in being gay. Still, immigration courts have recommended that queer folks simply restrain from “flaunt[ing] their homosexual activities” to avoid violent persecution. The argument that queer people should self-censor ultimately erases the value of public expression, and relegates queer bodies and voices to the dangerous isolation of invisibility. While it would be preposterous for courts to suggest that political or religious minorities simply cease practicing their respective beliefs, pervasive myths around homosexuality allow judges to suggest that one turn their ‘queerness off’ — or at the very least, conceal it. Perhaps a more equitable ruling would advise these judges to stop being so damn straight!

In Canada’s immigration system, where there is a 70.5 per cent success rate for refugees seeking asylum based on sexual orientation, the issue is not blatant homophobia, but rather a western framing of queerness. Professor Sharalyn Jordan, who advocates for queer refugees at the Rainbow Railroad organization, contends, “it is not a case of board members being overtly homophobic or transphobic but […] of ethnocentric criteria being applied.” For instance, the lifestyle of a hijra person from South Asia might not perfectly translate into a Canadian framework of being queer (that is: they can’t be specifically categorized under L, G, B or T), and will subsequently be dismissed. Desperate to secure their sanctuary in Canada, LGBTQ+ refugees may then feel pressured to conform to western standards of gayness.

Desperate to secure their sanctuary in Canada, LGBTQ+ refugees may then feel pressured to conform to western standards of gayness.

Indeed, white gay norms influence how immigration officers adjudicate legitimate LGBTQ+ people. Refugees who do not fit western conceptions of being gay or trans may be considered imposters. In reality, only 2.2 per cent of queer refugee claimants have no credible basis. Critics assert that “bogus refugees” will “act gay” if it provides an easy route to citizenship without considering that pretending to be queer and failing comes with the risk of horrendous marginalization and violence in one’s country of origin.

Furthermore, refugee boards often lack basic discretion, which makes the decision to disclose one’s queerness a precarious gamble. In a tragic case from the American immigration system, a family of asylum applicants learned of their brother’s closeted homosexuality after a refugee officer nonchalantly divulged this private information. Subsequently, relatives harassed and completely severed ties with their queer family member. This meant that the very officers who were responsible for providing asylum for the family ended up endangering the safety of the family’s most vulnerable applicant. If the purpose of refugee programs is to provide sanctuary for those who have endured unimaginable horrors, then we must restructure our systems to avoid further traumatizing these already oppressed communities.

Ironically, homophobia’s colonial history is often erased from debates concerning queer refugees. In reality, the violence that many LGBTQ+ individuals flee in the Global South is the legacy of anti-sodomy laws imposed by European colonialism. There is a risk in mythologizing the West as a progressive haven for LGBTQ+ people: the colonial roots of homophobia are obscured. For example, in much of pre-colonial South Asia, hijras were actually culturally celebrated. Indeed, the problematic narrative of white countries emancipating gender non-conforming people of colour from their ‘barbaric cultures’ only further entrenches imperial power dynamics. While Canadians can celebrate programs such as the mission to bring gay Syrian men to Canada, we must avoid a self-congratulatory depiction of the west. We must recognize that both the homophobia from which these refugees are fleeing, and the conceptions of queerness to which they must conform, are products of western domination.

Despite the system’s failures, organizations like the Rainbow Railroad have been successful in assisting LGBTQ+ refugees throughout their arduous screening processes. In the spring of 2017, when the government of Chechnya began its anti-gay purge, the Rainbow Railroad partnered with the Liberal government of Canada to provide sanctuary to more than thirty queer refugees. The Canadian asylum operation, which breached international law and threatened Moscow-Ottawa relations, demonstrated Canada’s capacity to be a global leader. Remarkably, Justin Trudeau, (the ultimate saviour-daddy) who seizes every photo opportunity to hug a refugee or snap a selfie at Pride, somehow avoided tokenizing the Chechen mission. Operating with discretion and minimal media coverage, real lives were saved. These persecuted queer Chechens, some of whom had escaped gay concentration camps and electric-shock torture, were given a second chance at a better life.

Although it’s simple to condemn the western gatekeeping of queer refugees, proposing constructive solutions is far more demanding. A more equitable and intersectional method of screening would recognize the cultural diversity of queerness and ultimately prioritize the needs of asylum applicants.

In fact, rather than forcing refugees to traverse the bureaucratic tightrope towards citizenship and prove their queerness based on western norms, perhaps the tables should turn. Perhaps the time has come instead for immigration boards to prove their straightness.

The post Prove Your Queerness appeared first on The McGill Daily.

For most parents, assigning gender roles to their newborn is a naturalized no-brainer, as many do not grasp the weight of their ruling. Our gender expression is the product of years of rehearsal, compounded with social rewards and, more significantly, punishments for straying from the script. Indeed, few of us exit the womb preferring racecars to ribbons — we’re drooling pudgy cherubs, after all. However, the stage is set by the colour of our nurseries, the plots of our fairy tales, and the forces of socialization that mold boys and girls into their roles.

But what happens when queer kids stray from cis-normative scripts and aren’t certain they want to tell their parents? In Alberta, it’s become a politicized issue — one so massive that the political right has triggered an aggressive moral panic. The United Conservative Party of Alberta has demonized Gay Straight Alliances in schools for exposing children to gender diversity and providing a safe space for isolated queer students. Conservative leader, Jason Kenney, is demanding that teachers break the confidence of vulnerable queer kids by outing students to their parents. What social conservatives who shudder at boys wearing makeup fail to see is that we are ultimately all drag queens.

What’s even more intriguing than the illusion of scandalous hyperfemininity in drag shows is the illusion of gender itself. The performance of masculinity, for example, in “duck dynasty culture” and amongst fraternity bros is equally as contrived. The difference, of course, is that drag queens intentionally present a façade, whereas chest-thumping jocks project a staged authenticity. In this way, the “realness” of gender, be it on drag queens, tiara-wearing toddlers, or hockey bros, is ultimately artificial. Subsequently, the absurd theatricality of gender implodes when conservatives shame queer kids, and valorize their nuclear model of “traditional family values.”

This theatricality had been explored by RuPaul long before he hit mainstream TV, through his performance of punk-rock “gender fucking.” Gender fucking was an iconoclastic middle finger to the script of gender roles — torching the lifetime of rehearsals that penalize femme queer youth. By rejecting the straightjacket of gender oppression, drag performers created a medium through which they could express their individuality.

This wisdom is shared weekly with toddlers at a library in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where drag queens present an event titled “Read By Queens.” The drag queens present a story hour and invite youth to question the seemingly natural gender roles imposed at birth. Through dramatic character transformations, the queens flaunt the artificiality of gender. The hours of gluing brows, padding hips, pinning wigs and artfully re-sculpting their bone structure satirically demonstrate the instability of gender codes. Therefore, given a safe space in libraries or Gay Straight Alliances, kids can subvert the gender binary in sequined gowns, and slowly wrench loose the grip of biological sex roles. How fabulous it is to break the rules.

Granted, flamboyant lipstick and contour can be rinsed away at the end of a nightclub performance, but for many nonbinary and trans folks, gender expression goes beyond a performative aesthetic, and is intrinsic to their very identity. In the same way that non-drag bodies are shaved, sculpted, and inscribed with gender codes, the body of a drag performer presents a stage for rebellious liberation. Rooted in a history of gay and trans activism, drag mocks the oppressive systems that violently punish queer youth.

On a personal level, I began extravagantly transgressing the gender binary before I knew what it was. Photo albums can attest to 5-year-old Quinn strutting about Alberta in orange Anne of Green Gables wigs and oversized womanly regalia. I distinctly remember twisting bath towels into headpieces and lip syncing to ABBA in the mirror. Yet for many queer kids, the home is not a safe space to disobey gender roles. In Canada, LGBTQ teens are four times more likely to attempt suicide and comprise 40 per cent of the youth homeless population. Ostracized queer teens are frequently banished from their biological families and targeted for political points. Conservatives like Jason Kenney weaponize queer children in their deranged supposed defense of youth’s innocence. Through opposing Gay Straight Alliances, Kenney drags kids into the crossfire of the culture wars.

To their credit, some femme-shaming conservatives might grow jealous of queers. Not only do we have marvelous closets, but we constantly concoct colourful new language. And so to remedy this, I am proposing a new term for the heterosexual lexicon to describe the normalized gender performance of Jason Kenney, Stephen Harper, and the like: STRAG (noun): A heterosexual cocktail of “straight” cisgender expression, paired with the off-brand theatricality of drag. Used in a sentence: the strag couple grew uncomfortable at the sight of a drag queen, and hid their strag presenting child from the queen. And so to all queer-phobic strag performers who walk through the streets in their strag outfits, with their strag mannerisms, and strag rules imposed on strag children, I’m afraid your time has come to sashay away.

The post Children in drag? Oh baby! appeared first on The McGill Daily.