Apart from terrorism, the debates on ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslims’, have been mostly focused on gender roles and sexual orientations. The amount of public debate that issues like the headscarf, ‘honour’ killings, anti- gay, – lesbian and domestic violence, forced marriages, etc. are generating is simply astonishing. It is striking that these ‘public’ debates are often about ‘Muslims’, but mostly without ‘Muslims’ participating in them.
In this broad debate sexual self-determination seems to have become, almost overnight, one of the core values of Western society. Instead of talking about the actual differences in treatment that still continue to exist in 21st century Europe, emancipation is held up as a symbol of civilisation and a commitment to separate the good from the bad. This whilst women still earn less money than most men, even when they do the same work. Women from all social groups are affected by domestic violence, regardless of their race or religion. ‘Coming-out’ is still a problematic issue for many lesbian, gay and bisexual children, not something that depends on their parents being immigrants. Persons who do not fit in the unique ‘men’ or ‘women’ image, are still victims of discrimination and violence.
Contributions in mainstream media, online fora and public discussions focus on the creation of a division in society – as in ‘we’ and ‘the others’- based on religious and sectarian differences. When an offender is somehow identified as ‘Muslim’, the message deriving from it seems to be the serious implementation that people are worth dividing into religious groups. During the past few years there was an increase in coverage of -not only- homophobic violence that when it was attributed to ‘Muslims’ and ‘migrants’, even when it was a minority of the cases, has been represented disproportionately. It leaves one wondering why extreme right wing perpetrators are hardly mentioned in media, despite the over-representation in real incidents, and that whilst there is no mention at all for offenses caused by ‘the center of society’.
If one follows the debates on violence against gay men, positions are more hardened today than ever. Every addition to the debate in which young people from immigrant backgrounds happen to be the perpetrators seems to cause outrage. Every homophobic remark on websites or publications that can be attributed to ‘Muslims’ seems to feed the excited discussions on ‘Islam and homophobia’. Particularly young men, regardless of nationality, ethnic origin, language skills, social class or mention of the discrimination and violence they face, are collectively classified as ‘migrant’ or ‘Muslim’ and remain in the centre of attention. It seems of interest whether or not homophobia has religious or cultural reasons and motives.
Homosexual lifestyles are still no small matter. During the education process it is often not talked about, lest it be during biology lessons and teaching staff often do not know if to respond and how to react to homophobic insults that are thrown around between pupils. On the labor market most LGBT’s do not come out because of fear for harassment and/or loss of their job. In neighbourhoods, often perceived as a hostile environment, hiding appears to be a useful strategy. Never is there the perception that being gay or lesbian is ‘normal’. LGBT kids still have the impression of being ‘the only gay in the village’. Suicide rates are significantly higher among LGBT kids then it is with their heterosexual counterparts. Significantly higher are also the numbers of LGBT young people who are kicked out of the parental home, leading to high numbers amongst the homeless.
Politics and administration have done little to remove privileges of woman-man marriages. The model of a stable long-term, monogamous heterosexual relationship between two people is the ideal that is implemented in law, even if such situations occur less often. The advertising on television, talks between friends or the swear words used in a football stadium all point out that there are “normal” and “different” sexual orientations. It becomes even more complicated when persons are perceived as ‘foreign’ because of their name, appearance, language skills or other characteristics. Homophobia interferes in their life as worlds overlap with experiences of racism and discrimination reinforces the exclusion.
Just because public discourse tends to identify migrants as ‘Muslims’, such statements should not be understood that there’s such a thing a ‘the Muslim’. It can not be stressed enough that no one, comparable to Christianity with its Pope and bishops, can speak with authority. The lack of hierarchical organisation -and consequently the lack of registration of the faithful- is one reason why different forms of cultural, social and religious forms of being ‘Muslim’ is possible. The desire to have 1 Islam that can be held account for all the Muslims, based on the image of the Christian churches, has no outcome as questions of ethnic origins, cultural values and religious practices are of more importance for ‘Muslims’.The explanations of homophobia by various ‘Muslim’ outlets should imply the diversity of Islam. Against the background of a media debate which allegedly accepts ‘lesbians and gays’ as the embodiment of Western ‘enlightenment’ and ‘civilisation’ on the one hand and ‘migrants’ or ‘Muslims’ as personified symbols of a ‘pre-historic’ collective on the other hand, it seems to make sense that in every speech about Islam and homosexuality the following points should be taken into account; Neither are the basic rights and liberties of LGBTT’s a reality, nor are homogenised notions of ‘the lesbian’, ‘the migrant’ or ‘the Muslim’ helpful in a debate where it should be about social emancipation. Only then shall population groups (women, migrants, LGBTT’s, etc.) or problems (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) not be placed on hierarchical scales according to more or less value or urgency.
Violence is often developed by those who themselves have experienced violence. The same holds true for discrimination and other form of oppression. Factors such as gender, age, social class and own experience of discrimination are known to be substantial reasons why persons engage in homophobic acts. Strategies to reduces verbal and physical violence should take these factors as a starting point. Age-and gender-specific approaches dealing with homophobia must be used for this. Specific actions and practices for specific people are useful as neither the majority of the ‘ we’ nor the ‘others’ is homophobic.
When origin and religion are added to the analysis grid this reinforces blockades and polarities that, due to a media discourse, is fed by the largest majority population group who debate ‘about’ the minority group, but not ‘with’ them. Any kind of prevention or emancipation effort built on that is bound to fail as it has little to do with the real experiences of people.
