Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Max Wind-Cowie

GET UPDATES FROM Max Wind-Cowie
 

A Gay Terrorist Is Still a Terrorist

Posted: 23/08/2012 13:26

There's been a lot of it about lately, victim blaming. Much of the commentary around the Wisconsin Gurudwara shooting appeared to blame the victims for resembling, in the eyes of the ignorant, Muslims (as though shooting Muslims were an acceptable pastime). This week, we've seen Lefties and libertarians rallying to smear the women accusing their cyber-nihilist hero, Julian Assange, of rape. And today we've had to endure folk blaming Christians for the fact that a gay militant strode into the offices of a Christian charity and opened fire on its staff.

When crimes are committed that don't fit our worldview it can be difficult to condemn them with the same gusto and righteousness we otherwise would. Our natural repulsion at what may have been done jars with our need to see the world, and the conflicts that exist within it, in an easy-read, Manichean format. So when a man that you admire is accused of a bad thing - a very bad thing - it is difficult to accept the paradoxical reality that not only do bad things happen to good people but that good people do bad things too. I'm not an admirer of Julian Assange, or of his work, but I can understand the very human need to defend him that leads his acolytes to exclude and ignore their principles in his favour. But this is the kind of hypocrisy that anyone serious about their beliefs, their credibility and their pursuit of virtue must strive to combat. And what's more, it allows groups to avoid responsibility for the crimes they've allowed, or encouraged, in their name.

Which leads us to the Family Research Council's offices in the District of Colombia. There, gay-rights activist and campaigner for same sex marriage Floyd Lee Corkins II is alleged to have opened fire on a security guard in order to promote his cause. His chilling words, shortly before shooting and seriously injuring a man who happened to work for an organisation with which he disagreed, are said to have been "I don't like your politics". In a nod to the absurdity of the US' culture wars, Mr. Corkins was reported to be carrying a Chick-fil-A sandwich as he carried out his act of terrorism - to highlight that fast-food company's owners' support for traditional marriage.

Let's call this what it looks like - an act of political terrorism, driven by a violent bigotry towards those who hold a faith and different view of society. I am a gay man, one who would like to be allowed to marry in fact, but sadly this act of extremist violence came as little surprise. As I've written before, the increasingly bullying and aggressive rhetoric of the gay-rights brigade demonstrates a worrying and deeply-held intolerance of difference. No longer are conversations about rights, responsibilities and access to institutions considered matters for debate - instead, for many on the secular Left and for the vocal leaders of gay campaigns, there is only one perspective that is admissible and any opposition is derided as 'hate-speech'. Religions are dismissed as irrelevant to the public sphere. Their adherents told that their route to moral truth is disallowed in debate. A movement that once called for tolerance is now defined by its own staggering intolerance.

All of this has consequences. When alleged rape victims are smeared we become a little less likely to believe next time, when Muslims are vilified we become a little less shocked at violence towards them (or people who happen to look like them) and when we dehumanise those who hold and articulate a faith we cannot be surprised when someone thinks it's ok to attack and try to kill them. So instead of seeking to explain or excuse - as some have done on Twitter and elsewhere by continuing the dehumanisation and laying the blame at the feet of Christians for being 'homophobic' - gay people must unequivocally condemn the act of terrorism that Floyd Lee Corkins II is alleged to have carried out.

But we must also go further. It is the gay community that has created this monster, with our militancy and our bigotry. We have to take responsibility. Because every time we attack people merely for being different, for holding a different view, we are contributing to the kind of hatred that allows people like Corkins to justify their unjustifiable actions.

Every time we shout 'bigot' at someone for taking their God seriously; every time we dismiss and de-legitimise religious leaders for having the temerity to talk of morality; every time we smear our opponents in the debate over marriage as being merely driven by hate and therefore unworthy of our time, patience or understanding - we are adding fuel to the fire and, potentially, putting lives at risk. It's time for the gay community to grow up, stop claiming perpetual victimhood and - vitally - realise that we are capable of creating victims too.

 

Follow Max Wind-Cowie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/muscularliberal

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
There's been a lot of it about lately, victim blaming. Much of the commentary around the Wisconsin Gurudwara shooting appeared to blame the victims for resembling, in the eyes of the ignorant, Muslim...
There's been a lot of it about lately, victim blaming. Much of the commentary around the Wisconsin Gurudwara shooting appeared to blame the victims for resembling, in the eyes of the ignorant, Muslim...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Vidal
The Adversary can quote scripture to his ends.
08:39 PM on 08/26/2012
After reading your blog post and several of your replies, I have to the conclusion that you are nothing short than a new generation of Brian Browns whose spin/white-wash skills are off the chart. Congratulations. You manage to allude to wiki-leaks in a rant against gay activism.

It's amazing how a constant hecatomb of death-threats of varying subtlety seem to have no effect on a minority. Fundamentalist catholics DO have themselves to blame. They would aggravate even Ghandi.

Gays should be getting guns and standing up for themselves, because nobody else will. Quite frankly, it's incredible that it has taken them this long to see beyond their pink naiveté, the hope and illusion that the world will accept them if they are accepting enough, polite enough, compliant enough.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Max Wind-Cowie
09:17 PM on 08/26/2012
Oh for goodness sake. First off, far from being a 'new generation of Brian Browns' I am a longstanding supporter of the ideal of gay marriage and a gay man myself. Secondly - and much more importantly - you're last paragraph kind of proves my point. 'Gays should be getting guns and standing up for themselves, because nobody else will' is EXACTLY the kind of inciting, scaremongering, culture-war schtick that I'm talking about. Gay people in the West have been shown almost unique levels of tolerance, acceptance and protection. Yet you talk as though we're about to be rounded-up and stuck in a camp. It's not only nonsense, it's dangerous and inflammatory nonsense on a par with the extremist clerics of Islam who claim (in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that Western civilisations are stacked against Muslims and Islam. It's this kind of alarmist rhetoric that allows nut-jobs to self-justify picking up actual guns and committing actual crimes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Vidal
The Adversary can quote scripture to his ends.
12:51 AM on 08/27/2012
No need for any of that. It's simply a matter of educating yourself in how to safely use and maintain a weapon. I think it's also important to disabuse yourself of the idea that being openly gay doesn't put you at a higher risk of becoming a victim of physical violence. A knife between the ribs, a brow upon the nose, a boot to the teeth: nothing in common with a concentration camp but critical to avoid nonetheless.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
07:08 PM on 08/26/2012
When we call religious people bigots, it is not for taking their God seriously, but for precisely the opposite: For picking and choosing which commands to follow and which ones to ignore. This is especially the case with self-proclaimed Christians who wave around with passages from the Old Testament while ignoring the actual teachings of Christ. They couldn't recite the basic teachings of the Sermon on the Mount if their life depended on it, They know everything about "an eye for an eye" and nothing about turning the other cheek. And yet they declare themselves "Christians".

People who claim to be Christians but actively violate every tenet of Christian faith are rightly called bigots - not for taking their religion seriously, but for sullying it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
What's the story mourning Tories?
04:53 PM on 08/26/2012
I consider myself a feminist I have no real passion for wikileaks and I know I am not alone in simply believing those rape allegations are an outright lie. It's got nothing to do with politics for me. I simply believe the accusation has been made up to smear him for undermining several governments. I also know that accustions of rape are the kind that don't wash clean, and unliek the majority of the population I don't have a goldfish memory. There have been numerous people accused of rape (and murder) that turned out to be false, and they are still suffering as a result of the accusation. Assange was destory the minute the allegation was made. It no longer matters if it is true or not.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Max Wind-Cowie
06:55 PM on 08/26/2012
But it isn't up to your intuition Ben, it's up to a court of law. We can't have a justice system that is premised on what whether you 'believe' that people's accusations are true or not. Funnily enough, I think the response of many arguing against the extradition of Assange closely mirrors the basic logic of Wikileaks itself - that accountable institutions (democratically elected Governments, independent judiciaries etc) are somehow less qualified to make decisions about vital matters (the disclosure of information, the investigation of crimes) than are self-appointed individuals. It's an attitude that is profoundly illiberal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Vidal
The Adversary can quote scripture to his ends.
08:25 PM on 08/26/2012
oh come on, guilty till proven innocent is how it really works. I don't care for assange and his ego, but everyone knows how this kind of thing is dealt with: if he's too popular to prosecute, make him unpopular.
01:41 AM on 08/27/2012
I liked your blog. However, I think your argument is flawed in this comment. Firstly, if you took the time to peruse much of the info on wikileaks, you'd see that a great deal is from industry and various governments and organisations - not necessarily democratically elected governments (i.e the photos of shot dead Tibetan monks the Chinese government didn't want the world to see). Secondly, the premise that I as a citizen must surrender my own judgment and lay it at the feet of my elected parliamentarian, that I bow to the government's judgment on what I should and should not have a right to know, is, unthinkable. If it were up to the MPs, I wouldn't even have a glimpse at their expense accounts (remember it was only a Sunday broadsheet that 'leaked' that information that led to greater transparency ). If I had a government that I actually trusted and that worked in the best interest of the its citizens, I may concede to a degree. But I don't have a government I can trust or one that works for its citizens best interests. I have a government that lies, even to start a war, and the liars get European jobs with fat pay cheques; a government that represents first and foremost business and corporate interests; a government where the majority have their noses snuffed firmly in the trough, lining up themselves directorships. So if I can find out what they're up to from wikileaks, great.
photo
hearthammer
If left is right and right is wrong, decide!
10:42 AM on 08/26/2012
The fact is that nobody should murder anyone else. That is one of the main tenets of our society. When it does happen we should be asking "Why?"

When I was sitting my psychology finals there was a question that stated, "He was just born bad. Discuss"

Nobody is "born bad." Everybody who kills someone else does so because there is something in their background that makes this aberrant behaviour viable. We have to ask ourselves if we want to find out why people do as they do, or if we just want to take revenge for their crime.

I suggest that we don't want to try and understand murder as it may point to a reason for the crime and addressing that reason may cost a lot of money and offend the revenge psychology of most people.

To put it in the vernacular, murderers are sick. The question is, should we try and treat the sickness or just incarcerate them, or even worse, kill them?

Space on this blog restricts my answer to this question. Suffice to say that if we tried to understand WHY mass murderers commit their crimes, the better we would be at preventing them in future.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
benchy
08:23 AM on 08/24/2012
Your article lacks a lot of substance. This guy was absolutely nuts to commit such an attack and should be punished for it. But don't tell me he is the result of gay rhetoric.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Max Wind-Cowie
10:54 AM on 08/24/2012
Why not? Do you think Islamist terrorists are influenced by the rhetoric of extremist Clerics? Or that Anders Breivik may have used the words of far-Right commentators to self-justify? It's extraordinarily reductive to dismiss all acts of political violence as merely symptoms of mental ill-health. So when someone commits an act of violence in order to promote a cause in which we ourselves believe - as I do re. gay marriage - are we not obliged to consider the way in which our rhetoric and our speech may have contributed to that act?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
benchy
06:04 PM on 08/24/2012
Call the guy a terrorist, I would give you that. I happen to be gay, and I don't see the parallels here. An Islamic terrorist is influenced by a rhetoric of violence because they believe that is the only way to achieve their goal. The gay righst movement hasn't been one that I would characterised as offering violent rhetoric. There is heavy opposition to religious groups that don't agree with the fight to get marriage equality. Some of that opposition can be at times intolerant, but has never been one promoting violence.
So you can extrapolate all you want but there is no substantiation on your premise that he did this because gay activists are now violently trying to gain rights. That is utterly a lot of rubbish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Vidal
The Adversary can quote scripture to his ends.
08:26 PM on 08/26/2012
on which gay book do you find a verse that justifies de murder of catholics? catholics have one tho.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thomas Platt
12:30 AM on 08/24/2012
"The gay rights brigade proposes an extremely one-sided view and has no concept of tolerance! So here's an intolerant one-sided view to the contrary!"
05:14 PM on 08/23/2012
What an utter load of crap. I'm sorry, but the author is getting major parts of this story wrong. First of all, the Chick-Fil-A incident in the US occurred not because the CFO of the company "supports traditional marriage" but rather because of the MILLIONS of dollars he donates to anti gay groups annually through his charity, which is tax deductible. Groups who are not deemed hate groups because they oppose marriage equality, but rather because they tell and promote outright lies about gays.

The Family Research Council, the organisation that was shot up, has its own history of anti-gay defamation. Tony Perkins, the head of the FRC has gone on the record indicating that Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 Supreme Court Case which struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional, was "wrongly decided".

This isn't about whether we disagree with people on an ideological issue, it's about the tactics these people are willing to use, and the lows they sink to in order to attempt to essentially eradicate homosexuality.You can't spew hate dressed in religion and then balk at being called hateful. If someone were to say something like "Homosexuality is harmful to society" (as Tony Perkins has) but to any other group on earth, they'd rightly be called hateful.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Max Wind-Cowie
10:59 AM on 08/24/2012
I think you've rather helpfully proven my point. You disagree with the FRC's output, fine! So do I on the whole. That doesn't excuse an act of political violence against it. Your introduction of irrelevant context - instead of simply condemning the act of violence - is precisely the problem. It's no better than someone saying 'Breivik shouldn't have killed folk BUT there is a problem with immigration'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daniel Vidal
The Adversary can quote scripture to his ends.
08:30 PM on 08/26/2012
I think you need to take a good look at the numbers pertaining to the murder and rape of lgbt people in the US before you go on a tirade calling LGBT activists intolerant and violent. If anything, this is the 50's happening all over again. this one dude is certainly a terrorist, but dream not that it somehow erases all that's happened up until now.

- To you it's a game of politics, to those living "out", it's survival. Enjoy your over-protected existence. -