The six-minute ‘tutorial’ entitled ‘Be Yourself’ has shocked the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community of the UAE when it was posted a little more than a week ago on YouTube.

The video depicts five young men as the starring characters: Rashid Al-Muaini, Majid Al-Muaini, Ali Al-Ghaithi, Jamel Al-Ghaithi and Mohammad Eissa. The scene is set in a typical suburban neighbourhood of one of the UAE cities (most likely Ajman), where the five meet.

Two are in a traditional Emirati dress of Kandura and Kiffayeh greeted by a visibly shy effeminate guy with long hair, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, who says ‘Hi guys’ in a high-pitched voice, proceeding to shake their hands in a camp manner and playing with his hair.

He is contrasted with two other guys dressed in western style who pass-by and greet in a ‘brotherly’ macho-like manner.

The effeminate guy acts all shy and blushes when he’s invited, with a ‘wink’ to come inside the villa next door.

Once in the villa’s living room, the effeminate man is told that he needs to change his personality. One of the traditional-dressed men asks: ‘will you change it or not?’ He replies ‘yes but now?’ And is told ‘leave it to us’.

They proceed to show the effeminate guy how to mimic masculine gestures. Later he is given a ‘make-over’ where his hands and face are almost violently scrubbed with scouring cloths, and then his nails and hair are cut.

After the make-over the still effeminate guy gets a slap when he is about leave for saying ‘bye guys’ in his high pitch voice, and given a tip: ‘Thicken your voice!’

In the concluding scene all five characters meet up again. The effeminate guy seems less distinguished by his looks. His friends seem happy and proud of what they did and finish by thanking Allah, who helped bring about the ‘change’.

While the title and video may look paradoxical even laughably ludicrous it nevertheless touches upon some profound issues relevant to LGBT people from the UAE. I discuss these with three LGBT rights activists from a group called “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transexual Rights UAE”.

Abdullah

Abdullah, 24 from Abu-Dhabi, founder of the group commented: “The video signifies the level of challenge, we, the UAE LGBT community, have ahead of us. We don’t merely have to change the views of the government but also society itself. It angers me no end, but it also saddens me, this video would have been devastating if my 16-year-old self had watched it.”

“As a sixteen year old, I can still hear echoes in my mind of mom yelling at me no to flail my hand too much when I speak, which only lead to me being robotic and stiff, feeling I must keep both hands down when I speak, something that took a long time to get over.

“My mom would also shout at me for using English terms like ‘guys’ in her presence because it emulated the westerners and was a direct ‘attack’ to the Arabic language and my [masculine] mannerisms.”

Abdullah speaks how his parents would force him to get a to “a crew cut” so his hair won’t look like a “a western propaganda” fag, something that deeply humiliated and angered him. He recounts how his parents refused to buy him Jeans and T shirts because it made him “act girly,” telling him instead he must wear the “traditional Emirati dress.”

The video “brought flashbacks to me how on endless hot Friday afternoons I was forced to observe how men interact, or how they drink coffee by my father, so that I should emulate to make him proud.”

Abdullah sadly recalls: “I was banned from hanging out with my sisters too much because my parents alleged they were turning me into a woman,” finally his father rejected and gave up on him, choosing one of Abdullah’s brothers to “make him proud.”

“No wonder I tend to be angry and passionate with LGBT rights and equalityin general,” he reflects, but that is objectively, he insists, much of the social reality in his country. In the UAE, men are required to act in a away that reflects the Bedouin tribe which we are descended from.”

In contrast, “many view homosexuality as a western invention and not a very good one”.

This Abdullah says is exemplified by the representation in the movie of the “effeminate guy” who is lured into the villa for a “straight makeover”, having his gayness being scrubbed away and the issue “fixed” with giving him “a ‘positive’ role model (having mentioned in the first part of the video how he has no brothers to properly emulate). They proceed to demonstrate to him how to properly sit and not to flail with his hands.”

Fatima

Fatima, a 31 year old secretary from Abu-Dhabi points out more issues with the representation of the ‘effeminate gay charchter’: “the director, having chosen this particular young man and his looks to play the deviant, gender-confused homosexual is openly insulting every gay man on earth.

“Well of course it’s typical to have young, macho-wannabe boys chasing a ball in the street, god forbid the director shoots the film in a library or a study room that could really harm the image of what a real Arabic man is supposed to be doing in his free time.

“Well of course it’s typical to have a femme-fetal gay man to represent the entire population of homosexual men in the region, assume that gay people are not being themselves, they just spend their lives pretending to be someone else for, I don’t know, attention? And yes, it is very typical to have a homosexual “cured” with a firm rub and a neat haircut, oh and if he shows signs of relapse, just slap him back to his senses.”

“The message of this video is ugly, hurtful and very dangerous.”

Fatima finally states “I hope whoever came up with this sick idea gets a visit from a gay cupid. Ha!”

Ali

Ali, 25 year old law student from Dubai was outraged by the video: “I found ‘Be yourself’ extremely offensive. When I read the title, I was thinking ‘Wow, finally some of these people have actually learnt something! Perhaps we can have a go at acceptance!’, only to discover a video filled with prejudice.”

“I was gutted at the confidence in the faces of the actors on the fact that they CAN treat homosexuality just like that.”

I want to address this “to all of those who think they can treat homosexuality by grooming, abusing and hurting:

“Are you proud to be homophobic people? Leading people into an illusion that being gay is all about flapping your hands and having a girly voice?”

The challenge ahead:

The UAE is a federation of seven emirates who each have different harsh laws regarding homosexuality, from up to 10 years in prison in Dubai to 14 in Abu-Dhabi, while Article 354 of the Federal Penal Code may even prescribe a death sentence for ‘consensual sodomy’. So punishment for homosexuality can include prison, fines, deportation, flogging and death.

Meanwhile psychologists and psychiatrists in the UAE regard ‘gender atypical behaviour’ as a psychological disturbance, while being gay as an illness that, in some cases, is to be ‘cured’ with hormonal ‘treatments’, despite global clinical guidance to the contrary.

Abdullah told us: ‘Homosexuality has always been a part of the Arabian world, it existed in poetry and writings that are found in Islam and even predate it. Not to mention it’s a natural part of humanity.’

But stereotyping of LGBT people and the idea that non-conforming sexuality is westernized or can be changed are rampant.

“We want to change that, so that another 16 year old or the impressionable LGBT youth, wouldn’t have to go through what others, including myself, before them did.”

“Perhaps the only good lesson of the video that the LGBT community could use to their advantage, is from the hadith quoted at the end,” he says. “We will challenge those beliefs and misconceptions one person at a time, and if we don’t change them we will reach to their hearts,” he optimistically concludes.

The move will allow the popular micro-blogging site to comply with local governments’ request to block certain content or users.

Previously, Twitter would block tweets and accounts across the world, but the micro-blogging site said it was introducing the new policy of country-specific censorship as it expands into states “that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression”.

The site is currently banned in China and was inaccessible for a time during the Egyptian protests of early 2011.

But concerns have been raised by some commentators that the new technology could be used to begin reactively censoring content relevant to gay communities in countries who request it.

Twitter wrote in a blog post last week: “Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country – while keeping it available in the rest of the world.

“We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.”

Twitter will replace the text of a censored post with a greyed-out tweet reading, “This tweet from @username has been withheld in: Country. Learn more.”

Announcing the move, Twitter said: “There’s no magic to the timing of this feature. We’ve been working to reduce the scope of withholding, while increasing transparency, for a while. We have users all over the world and wanted to find a way to deal with requests in the least restrictive way.”

Dan Littauer, Executive Editor for Gay Middle East said: “We are very concerned about this new development. Twitter has an enormous impact in spreading news and media, especially regarding Human Rights, including LGBT rights across the world and in particular the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).”

“Twitter has been essential, for example, in helping the Arab Spring protests and also spread of information regarding LGBT issues in the Middle East and North Africa. Users within the state where censorship is about to occur will not be able to co-ordinate protests or actions.”

“Furthermore, many users in this region rely on tweets to inform them about already blocked sites, such as ours, for example in Saudi Arabia. This allows the Twitter users to use technology to bypass the censorship.

“This means that if LGBT related tweets and users will be censored across some or all of the MENA countries it will make it so much harder to communicate and even know about censorship itself in that country. This is a very dangerous precedent.”

Members of Gay Middle East questioned whether Twitter’s decision was related to the SOPA and PIPA initiatives as well as the recent acquisition of a stake in Twitter’s company by the Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Shamil, Gay Middle East Editor of Saudi Arabia and the UAE remarked: “Just like any purchase by a person of power within the Kingdom, investor pressure could be brought to bear on a myriad of issues at anytime, where restrictions could be made to apply in the Kingdom itself, which already has censorship.

“This could result in some influence on blocking LGBT tweets, but only in the Kingdom itself.”

Littauer said that blocking the word “gay” and associated LGBT terms on Bing – the Microsoft flagship search engine – has been a practice by the Kingdom and other Arab countries.

He said: “There was a possibility that such restrictions could arise due to the increased presence of such a political figure.”

PinkNews.co.uk has asked Twitter for comment on how the technology could affect gay and transgender communities in hostile countries.

On 18th January, a 45 minute long black and white video dating from 1991, showing two men having sex, was posted on YouTube. The occasional close-up on one of the men’s faces resembles Ali Larayedh, the current interior minister and a member of the ruling Islamist party Ennahda who won last years’ October elections after the first Arab spring rebellion which deposed dictator Ben Ali. The poor quality of the video makes it difficult to determine the video’s authenticity, or whether Larayedh is actually in the video. The video on the site was quickly removed, although it is still available on file-sharing sites.

In 1990 Ali Larayedh was arrested by Ben Ali’s police for his activity as a member of the then illegal Ennahda party and was sentenced to 15 years in prison after a show trial. He alleges that he has been tortured while serving his jail sentence, while in 1992 his wife was sexually assaulted during an investigation at the Ministry of the Interior.

The alleged video of Ali Larayedh from his time in prison was posted shortly after an announcement by the Tunisian government that three arrest warrants had been issued for senior officials at the Ministry of the Interior. Responsibility for uploading the video was claimed by Jalel Brick, a well known left wing opponent to the ruling islamist party Ennahdha, who claimed he got the video tape from a Tunisian secret police officer. Tarek, Tunisian Editor for Gay Middle East notes that “the security forces of Tunisia have largely remained intact since the time of Ben-Ali and thus many of its personnel are potentially hostile to the Ennahda party,” In other words, the video may have been leaked by someone in the Ministry of the Interior, or perhaps former a high-ranking police officer, wishing to undermine Ali Larayedh by further inciting public opinion using a tactic dubbed “porno politics” by Tunisian activist Ahmed Manaï. According Manaï’s book, “Tunisian Torture: The Secret Garden of General Ben Ali”, tactics to discredit political opponents through exposing sexual scandals, and in particular homosexual ones were used by the deposed Tunisian dictator Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, during the early 1990s.

The background to this scandal is important to note. Two days before this incident (16.1.12) Naji Behiri, the brother of the Tunisian Minister of Justice, Noureddine Behiri, was released from prison under presidential amnesty, despite allegation from his hometown that he raped a young boy. Tarek attests: “A wave of public anger erupted across the nation accusing Ennahda party of being at league with homosexuals and paedophiles, terms that were used interchangeably. Highly homophobic comments were posted on related news articles and throughout the social networking sites, mostly asking that Naji Behiri remains in prison and tried and punished for sodomy. Conspiracy theories of homosexual corruption and cover up within the Ennahda party have become commonplace.”

These two scandals have ignited a kind of “homosexual panic” according to Tarek. Many people have been voicing their opinions that the Interior Minister should resign as his behaviour contradicts Islamic values while others even called for him to be indicted for violating Article 230 of the Tunisian penal code that punishes homosexual acts between consenting adults with up to three years imprisonment. Public discourse has been saturated with conspiracy theories that the ruling party is rife with homosexuals, protecting gays/paedophiles or failing to protect Tunisia from a homosexual epidemic. Mocking satires such Ennahda is a “fag” party, “they are all shaz (fags in arabic) in Ennahda”, are “quite commonly heard in the streets of Tunisia” stated Tarek, “often conflating the terms ‘paedophilia’, ‘homosexuality’, ‘sodomy’ and ‘Islamists’ intentionally.” This image, spread via Facebook, depicts two veiled women are portrayed kissing, while on the right it reads: “Legal fags/Haraam fags” with the logo of the Ennahda party below.

In an attempt to stop such allegations, Samir Dilou, a spokesperson for the Tunisian government, claimed the video was an attempt at a set-up and that the private life of politicians should not be used as a political weapon. All the Tunisian political parties condemned what they called an unjustified attempt to discredit the minister. Tunisian media has not published even one frame shot from the video.

However the current wave of “homosexual panic” and homophobia can be traced to the pre-election campaigning. Firstly to discredit the preceding dictatorship, the party claimed that the deposed Ben Ali and preceding dictator Habib Bourguiba encouraged homosexuality, prostitution and vice which would be swept clean should Ennahda be elected.

During this period nationwide marches entitled أعتقني aatakni (“Leave me alone”) were held in support of the secular parties and against the islamsits. Supporters of Ennahda used the fact that in some of these marches the PEACE rainbow flag (often used in Italian rallies) were waved, alleging and ridiculing that aatakni are in fact gay pride marches. For example in the following poster the viewer is asked to “spot the pictures of Tunisian aatakni from a variety of ‘aatakni’ marches worldwide”, which Israeli gay prides (pictures 2,7), gay pride marches (4,5,8) and Tunisia (1,3,6), where in picture 6 the logo of the secular and tolerant Modern Democratic Pole” (MDP) is almost equated with the star of David. Thus creating and associative link of aatakni=fags=zionists, i.e. bad and morally corrupt/suspect, which was spread via social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter.

Opposing political parties were signalled out using this “homosexual panic” tactic. For example in this Photoshop edited picture the banner of the Socialist Party has been altered to read “sodomy is the basis of the republic”, most likely sodomy replaced the word “freedom.” Tarek testifies “many banners reading ‘give us freedom, we want freedom’ were reworked replacing ‘freedom’ with ‘sodomy’ on blogs and facebook pages of supporters of the Ennahda party.”

Supporters of Ennahda did not stop there and vilified leaders or public figures they saw as opposing to their political ideas via scandalous allegations as to their sexuality or support of “social vices”. Most notably this was the case with Dr. Olfa Youssef a famous female intellectual, writer, psychoanalyst and director of the National Library of Tunisia. She is a public figure that appears on TV shows and writes many articles regarding freedom, women’s rights and human rights in general. She was consistently called a lover and supporter of prostitutes and fags. The Facebook page where the picture above was posted is entitled “Against Olfa Youssef who says liwat (sodomy) is not haraam”.

It thus appears that the current “homosexual panic” has its roots in the campaigns started by supporters of the Ennahda party against competing parties. The islamists used far more public and forceful tactics than the old style Ben-Ali “porno politics” that formed the probable basis of the Ali Larayedh scandal. This was done by linking unpopular subjects which were previously taboo, like homosexuality and prostitution, to spread fear, rumours and ridicule of opponents.

Jalel Brick claimed that he uploaded the video of Ali Larayedh to counter balance Ennahdha’s method of denigrating and attacking its opponents morality online and via gossip.

The opposition adopted identical methods to Ennahda during the two recent scandals of Naji Behiri and Ali Larayedh, which found an already receptive public which has been continuously imbued with bigotry throughout the electoral campaign. Tarek explains: “what shocked me most is the readiness and enthusiasm that opposition supporters that champion Human Rights and democracy have readily adopted such homophobic discourses previously used by the islamists against the islamists Ennahda party. I did not expect them to use this as a weapon, it created a kind of public consensus and consciousness of homosexuality as something evil and sick”.

Tarek despairingly notes that “the main victims of this ‘homosexual panic’, are unfortunately, the Tunisian LGBT community. In public discourse homosexuality has now become synonymous with paedophilia and hypocrisy, entrenching further negative stereotypes. Under Ben-Ali dictatorship we were invisible, with the occasional scandal and harassment, but this increased negative and smear campaigning has inflamed public opinion and brought immense fear to gays and lesbians living in Tunisia.” The one ray of hope is that all the political parties have now committed themselves not to use any such tactics further. “This I hope will be a lesson for Ennahda, since they let loose this tactic only to find it rebounded on themselves. I really hope this realisation is going to last.”

Dan Littauer is the editor of Gay Middle East

The most recent case of police violence was reported on 7 January 2012, where three transgender women were brutally detained. Gay Middle East has also been reporting on this continual abuse and the rise of transphobia in general throughout Kuwait following the introduction of a discriminatory law in 2007 (amendment to article 198) that arbitrarily criminalizes “imitating the opposite sex” in Kuwait.

Following the introduction of Amendment to article 198 of the Kuwaiti Penal Code police have been given a free hand to “determine” whether a person’s appearance constitutes “imitating the opposite sex” without any specific criteria being laid down for the offense.

These reports, by Human Rights Watch and Gay Middle East (see also here), reveal how transgender women (individuals born male but identify as female) suffer daily persecution, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse both at the hands of the police and the public at large.

Speaking with Gay Middle East, a transgender Kuwaiti activist pleaded: “the situation in Kuwait is horrible for us, just intolerable. There are at least thirteen transgender women in jail right now.” Her friends have been abused physically, emotionally and at times sexually.

She also noted that blackmail for sex and money was commonplace. In addition she stated that Sheikh Sheikh Jaber Mubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah, the Prime Minister of Kuwait, was approached by Human Rights activists and when he was shown a list of transgender prisoners he claimed they were arrested for “other offences” and denied the whole issue. Attempts to interview the prisoners were also denied by the Kuwaiti authorities. Gay Middle East will publish later this week a detailed interview with the aforementioned activist.

Human Rights Watch documented that transgender individuals were being arrested even when they were wearing male clothes, only later to be forced by police to dress in women’s clothing, who claimed that they arrested them in that attire.

In some cases documented by Human Rights Watch, transgender women said police arrested them because they had a “soft voice” or “smooth skin.” Despite an official recognition of gender identity disorder (GID) by the Kuwaiti Ministry of Health as a legitimate medical condition, the law criminalising “imitating the opposite sex” makes no exception for people who have been diagnosed with GID. In fact there have been cases where papers have been presented to the police and were ignored.

Gay Middle East calls upon the government of Kuwait to immediately start proceedings to repeal amendment to article 198 criminalising “imitating the opposite sex.” The government should immediately halt the arrests and harassment of transgender individuals and free all individuals detained by the police. We also call on the government to commence an investigation into the alleged police brutality and protect transgender individuals.

HRW report: ‘They Hunt us Down for Fun’: Discrimination and Police Violence against Transgender Women in Kuwait.

Activists are concerned for the safety of a 30-year-old man arrested by the religious police in Saudi Arabia for using Facebook to date other men. The man, whose exact identity is not known, was arrested on 23 December (2011) but full details of the incident are only now becoming clear after a detailed investigation by Gay Middle East. Experts warn he may face blackmail and/or corporal punishment.

He is being held in custody in the Dammam Police Department awaiting the Dammam’s General Attorney office for prosecution. The case has been reported to Amnesty International, while Facebook declined to comment.

The report by Sabaq electronic journal mentions that a Saudi citizen reported an unnamed 30-year old man to the Religious police in Saudi Arabia, known as the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which proceeded to apprehend the man who finally confessed that “the Facebook profile is his and that he had been using it for obscenity acts with other men”.

KSA law is not strictly codified and its implementation, in either a lenient or severe manner, depends mostly on religious Sunni judges and scholars, as well as royal decrees (and thus subject to extreme variability). Generally speaking punishments for homosexuality range from imprisonment and/or flogging to the death penalty. Conviction and severity of punishments depends on the social class, religion and citizenship of the accused, whereby non-western migrant workers receive usually harsher treatment than upper class Saudi citizens.

Sami Hamwi, Syria Editor of Gay Middle East, and former Saudi resident explains: “Native born Saudi citizens who are Suni or from the Bedouin tribes in the country are often let off, while punishment are severely executed against minorities like Shiites and or newly naturalised citizens. Punishments regarding homosexuality are also held against expatriates working in Saudi Arabia, especially those coming from Asian, African and Arab countries. Dammam is a largely Shiite area and if the 30 year old aforementioned man is a Shiite, he is likely to be trailed and sentenced harshly.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron is visiting Saudi Arabia today – already under pressure to raise human rights abuses with his hosts.

A British Foreign and Commonwealth spokesperson told Gay Middle East:

“We are aware of the reports and seeking further information. The UK opposes all discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people in all circumstances. We are committed to combating violence and discrimination against LGBT people as an integral part of our international human rights work. We believe that human rights are universal and that LGBT people should be free to enjoy the rights and freedoms to which people of all nations are entitled.”

Condemnation of this case has been forthcoming from NGOs:

A spokesperson for Amnesty International said :”Amnesty International is seeking more information on this case. If the man reported in the Sabq story has been arrested and charged with homosexuality, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release. Saudi Arabia has sentenced people convicted of homosexuality and ‘sodomy’ to a range of penalties including corporal punishment and even the death penalty. The criminalization of homosexuality encourages the dehumanization of lesbians, gay men, bisexual people and transgender people (LGBT) as their very identity is criminalized.”

“Amnesty International considers the use of ‘sodomy’ laws to imprison (usually) men for same-sex relations in private to be a grave violation of human rights, including the rights to privacy, to freedom from discrimination, to freedom of expression and association, which are protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Lesbian & Gay Foundation also voiced concerns: “It is extremely worrying to hear that that the Saudi police have entrapped this man when we know that Saudi-Arabia is one of the remaining countries in the world where homosexual acts are punishable at worst Death, but also by severe corporal punishment and imprisonment.”

“We understand that because of the very nature of the country’s Draconian anti LGBT legislations there exists, by necessity, an underground gay scene, and if people are discovered to have fallen foul of official prohibitions they risk such entrapment, jail and flogging.”

“The Lesbian & Gay Foundation would like to see the UK government do whatever it can to make sure that LGBT issues across the region are seen as a significant human rights problem and we would urge all those concerned to put pressure on authorities such as The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the US State Department and others to be vocal in their condemnation of such acts which ignore the most basic of human rights.”

Peter Tatchell, Director of the human rights lobby, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, said:

“I urge the Foreign Secretary William Hague, and the EU Foreign Minister Catherine Ashton, to make representations to the Saudi government to secure the release of this man. His detention violates all the norms of international human rights law. In the longer term, Britain and US must stop colluding with the Saudi royal dictatorship. Sanctions should be imposed against the regime until it ensures democracy and human rights for all its citizens.”

Gay Middle East sent and email to the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in London which was read and ignored. To the knowledge of Gay Middle East, this is first known reported case of entrapment for homosexuality via facebook in the KSA. Gay Middle East therefore thought that a user of any social networking site has a right for privacy and asked Facebook for their comments on the case and its possible ramifications. Despite an email and a phone call, Facebook refused to comment on the issue.

While this case may seem to Western readers as breaching the privacy rights, Saudi Arabia does not provide the right to privacy. In fact the religious police encourage reporting of any “deviant” behaviour and deliberately entrap a person for homosexuality, for example a British male Nurse who was recently entrapped via fake SMS sent by the religious police.

Entrapment by the religious police does not necessarily lead to prosecution, but often results in life-long financial and/or sexual black-mail. Hamwi stated: “sexual blackmail and abuse by the Religious Police is unfortunately quite common. When I lived in Medina, a neighbour who was a member of the religious police raped my neighbour’s son, a 12 year-old boy, at that time. The same man entrapped and arrested a Pakistani national for homosexuality; the guy was whipped 80 times and before being deported. Such a sentence often applied when a sexual intercourse cannot be proven.”

If a person is outed by the religious police via a trail the consequences can be severe not only in terms of punishments, but lifelong ostracising by the family, the community and reduced or almost no job prospects. “The person may simply become a social outcast,” adds Hamwi, “it is a kind of a social-death or in some cases may lead to persecution by the family until the person is killed to save the so-called ‘honour’ of the family.”

Furthermore private communication is also not subject to what ordinarily would be considered in the West as the right for privacy. All communications (including electronic) can be seized by the government for evidence in criminal trials; previously men have been arrested for homosexuality via paltalk (a social networking site popular in the Gulf), and gay-dating sites.

Hamwi explained further: “the use of internet in Saudi Arabia is subject to monitoring, censorship and restrictions. Most online dating and social media website are blocked under the current Saudi laws. When trying to access banned or blocked websites users usually get screens stating “Sorry, the requested page is not available.” However, Saudis manage to override the Saudi proxy settings and access the websites they need.”

Hamwi interviewed several men living in the KSA about the situation for gay men in the kingdom.

Ahmad, a 37-year-old Saudi engineer, mentioned that he is concerned with using online dating services and websites. “Anyone from the “Hay’ah”, (the religious police) can use those websites to entrap gay men. This is not common, but it happened before and I don’t want to be socially humiliated.” Ahmad affirmed that non-Saudis and Saudi Shiites are more likely to be subject to the legal Islamic penalties than the Sunni Saudis.

Munir, a 29-year-old Syrian graphic designer working in KSA, said that the situation in Saudi Arabia is dangerous for gay men. “You see, when you are not Saudi, they can arrest you, put you in jail, lash you, and deport you. It is easier to be sexually deprived than having to face all the dangers coming from online dating.”

Fahad, a 42-year-old Saudi citizen, said that he rarely uses the online dating websites while in Saudi Arabia. “The situation here is complicated because of all the religious, social, and legal restrictions. Gay men in Saudi Arabia prefer not to have to struggle with the laws, since the media can easily raise a social anger when they expose their cases. This happens a lot.”

This article was first published on Gay Middle East.

Israel’s second city topped an online poll run by American Airlines and gay travel site Gaycities.com.

Tel Aviv won 43% of the votes, followed by New York City with 14% and Toronto with 7%.

London managed 5% of the public vote.

Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “Winning this competition constitutes an additional strengthening of the fact that Tel Aviv-Jaffa is a city that respects all people and allows everyone to live according to his/her own principles.

“Ours is a city in which everyone can be proud of who they are.”

In the summer of 2010, Tel Aviv’s Tourism Association launched a six-month initiative called Tel Aviv Gay Vibe, which aimed to encourage gay people from all over the world to visit the city, primarily targeting gays and lesbians in France and Germany.

But Hagai El-Ad, Executive Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, told the Jerusalem Post: “For those at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Israel who devised the strategy of pitching Israel as a ‘gay promised land’ in the hope that this would somehow make people [...] look away from very serious and worsening human rights violations here, that’s a strategy that any decent person should reject wholeheartedly.”

In November, a New York professor said the promotion of gay rights in Israel may be “blinding” people to human rights violations in Palestine through “pinkwashing”.

In an Op-Ed Sarah Schulman wrote for the New York Times, she said gay people were being co-opted by “anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim” forces around the world, calling it a “nefarious phenomenon”.

In response, gay porn producer Michael Lucas said the idea was “ludicrous and offensive”.

“The two issues have nothing to do with each other; it’s like saying that New York legalized gay marriage to divert attention from Wall Street’s banking scandals or the war in Iraq.”

2,000 people attended Jerusalem Pride last year, though the event had attracted violence in the past and there was one police officer for every two attendees on the streets.

Tel Aviv, meanwhile, draws larger crowds at its pride event and usually enjoys a peaceful day, despite calls from some religious conservatives to ban the event.

In other results from the poll, New York came top for night life and dress sense, San Francisco won for its pride event, Paris had the best food and Buffalo, New York was voted the best up and coming city.

Gan Meir park, where the city’s gay community centre is based, has seen a number of anti-gay assaults in recent months.

Speaking to Haaretz, community centre director Yuval Egertt said he knew of at least four assaults, including an incident two weeks ago in which a young gay couple were attacked by a group of 12-14 year-olds.

One of the victims allegedly suffered a broken jaw. Although the police were called, the suspected attackers were not arrested because they were minors.

After the attack, Mr Egertt asked city officials for new measures to help prevent incidents and it has been announced that CCTV will be put in place early next year with improved police patrols.

Mr Egertt told the newspaper: “It’s just a matter of time. The next violent incident will be a lot worse than a broken jaw.”

In an Op-Ed Sarah Schulman wrote for the New York Times, she said gay people were being co-opted by “anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim” forces around the world, calling it a “nefarious phenomenon”.

In Israel, she wrote, the government had sought to “reposition its global image”, spending $90m to promote Tel Aviv as a destination for gay tourists.

Schulman writes: “The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation has named these tactics “pinkwashing”: a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

Schulman is a professor of humanities at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York.

She cites the gay porn producer Michael Lucas, whom she incorrectly identified as Israeli, and his film Men of Israel, shot “on the site of a former Palestinian village”, as an example.

In an open letter to the New York Times, Lucas responded: “Tel Tzova, where some of “Men of Israel” was shot, has historical importance for Jews as well as Palestinians—it was a pressure point of pre-Israeli resistance to the British—and has been an Israeli kibbutz for more than 60 years now. (It was chosen for its scenic qualities, not as a statement.)

“More important: The idea that Israel’s gay-friendly policies are part of a ‘deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights’ is both ludicrous and offensive.

“The two issues have nothing to do with each other; it’s like saying that New York legalized gay marriage to divert attention from Wall Street’s banking scandals or the war in Iraq.”

Schulman continues in her article to say Israel’s pro-gay stance “manipulates the hard-won gains of Israel’s gay community”, and “ignores the existence of Palestinian gay-rights organizations”.

Gay rights in the republic are considered the most advanced in the Middle East. Although there are no state-sanctioned provisions for gay marriages, common law marriage applies equally to same-sex couples and gay marriages entered into overseas are recognised.

Schulman argues that the the “emotional legacy of homophobia” makes the LGBT community “susceptible to pinkwashing”, and prone to putting too much emphasis on a country’s gay rights record when judging it.

Realisation of “some rights for gays”, she says, should not “blind” people to the fight against racism globally, or, regarding Israel, the “Palestinians’ insistence on a land to call home”.

In his letter, Lucas concludes: “Schulman’s paranoia about ‘pinkwashing’ not only plays into a long and dangerous history of anti-Semitic conspiracy theory but also minimizes Israel’s substantial commitment to gay rights, which goes back many years and puts America’s to shame.”

After decades in power, a brutal dictator in a Muslim country is dramatically deposed by a massive popular uprising. Sound familiar? Of course: that’s what happened in Egypt and Libya this year, as part of what’s known as the Arab Spring. But it’s also what happened in Iran in 1979 — and that should make us pause for a moment.

It’s easy to cheer for democratic change and celebrate the downfall of tyrants like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. But what if the end of one kind of oppression brings about the rise of another? As history has shown us time and again, revolutions are often turns for the worse.

Gay people should be especially wary when the forces of religious fundamentalism are involved. And nowhere are those forces stronger today than in the Muslim world. The power behind the Arab Spring came in large part from the coiled energy of Islamic groups that had been suppressed by secular dictatorships; as the old regimes crumble, hard-core Islamists are eager to take their place.

If the past is any guide, that’s bad news for gays in the Muslim world. Consider Iran. Under the Shah, Tehran had room for gay nightclubs and artists. That tolerance ended when the ayatollahs took over in the Islamic revolution of 1979 and instituted a fundamentalist form of Quranic law, or Shariah, under which gay sex is punishable by death. (Three Iranian men were hanged for sodomy in September, and hundreds of others have reportedly been executed for gay-related offenses.)

Or consider the explosion of anti-gay violence that followed the end of Saddam Hussein’s secular regime in Iraq. The powerful cleric Ali al-Sistani, who had been kept in check by Saddam, issued a 2005 fatwa calling for gay men and lesbians to be killed “in the worst, most severe way of killing.” In recent years, according to human-rights groups, scores of Iraqi gays have been abducted and murdered — often through gruesome torture and mutilation — by sectarian death squads and even by members of their own families (in so-called “honor killings”).

Iraqi authorities have mostly turned a blind eye to this “sexual cleansing.” Should we be surprised? After all, Shariah is now officially the law of the land. The 2005 Iraqi constitution includes talk about equal rights for all citizens, but its Article 2 calls Islam “the official religion of the State” and says that “no law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”

Whether by law (in Iran) or by acceptance of lawlessness (in Iraq), the increased power of Islam in daily life has been a disaster for Muslim gays. Will things be different in the Arab Spring countries?

We have reason to worry. Egypt’s constitution also has an Article 2, which says the same thing as Iraq’s, that “Islam is the religion of the state,” and that “the principal source of legislation is Shariah.” Egyptian voters had the chance to change that language in a March referendum, but they chose to keep it.

Mubarak was no friend to gay Egyptians, and in the past decade his government stepped up its persecution. But as the Egyptian-born LGBT scholar Hassan El Menyawi has pointed out, this policy was largely motivated by Mubarek’s desire to “shore up [his] Islamic credentials” with a radicalized Egyptian population that was happy to see gays targeted.

A Pew Research Center poll last year found that 82 percent of Egyptian Muslims support stoning people who commit adultery, and 84 percent support the death penalty for Muslims who leave the religion. It’s not hard to imagine the same group’s attitudes toward homosexuality. Any government that results from Egypt’s planned 2012 elections is sure to reflect the country’s widespread religious conservatism.

In Libya, as well, the future will almost certainly be less rosy than we’d like. Last month, the world’s jubilation at the death of Gaddafi turned sour when graphic evidence emerged of the mob’s savagery toward the captured leader. (One video shows Gaddafi being sodomized with a stick.) Libyan liberals, and Western ones, were further disturbed a week later when the head of the transitional government suggested that polygamy should be legalized, in line with Shariah.

Optimists say that the practical concerns of democracy — getting elected, building coalitions — will keep radical Islam in check. I think they’re being deeply naïve. The expectations raised by the Arab Spring will be hard to live up to; soon, the new governments will start looking for scapegoats and distractions. Gays have always played those roles too well.

By supporting the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, the West has meddled where it didn’t belong and unleashed the beast of fundamentalism in those countries, just as it did in Iraq. It’s only a matter of time until that beast starts to bite. And when the tyranny of the religious majority starts trampling on sexual minorities — not to mention women and non-Muslims — the world’s pride in the Arab Spring will turn out to have gone before a very long, very hard fall.

Iran has the death penalty for homosexuality and there is no gay rights movement operating openly within the country.

The Facebook group, called We Are Everywhere, includes messages, photos and videos from LGBT Iranians and their supporters.

Many have hidden their identities, due to the threat LGBT people face.

In one video, a man who calls himself Medhi shows only his mouth and chin.

According to the Guardian, he said: “As a gay person, my biggest problem in Iran is that I cannot be my real self.

“I always have to play a role. I always have to suppress my own existence and part of my identity and hide myself in fear from the society and potential problems that I might face.”

Others, who live outside Iran, speak more openly about their lives and experiences.

Last week, it was reported that Iran had hanged three men for homosexuality offences. In 2005, it was confirmed that two teenagers had been executed for gay sex.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed in 2007 that there were no gay people in his country.

Iran Human Rights, which says it covers news from the country’s official news sources, said state-run Iranian news agency ISNA reported the hangings.

The human rights group said the men were executed under articles 108 and 110 of the Iranian Islamic penal code, which relate to sodomy and the punishment for it.

The punishment for sodomy is death and judges may decide how the sentence is carried out.

The ages of the men were not given. They were identified only as “M. T.”, “T. T.” and “M. Ch.”

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, a spokesman for Iran Human Rights, said:”Yesterday’s executions for sodomy might be among the rare cases where the Iranian authorities admit to having executed men convicted of homosexual acts”.

He added: “Iranian authorities normally present such cases as rape, but rape has not been mentioned in this case”.

The Bar Noar centre was the scene of a fatal shooting two years ago, in which a teenage girl and a counsellor died. The perpetrator has not been caught.

The centre holds evening events and acts as a meeting place for LGBT youths.

According to Hareetz.com, management are deliberating whether to hold a final evening of activities tonight.

The facility’s director Shaul Ganon says it needs NIS 1,200 (about £200) a month to carry on. The centre receives few donations and although the amount needed is small, the centre says it has not been able to raise the funds.

Speaking to Hareetz.com last month, Mr Ganon said: “Personally, I feel that we have been abandoned somewhat and that is a shame, because the place is very important to a large number of youth. It is their second home. They get something here that they don’t get anywhere else. I am hoping a solution will be found. If no solution is found, we will have to close the club.”

Since the shooting, the centre has had to pay for a security guard to be stationed on the door during all events.

Liz Trubishi, 16, and Nir Katz, 26, were killed when a gunman opened fire on a meeting. Fifteen others were injured.

The killer has still not been caught.

Homosexuality is legal in Israel and Tel Aviv is known for its vibrant gay nightlife.

The International LGBTQ Youth and Student Organisation (IGLYO) general assembly was to be held in Tel Aviv in December.

However, Palestinian gay groups said that holding the event in Israel would inflame tensions and prevent delegates from some Middle East countries from attending.

After the controversy began, IGLYO asked members to vote on whether the conference should take place in the country.

Fifty-five per cent said it should, while 25 per cent abstained.

However, IGLYO announced late last month that it was concerned about “recent legal changes in Israel”, namely the country’s controversial new ‘boycott’ law.

Israel Gay Youth, which was to host the event, then decided to withdraw its proposal to host the event, although it will still host the International LGBTQ Youth Leadership Summit in the same month.

IGLYO says it is working on finding another venue for the 2011 general assembly.

British rabbi David Mitchell told the Jewish Chronicle that young gays and lesbians in Israel could be left isolated, while Gary Sakol of the Zionist Federation said: “The lesbian and gay community should be celebrating the freedom of choice people have in Israel, rather than moving the conference away due to pressure from small groups.”

However, the Palestinian Queers Group accused IGLYO of failing to address the “underlying issues” of the problem with regard to Israel-Palestine relations

The organisation added that IGLYO was guilty of “blatant hypocrisy” for allowing the youth leadership to remain in Israel and accused it of “de-facto crossing our picket line”.

In June, gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and US porn producer Michael Lucas set out their opposing arguments on the matter for PinkNews.co.uk.

Mr Tatchell argued that holding the conference in Israel would inflame homophobia, cause divisions and stop delegates from the Muslim world attending.

Mr Lucas argued that Israel is a “beacon of LGBT emancipation” in the Middle East and that there are no delegates from the Arab world.

According to researchers from Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, countries such as Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan and Tunisia are seeing high rates of infection in gay and bisexual men.

Across the region, homosexuality is illegal or frowned upon in most countries.

The researchers said it was a common belief that little or no data is held on MSM HIV transmissions in North Africa and the Middle East. However, they discovered some reliable and previously unpublished sources.

Researcher Ghina Mumtaz told Reuters: “It’s like the black hole in the global HIV map – and this has triggered many controversies and debates around the status of the epidemic.”

She added: “Men who have sex with men are still a highly hidden population in the region and there is stigma around this behaviour, but some countries have been able to find creative ways of dealing with the problem and at the same time avoiding the social, cultural and political sensitivities.”

The research, published in the Public Library of Science (PLoS) Medicine journal, urged countries to do more to address MSM infections.

The march has attracted violence in the past and 1,000 police officers were on the streets.

There was some disruption and one man, said to be an ultra-orthodox Jew, was arrested for throwing bags of “foul smelling liquid” at gay marchers.

A small number of anti-gay protesters held placards condemning homosexuality as the march passed.

Some attempted to bring donkeys to illustrate their view of gay sex as a “beastly act”, AFP reported.

Protest organiser Barukh Marzel told Reuters: “The march of the donkeys today in Jerusalem symbols the humiliation and disgracing of the holiness of Jerusalem by the leftist liberal organisations and the supreme court in Israel, that lets the homosexuals and other diseases to come and march in Israel.”

Openly gay MP Nitzan Horowitz spoke at the march, calling it “a symbol of the struggle for freedom in Jerusalem.”.

Many marchers held placards referring to Israel’s housing crisis and other protests on the issue were held across the country.

Six years ago, an ultra-Orthodox Jew stabbed and injured three marchers at Jerusalem Pride.

Eighteen people were arrested for trying to disrupt last year’s parade. In December, Michael Naky, 35, was given a six-month community sentence for attempting to set off a makeshift bomb.

The event is always far smaller than Tel Aviv Pride, which is the Middle East’s largest and most significant gay rights event.

The June 26th meeting, hosted by US deputy ambassador, Richard Hoagland, was held to support LGBT people in the country.

However, the group of faith officials, which also included the head of Pakistan’s largest Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, said: “Such people are the curse of society and social garbage.”

According to Associated Press, a statement continued: “They don’t deserve to be Muslim or Pakistani, and the support and protection announced by the US administration for them is the worst social and cultural terrorism against Pakistan.”

While homosexuality is not specifically outlawed in Pakistan’s constitution, gay sex can lead to punishments of fines, whipping, prison or even death.

According to a statement released by the US embassy, Mr Hoagland told LGBT people at the reception: “I want to be clear: the US embassy is here to support you and stand by your side every step of the way.”

Here, he responds to gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell’s argument that an LGBT youth conference should not be held in Israel.

England loves its monuments. There is Stonehenge, the great cathedrals, the pubs, the Queen – and there is Peter Tatchell. He bestrides the world like an ancient colonialist, telling other countries and people how they ought to behave. He goes to Moscow and protests the government for forbidding Gay Pride. And then he doesn’t go to Israel, which just held yet another of the world’s most vibrant and festive Gay Pride celebrations, but protests if people want to hold a meeting there. Logic and consistency aren’t his strong suit.

Peter’s latest target is IGLYO – the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Lesbian Youth and Student Organization, which decided to accept an invitation from its Israeli chapter to hold its general assembly in Tel Aviv. IGLYO is an international umbrella organisation of youth and student bodies, with member groups throughout Europe, and a charter to deal with specific issues around the emancipation of gay youth. The decision to meet in Israel was ratified by a vote of IGLYO’s members (something Peter doesn’t not tell us) – 55 per cent of member organisations in favour, 25 per cent abstains and only 20 per cent against. If that isn’t a clear democratic decision I don’t know what is.

But Peter, and the usual gaggle of anti-Israel fanatics, disagree.

Peter fears that Israel may not be accessible to delegations from Arab countries. But the General Assembly is a meeting of representatives of IGLYO’s member organisations and there is not a single member from the Arab world – and only one from a Muslim country, Pakistan. (Short exercise in independent thinking: Why might that be?) I have it on good authority that the Israeli government (and of course the entire Israeli gay community) will bend over backwards to facilitate the attendance of of any member who wants to attend. But that concern may just be moot.

Tatchell’s second point is a mantra of anti-Israel activists: “Human rights are universal and indivisible.” On the surface, that’s hard to argue with. But the way he and the anti-Israel lobby use this argument is manipulative and insidious. They deploy it as a smokescreen behind which everything that’s good about Israel and everything that’s problematic about Middle Eastern (and particularly Palestinian) society disappears into some mushy notion of “universal solidarity”. And so any praise of Israel and any criticism of other Middle Eastern countries is branded “politically incorrect”.

The anti-Israel clique has developed a completely new use of the concepts of human rights and universal solidarity: Only for them does “solidarity” require complete blackwashing of one party and whitewashing of the other. Think the unthinkable – an imaginary Iranian youth organisation would invite IGLYO for a meeting in Tehran. Would you call for a boycott? No, you wouldn’t? Of course you wouldn’t. There, you see – you are developing a canon which you apply only to Israel. Even the most unsavoury regimes get a hallpass.

Peter tries to deepen his point by linking it to an argument that’s become another calling card of anti-Israeli activists: the analogy between Israel and South Africa under apartheid. It’s an accusation that the anti-Israel lobby constantly repeats – but it doesn’t become any truer by repetition. Anybody who compares the situation of Arab citizens of Israel to SA apartheid – or, even more stupidly, the situation in the occupied territories to the systematic exploitation of the majority by a small white elite – is simply whitewashing the horrors of apartheid. Peter was there. He should know. It’s particularly disappointing to hear him of all people spout this non-sense.

He undermines his own point from another direction. He presents the alliance between the ANC and local and international LGBT groups during the fight for SA liberation as an example of how, in the good old days, LGBT groups respected the indivisibility of human rights. He conveniently forgets to mention that the white SA regime was virulently homophobic. Consensual gay sex was punished by prison up to eight years and the SA army practised conversion therapy with gay recruits well into the eighties. LGBT South Africans joined the resistance because they, too, were oppressed and shared objective interests with the ANC and others in the broader emancipation of all SA. And international LGBT groups, correctly, supported them. That’s quite different from the situation around Israel and Palestine where mostly outside activists without any direct connection to either side of the conflict try to bully the world into following a Palestinian agenda (we all know that “the” Palestinian agenda doesn’t exist). That’s not solidarity, that’s pure colonialism. And, for our community, a betrayal of who should be our closest friends an allies – Israeli LGBT activists.

Israel has created a uniquely nurturing environment for its LGBT community. If you portray this as a propaganda trick, you forget how difficult it has been and still is to establish true LGBT equality – anywhere in the world. No, the achievements of Israel’s LGBT community have nothing to do with “pinkwashing”. Israel was pink long before this term entered the vocabulary. The full emancipation of its LGBT community is a major achievement of Israeli civil society.

Obviously, that’s an inconvenient fact for Peter and co in their relentless drive to delegitimise Israel. But it’s a fact nonetheless and Peter betrays the international gay community by once gain deploying the smoke screen. Israeli activists are rightly proud of their achievements – and international LGBT activists must respect and celebrate these achievements, quite separate from any concerns they might have about other aspects of Israeli policies. Israel is a beacon of LGBT emancipation in an area that’s a very dark corner for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. If we care about gays and lesbians in the Middle East, we must let this beacon shine as a vibrant example of how their life could be and as an inspiration for them to fight for change in their own societies.

I salute IGLYO for its decision to meet in Tel Aviv and I admire it for standing up against the poison of the anti-Israeli lobby.

For an alternate view from gay porn producer Michael Lucas, who has written about LGBT rights in Israel, click here.

The decision of the International LGBTQ Youth and Student Organisation (IGLYO) to hold its General Assembly (GA) in Israel this December is divisive, exclusionist, mistaken and regrettable.

It will probably mean that some Palestinian, Arab and Muslim delegates will not be able to attend, because of travel restrictions between their countries and Israel.

I support the call by Palestinian LGBTI groups and individuals for IGLYO to reconsider its decision and to open up a genuine dialogue and debate with the wider LGBTI movement, especially with Palestinian LGBTI groups.

I endorse the demand that IGLYO and the Israeli GA host organisation, Israeli Gay Youth (IGY), should take a stand against the Israeli occupation and in support of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, in the same way that the international LGBTI movement took a stand against South African apartheid. There can be no fence-sitting when it comes to human rights.

Since human rights are universal, we cannot divorce LGBTI rights from the national rights of the Palestinian people. These are two aspects of the same struggle for universal human rights.

It is true that on LGBTI human rights Israel is, by far, the most progressive nation in the region. However, human rights should not be viewed from a gayist perspective. LGBTI rights do not trump all other human rights.

LGBTI support for the long-suffering Palestinian people is the right thing to do. It is also the best chance we have of eventually securing the human rights of LGBTI people living in Palestine. If we support Palestinian national rights, the Palestinians are more likely to support the human rights of LGBTIs.

For four decades, I have been involved, as an openly gay man, in the Palestinian solidarity movement. So have other LGBTIs. We have, over time, helped win some Palestinians to support LGBTI human rights. Our example of solidarity led them to question and eventually reject their homophobia.

In contrast, holding the IGLYO conference in Israel is likely to increase and inflame the already existing homophobia in the Arab world. LGBTI people will, rightly or wrongly, be seen as supporting Israel. This will further jeopardise the precarious plight of our LGBTI sisters and brothers in the Middle East. Is this what we want?

Just as the international LGBTI movement boycotted apartheid South Africa and collaborationist South African LGBTI organisations, so we should avoid appearing to sanction Israel’s illegal occupation of seized Palestine territories and not cooperate with Israeli organisations that refuse to take a stand against an occupation that is illegal under international law.

Israel’s annexation and occupation of Palestinian land in 1967 has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations and by human rights groups and humanitarians worldwide, including our great allies against homophobia, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

I believe the international LGBTI movement should be committed to peace with justice, where Israelis and Palestinians live together in security, equality and harmony. This means national and human rights for all the Palestinian people, LGBTI and straight.

It also means an end to indiscriminate rocket and suicide attacks on innocent Israeli civilians by Islamist organisations, and an end to Israel’s indiscriminate blockade of Gaza, which amounts to an illegal collective punishment of innocent Gaza citizens.

It sounds hard to believe right now, but peace with justice could happen with sincere political will on both sides. Only a few years ago in Northern Ireland, most people deemed it impossible that that the DUP and Sinn Fein could share power and end discrimination and violence. But it has happened. The security barriers are gone and the sectarian killing has stopped. The communities are working together for the common good. Northern Ireland is a model for a potential just peace between Israel and Palestine.

Israel is, of course, just one of many states that have annexed and occupied other nations: Pakistan is occupying Balochistan, Indonesia is occupying West Papua, Morocco is occupying the Western Sahara, Iran and Turkey are occupying parts of Kurdistan and so on.

While I oppose Israel’s occupation, I find it strange that some people condemn Israel while remaining silent about these other equally (or worse) oppressive occupations. Many of Israel’s critics are also silent about the neighbouring Arab dictatorships. And where are the protests and calls for boycotts against the tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Uzbekistan, Syria and elsewhere? Why the double standards?

To read a longer version of this article, click here.

David Marti, Barcelona Pride’s general manager and his partner had been taking part in Tel Aviv’s gay pride parade as guests of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Marti claims that airport security staff had stripped his boyfriend and asked a series of personal questions which he claims exceeded reasonable limits.

Although the questioning continued until just minutes before their flight was due to leave, security officials did ensure that the pair were able to fly home on their original flight.

Mr Marti afterwards complained to the Israeli Embassy in Madrid and said that the positive image he had seen of Israeli had been risked by the actions of the security staff.

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson told the Haaretz newspaper: “Security personnel at the airport need to understand that they are the face of the State of Israel. They are the first and last thing that people who come to Israel see.”

The spokesperson described Mr Marti and his boyfriend as “guests of the state” and that their details were passed to security officials in advance of arriving at the airport. The spokesperson added that: “the security inspector severely harmed Israel’s image. The last thing that we do to them is abuse them and they say that they don’t want to come back again.”

In a statement the Israeli Airport Authority said: “Security personnel at Ben Gurion International Airport work day and night for the security of the passengers. Security personnel treat all passengers the same, regardless of their sexual orientation or beliefs.”

Israel is the only state in the Middle East to recognise gay relationships and enforce anti-homophobia legislation.

When the ‘Gay Girl from Damascus’ blog started to attract media interest, I thought of a friend of mine who is a lesbian. She once told me: “No matter how you think it is hard for gays, it is even harder for lesbians, be sure of it.”

The only photo I had seen of ‘Amina’ confused me and I thought that I had seen her before, until I read her post about her father supposedly saving her from Syrian security forces. It was then that I suspected that she was not for real, although I wished that she was.

My lesbian friend invited me to her city where I met her family. What a wonderful family she has. Had my family been any different, I could have wished to have hers. I told her: “I can’t ever come out, not because of my fear of my family, but because of my fear for them. I come from a conservative city; the society might cut off my family for having a gay son.”

I thought her situation would be different, but she responded: “You know what will happen? They will force me to get married. I am trying to make excuses because of my career with the hope that someday I will be too old for mothers to accept me as a daughter-in-law.” It was then that I became sure that if there is any ‘out’ LGBT person in Syria, it will be an individual one, an exception to the rule.

My friend’s beliefs were confirmed later by a lesbian professor I have met once and kept in contact with via email. When I spoke to her after Amina’s ‘arrest’, she said: “Amina cannot be real. No girl can be out to her family here, even though I think she looks familiar, I still can’t tell because the photo is not clear enough.”

Why was it that we both thought Amina looked familiar? Maybe we wanted so badly to believe that one gay person in Syria had managed to come out.

We both felt terrible when we heard the news of the arrest, and then put ourselves in danger trying to investigate it. “We could have disappeared indefinitely”, the lesbian professor later warned me.

The plight of LGBT people in Syria starts with law criminalising homosexuality and goes through the religious and social homophobia and beyond. I know gay men who have been shot and tortured, while humiliation includes being tied down to be urinated on by family members.

Videos from police humiliations of gay men are passed around as jokes on mobile phones, offensive words for “gay” and “lesbian” are still used widely even among the most open-minded people, homophobic jokes never fail to amuse people and everyone damns and curses homosexuals whenever they are mentioned.

In 2010, Syrian authorities started a campaign against gay people by raiding parks, hammams and private parties and detaining many for weeks and sometimes months. There has not been any gay private party since March 2010 in Damascus. Needless to say, any kind of gathering now is dangerous because of the current situation. LGBT people are now more afraid to gather than before.

When the unrest started, LGBT people were afraid that Islamists might take over if the regime was overthrown; an Islamic rule means death to gay men. Knowing what happened in the 1980s, older LGBT people were sure that the situation for us would not be easy in either case.

If Islamists take over, we might be in a life-threatening situation. If the regime wins, the situation will force us to hide for years because of what they might do to LGBT people gathering. Nevertheless, even though the regime under Mr Bashar al-Assad proved to be as virulent as it was under his father, it also proved to be less intimidating. With more than 2,000 civilians killed, 10,000 arrested, and 10,000 refugees, Syrians are still protesting.

“To be gay in Syria is to be a night owl”, a British journalist friend once told me. Things have changed since March this year. Although most of us have adapted themselves to the current situation, we still are afraid to be stopped by secret police and be humiliated. This fear will only grow after Tom MacMaster’s fictional character found her way to the Syrian media, which was desperate for a true story to back up the invented conspiracy theory.

MacMaster, who thinks he did not harm anyone, has cast a dark shadow over the credibility of LGBT bloggers in the Middle East. This has given the Syrian regime a new target which won’t need any PR to gain the people’s backing – they are already homophobic and think of us as sinners, sick and liars. To be credible or to be safe is what he added to our struggle.

*Sami Hamwi is a pseudonym, used for the author’s safety.