Beyond Marriage Equality: For a United Sexual and Gender Liberation Movement

There is so much to say on marriage reform. I have tried to write this post over and over again with good references and quotes, but i’m just going to write down how I feel first, and hopefully put a new spin on the discussion. Your comments, as always, are welcome!

Marriage Equality and ‘Gay Rights’

We are currently seeing in the US and across Europe a series of reforms that allow same-sex couples to marry. These campaigns took me by surprise – as a political activist and a queer, I was sure I would have heard about the meetings building for this reform, the demonstrations and direct action. However this reform does not seem to be born from grassroots struggle. It seems to be initiated by a privileged elite within the so called ‘gay community’ – pink pound business leaders, LGB members of parliament, and leaders of top down LGB lobbying groups – largely white, middle-class and male. It’s central focus – access to the institution of marriage – an institution that has historically oppressed LGBTQ people, and in essence is a patriarchal capitalist construction.

This has left many of us radicals very disorientated. Some of us still support the reform, whilst some of us do not – however we still seem to be united over one fact – this reform is not a sufficient representation of the struggle we face in the 21^st century. It is narrow – it affects only those who choose to marry, those who can afford it, and those who feel that it will help them ‘fit in’.

The reform has huge media coverage, it is debated in government institutions, it has widespread media coverage across the mainstream media. Yet there is still a space to the left of the reformers that remains relatively unoccupied – a space that could be used as a platform for a more radical LGBTQ liberation agenda.

Marriage Will Not End Queer Oppression

We know the struggle that faces us in the 21^st century – we are faced with pressing issues such as poverty and homelessness, access to healthcare and public services, racism, sexism and disability, full legal recognition of trans* people, LGBTQ youth services and sexual education in our schools, to name a few. However we are yet to establish these demands coherently as a grassroots movement for sexual and gender liberation – a movement that quickly needs to be established in order to make sure marriage reform is not the end of the road for us.

There seem to be a large number of LGBTQ people on the left who are angry about the white-washing of sexual and gender liberation, and the pink-washing of government’s austerity measures. The organisations that claim to be fighting on our behalf often only represent a certain type of ‘acceptable’ queer who will marry, have children and run a business. They consistently sell out on a broader agenda that stresses the struggles of all of our diverse communities. The Human Rights Commission in the US is a typical example, shutting down dissent from trans* people raising their voices, and queers who want to see a revolutionary change in society – one that puts LGBTQ people before pink-pound profit. Stonewall, and the Coalition for Equal Marriage both benefit from narrow platforms that draw a dividing line between those who are ‘acceptable’ and those who are not.

We are also living under a government set on a course to devastate working class communities, and implement austerity in order to protect private profits. They say they support ‘gay rights’, yet they are systematically cutting and shutting down public sector services that serve the LGBTQ community – HIV/AIDS provision, the NHS, LGBTQ youth provision, support services and mental health provision. In this economic crisis queers are seeing an unprecedented rise in racism and the scapegoating of immigrants – many of whom seek asylum because of persecution at home due to their sexuality/gender expression. Many of us have been left with a legacy created by the party that governs us – Section 28. As Tory comments and their votes in parliament show, they still wish to stop us or turn back the clock. UKIP are rising in popularity, yet their views on queers represent a short sharp trip back to the middle-ages – they must be stopped.

Israel and its allies are attempting to use LGBTQ people as a weapon against the Palestinian people. They are attempting to sell their apartheid state as a model of LGBTQ equality, whilst they systematically try to destroy a people and their culture. We must not allow the pink-pound businesses to pink-wash the occupation of Palestine – we must stand against queers being used as political capital by warmongers and imperialists!

For A United Liberation Movement

We can have an ongoing debate whether or not we support the marriage equality reform. I support the reform on the basis that it is an opportunity to widen the debate on sexual and gender liberation. I believe we should be asking these so called ‘representatives’ of our communities why they are silent on all of the other issues we face. I think we should use the current media coverage to connect with the public who consider themselves pro-gay, and inform them of the struggles all of us face as LGBTQ people.

However, regardless of our position on this reform, it is now clear that we cannot win these struggles by allowing this debate to go on without our voices being heard. We need to establish networks and organise from the grassroots to provide a coherent alternative to the ‘acceptable’ white, rich men who claim to represent us.

I think it is time to put a radical third position forward. To bring together all LGBTQ forces fighting for liberation and reignite the radical and revolutionary tradition of the gay liberation movement. With organisation, protest and direct action we could put our ideas into practise. Together as a united liberation movement, we can fight for sexual and gender liberation for all!

Off the blogs, and onto the streets!
We’re here, we’re queer, we will not live in fear!

Maxi B

On self-organisation, safe space and the revolutionary party

I want to write a few practical points about how I think revolutionary socialists should organise when dealing with oppression – however these extend to political criticisms of certain ‘common-sense’ attitudes that I have experienced whilst organising on the left. These are just a few ideas, but I hope that this might open up a discussion.

We live in a society in which oppression permeates every aspect of our existence, whether it be how we are treated in work or on the street, in our homes and in the media, in accessing public services and healthcare.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and disableism permeate the material world, and our consciousness – it doesn’t take a “bad” person to regurgitate these ideas when they are slapped across our media, education system and popular culture, and the capitalist hegemony has the power to allow these ideas to prevail, silencing opposition in the process.

So when it comes to organising a revolutionary party, one which can throw open its doors to the masses, how can we create a party that is fit for the whole of the working class, one which understands and fights against oppression in all of its forms?

Self-organisation

One fundamental thing I would like to see in a revolutionary party is the ability for oppressed groups to hold caucuses that can guide the party’s theory and practice around that particular strand of oppression (sexism, racism, transphobia, etc). In practice, it is clear that when women, people of colour, LGBTQ people, and disabled people are allowed the room within the party’s mechanisms to self-organise, we are able to speak more openly. We can speak without fear of having our experiences undermined, without fear of not being understood or having our ideas side-lined. Self-organisation should not have to be something we need to do, however if you live with the day to day experiences of oppression and the division capitalism creates, the process of getting oppressed groups to throw their ideas and experiences into the mass of the party takes time, and it’s something that some people just need to get used to.

I have heard comments before along the lines of “well that’s just separatism” or “men can fight against sexism too” – comments which fail to recognise why self-organisation is important. To say that self-organisation is tantamount to separatism lacks political insight and is offensive. If you deem self-organisation an attempt to shy away from class struggle, you are silencing voices from oppressed groups. You are also saying “if you can’t say it to us, in a way we are going to understand, don’t say it at all” – it actively holds back struggle. Saying that men can fight sexism is self-evident, but it does not serve as an adequate criticism of self-organisation. The purpose of self-organisation is not to set that oppressed group charging off without the rest of the party, it is there to feed into the mass of the party and for us to win the mass of the party to the politics of liberation, including making the mass of the party aware of new developments and opportunities to widen the class struggle.

Another thing that self-organised groups would bring to the party is a greater theoretical contribution to Marxism and its ability to trace the roots of oppression within class society. Often there are sharp political debates going on amongst other political currents that are drawing a wider audience – such as those currently going on within the feminist movement.

Self-organisation would build networks within the revolutionary party that could sharpen our politics. For example, a common problem I face as an LGBTQ comrade is that I often struggle to find other LGBTQ comrades with whom I can discuss ideas or share resources. We should encourage discussion and debate within party literature (in the paper or zine, in our journals or internal bulletins) – something that a self-organised group could take responsibility for maintaining.  My experience of the LGBTQ movement – though grassroots LGBTQ struggle still remains at a low level in the UK – is that when new questions are being raised by a movement re-orientating itself, the party’s analyses are drawn out from archives, which are often inapplicable to the current political climate or new developments. Self-organisation would ensure that when there is a lull in a particular liberation movement, the party’s theoretical clarity would not suffer.

Allowing self-organisation can only help to build the party. It is true that many people first become conscious of their oppression as a result of their identity as a woman, an LGBTQ person, a person of colour, or a disabled person. We know this because our daily political struggle is to raise class consciousness; many of us came from other political currents or movements, and were won in time to revolutionary socialism. By giving time and space within the party for self-organisation, we give working class people who identify with one strand of oppression, or the politics of identity, to come and hear socialist arguments – a chance to illustrate how oppression is rooted in the capitalist system and win them to the struggle of the working class.

Safe Space

Various groups on the left have used safe-space policy in a variety of different ways – some more successfully than others. Fundamentally, a safe space policy is a clear set of rules that is given to all members, that sets a baseline for behaviour when we are in meetings, conferences, or even on demonstrations. It gives a clear warning that sexual harassment and violence toward other comrades will not be tolerated, and that oppressive behaviour will not be tolerated. It gives a clear indication both to those who may be tempted to act in such a way, and more crucially, a point of contact for those who experience this behaviour. It shows an outward commitment to welcoming and protecting oppressed groups, it gives us a mechanism to deal instantly with complaints, and ultimately it will show the revolutionary party for what it is – a tribune of the oppressed.

The specifics of any safe space policy need to be hammered out, but in essence we just need to make it clear what we will not tolerate in our meetings, aggregates, conferences or united front work – we will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, disableism – along with any other things we deem unfit for good political practice. Often groups will operate a one or two strikes policy toward things like offensive language used in meetings, so that there is the opportunity to challenge the ideas politically from the floor. Types of behaviour that often don’t carry a warning are things like violence (or the threat of), sexual violence and sexual harassment – I don’t think anyone wants to be in a meeting where these things are deemed acceptable ways to behave toward your comrades. Laying these ground rules might seem like extra work, but if advertised can pull in sections of the class that revolutionary organisations often miss out on. It is one thing to claim a proud tradition of fighting for liberation, but if we fail to deliver a safe space policy to oppressed groups, we are failing to prove our ideas in practice.

Some have argued that a revolutionary organisation does not require these sorts of mechanisms because all members are revolutionary socialists – they are against oppression in all of its forms. However this does not take into account a historical materialist analysis of how our ideas informed by the material conditions of the society we live in, nor how the dominant ideas of the current epoch are those of the ruling class. As revolutionaries we wish to challenge and tear away the social order that creates oppression – however we are not immune to oppressive ideas and behaviour – the ‘muck of ages’. Saying so would be claiming a moral and political superiority that says we are somehow protected from capitalism, its pervasive hegemony and its alienation – something that lies in contradiction with a historical materialist analysis of the world.

You may also say that a sizeable section of the class does not fit into any of these oppressed groups, but they are still oppressed. I agree – we will all be oppressed whilst class society exists, and without socialism I don’t believe it is possible to end oppression. The working class will be oppressed until the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, and the construction of a socialist society. However, if we do not take the liberation of the working class seriously – by adapting the party’s mechanisms in order to raise our political level – we risk losing sections of the class from the struggle. If revolutionary socialists remain complacent on liberation, we risk losing sections of the class to cross-class alliances, and the politics of reformism. Oppressed groups should see the revolutionary party as their home – lets fight to make it that way.

Feel free to share your ideas, suggestions, criticisms, comments in the comments box below.

Maxi B

Editorial note: Re-drafted 09/05/2013

Cultural Appropriation Revisited: A Note To My Critics

Thank you to all those who have taken time to read and comment on my blog posts on cultural appropriation. I would like to add a disclaimer here, I attempted to write these posts because I saw calls from Native American liberation pages on Tumblr to raise awareness about cultural appropriation. I also was attempting to integrate these ideas into a Marxist framework, which has proven very difficult because I am a 21 year old white person with only so much experience of the world. I dont think that what I am writing is always correct, I wrote a second article in response to critics and tried to incorporate some of their ideas. I hope that anyone who holds criticisms can comment on the relevant pieces and I would love to continue the discussion with them, or give them space on my blog for a response.

I would also like to add that unfortunately, some individuals have decided to post links to my blog posts on private forums in which they have personally attacked me. These personal attacks include comments about my class background, perceived privileges, comments which completely undermine my experience of oppression. I’m sure some of these people have may have met me in person, been in meetings with me and have read my blog, but at no point have contacted me with their political or personal criticisms about what I have written.

I would like to make clear that I think this is cowardly and has upset me quite a lot, to the point that it makes me question whether or not to share my ideas on the internet. Id like to make those individuals aware that no matter what their criticisms are of my blog posts, that their gossip on is actively putting off and silencing left wing voices, and voices of various oppressed groups. Their aspersions about my personal life are often inaccurate and seek to demonize me with apolitical personal attacks that I cant respond to.

If you can march with me on the same demonstration, then please come and speak to me about what has upset you, not gossip about it and re-enforce division on the left. I want to debate and discuss these ideas with you. I am also available to privately discuss these issues, as well as the political content of my blog via email (marxistqueen@gmail.com).

Thanks to all those who read my blog for your time, continued support and contributions. I hope this can be a watershed for those who have not been so forthright in contacting me directly.

In solidarity,

Maxi B

Steven Simpson’s Death Should Not Be Dismissed

Above: Steven Simpson

Content Warning: Contains Description Of An Ableist/Homophobic Killing.

In the early hours of the 23rd of June, Steven Simpson was set on fire by 20 year old Jordan Sheard, who had gate-crashed his house party in Cudworth, near Barnsley. He had been verbally abused, stripped of his clothes and had phrases like “I love dick” and “gay boy” scrawled across his body. He was then doused in tanning oil and Sheard lit his crotch with a cigarette lighter, and the flames engulfed his body. Those involved fled as Simpson’s neighbour tried desperately to put out the flames. Simpson died the next day after enduring 60% burns to his body.

Steven Simpson’s death was the result of the hatred and humiliation caused to him because of his sexuality, and his disability. He was bullied, de-humanised and then killed. It follows the format of many killings of LGBTQ people world wide.

Sheffield Crown Court’s view on the matter has been frankly disgusting. Judge Roger Keen dismissed the crime as a ‘good-natured horseplay’ that had gone too far, and sentenced him to a unusually short sentence of three and a half years in prison. Sheard’s defence lawyer called what happened to Simpson as a ‘stupid prank that went wrong in a bad way’.

This was clearly a hate crime. Simpson was being taunted for his sexuality and his disability. He was devalued so much in the eyes of those involved, that they thought setting him on fire was somehow acceptable. He was a bright young man studying at Barnsley College, but his last moments alive on this earth must have been dehumanising, painful and terrifying.

How Judge Roger Keen can dismiss this so flippantly as “horseplay” is beyond me. He is re-enforcing the same notions that lead to Steven’s death: that homophobic bullying is fun, rather than a crime against LGBTQ people, that it is okay to mock or take advantage of someone’s disability, rather than looking out for them and treating them with respect, that setting someone on fire and burning them to death is “a joke too far”, rather than one of the inevitable consequences of the way we still treat people like Steven in our society.

It makes me sick to the stomach to think someone so young has been killed because he was different – and the frightening fact is that could have been any one of us that lives with a disability, or who is LGBTQ. Many have commented on the lenient sentencing of Steven’s killer, however I think this misses the point. The point here is the criminal justice system is complicit in the oppression of LGBTQ people and disabled people, when it makes comments like those of Judge Keen’s. It is churning out the very same ideas that lead to hate-crime.

It is not a joke, funny, or horseplay to treat someone in the way Steven was and we should not condone it as such. If we do condone this behaviour  we are sending out the message that LGBTQ people and disabled people are fair game to be bullied and preyed upon. We are sending out the message that this okay for other young people to do what was done to Steven. It appears it is all okay with Judge Keen, just as long as you don’t kill someone.

But the point is, the way Steven was killed, was precisely a result of how he was treated. If he had just been treated like any other young person, with a bit of decency or respect, it would never have happened.

This is the message that Sheffield Crown Court should have put out. We should condemn Judge Keen’s remarks, call for him to make an apology, and call for Sheffield Crown Court to recognise the daily battle people like Steven face because of their sexuality and their disability. Sign the petition against Judge Keen’s remarks here: goo.gl/qxioc

Steven’s death should serve as a reminder of what our LGBTQ and disabled youth face today.

Maxi B

Fighting For Justice: How the Police Perpetuate Transphobia

TW: Transphobic violence

Yesterday afternoon, a transphobic attack was committed against a trans woman in the Soho district of London, later named in the press as Ms. Dos Santos. This attack was not committed by a member of the public, as many of us may expect, but instead by the police. Her wig was torn from her head, the contents of her handbag were emptied on the floor, she was violently held to the ground and threatened with further physical violence by the officers who arrested her. All of this was apparently justified by her being sick outside of a restaurant – one might ask whether it should have been medical care that she was offered, not the humiliation she received from members of an institution that politicians insist is there ‘to protect and serve’ us.

Trans* people constantly risk attacks on their right to exist; whether it be through physical and sexual violence, political scapegoating or economic isolation. A study from the Gender Identity Research and Education Society reports that at school 40% of trans* people experienced verbal abuse, 25% physical abuse, 4% were sexually abused, and 25% report this bullying was coming from their teacher.

It also shows that as adults, trans* people will experience verbal abuse, threatening behaviour, physical and sexual abuse. The Trans Murder Montinoring (TMM) project reports an exponential increase in the murder of trans people world-wide in the last four years.

In the US there has been a militant campaign to free Cece McDonald – an African-American trans woman, who was arrested and imprisoned for defending herself when she was attacked by a group of Neo-Nazis. McDonald was subject to racist and transphobic slurs, she had a bottled smashed across her face, she was the only one arrested at the scene and she was subsequently housed in a men’s prison. She is currently serving a 41 month sentence.

Cece’s story highlights how trans* people of colour are even more at risk – crimes against them are often perpetuated by racism and fascism. Increasingly, these crimes are committed by the police force. US magazine Ebony argues:

“Every day, victims of transphobic violence are ignored by police or treated in ways that only exacerbate the situation. This is often due to the belief among law enforcement that transgendered people deserve the violent acts committed against them. As a result of this belief, police are often openly hostile to transgendered victims. According to studies, 38% of Black trans people indicate that they have been harassed by the police. Even worse, 20% state that they have been physically or sexual assaulted by police. Given this pattern of criminalization and abuse over protection, it is no surprise that most victims of transgender violence (52%) do not report the crimes to law enforcement.”

When transphobia occurs, its depiction in the media is also damaging. The recent transphobic remarks, that were published in the Guardian and the Telegraph, by Julie Burchill caused outrage and triggered a campaign of protests, while activist groups, LGBTQ groups and trades unions also issued statements against her. Burchill described trans women “bed wetters in cheap wigs” and “dicks-in-chicks clothing”. Her comments were removed from the Guardian and then disgustingly republished by the Telegraph.  This begs the question, if trans people are jumped on by the media and reduced to grotesque caricatures, what message are we sending out about the value of trans* people in our society?

One BBC report on the murder of Destiny Lauren in 2009 highlights the effects of reporting hate-crime. They omit any information about her life, instead they describe her as ‘transsexual prostitute’, disclose her gender re-assignment (GRS) status, and the name she was given at birth. In addition, the focus of articles like this is often the problem that trans people do not report their attack to the police – firmly putting the responsibility on the victim to come forward. This is purely victim-blaming. Survivors did not choose to go through a transphobic attack, and they should not be made to feel responsible for reporting their ordeal to the police, especially when they have experienced hate-crime from the police force themselves.

The attack yesterday on Ms. Dos Santos only serves to highlight the inability of the police force to put an end transphobia in our communities and deliver justice – why should we expect trans* people approach an institution who consistently commit crimes against them? It is united campaigns against transphobia and police violence that really change people’s ideas in our society, and encourage people to come forward. Its shows the police for who they are – an institutionally racist and transphobic organisation, which perpetuates the very same violence that politicians say the police force is there to prevent.

This LGBT history month people will remember the Stonewall riots which gave birth to the gay liberation movement, at the heart of which were LGBTQ people fighting against police harassment. One of the leaders of this movement, a black trans woman named Marsha P. Johnson, was found dead in the Hudson River in 1992, and although police ruled her death a suicide, it is widely believed that she was murdered. Police have recently re-opened the case due to the pressure from the public.

Stonewall embodied the frustration and anger of LGBTQ who were subject to violence harassment, by the police and the state. It gave birth to an organised liberation movement – one that needs to be re-ignited so we can end violence against trans* people. If we can unite activists involved in campaigns like the one against Julie Burchill’s comments, and the Free Cece McDonald campaign, we can begin to re-invigorate the movements against transphobia and racism, and take a stand together.

My full support and solidarity goes out to Ms. Dos Santos. We need to end transphobic violence NOW.

Maxi B

LGBT Liberation and Socialism: A Letter to my Comrades

Socialism has a proud tradition of fighting for liberation, for LGBTQ people, women, black people, and disabled people. In my experience, the socialists I have worked with would look out for me on a demo, or in a meeting, that they would challenge discrimination and division within the movement. But often we find ourselves coming back to the same questions, of how do we effectively intervene and help shape liberation movements? How do we show others who are not socialists that we have power in our class, and that they can trust their socialist comrades? How can we fight for a revolution that truly is a ‘festival of the oppressed?’

From my experience of the revolutionary left (I have been a member of the Socialist Workers Party since 2010), since the 1990s the emphasis on the importance of LGBTQ liberation has ebbed (despite important interventions by Sherry Wolf and Hannah Dee), particularly its lack of development of theory/practise around trans oppression. We know that the LGBTQ liberation has been shaped by the material forces and contradictions in capitalist society; in capitalism’s expansion of the pink pound, an emerging “middle-class” hegemony of “pink” newspapers, organisations, clubs that shift the emphasis from revolution to reform, and the unwillingness of the Labour Party to speak out in any meaningful way about LGBTQ oppression and liberation.

We find that LGBTQ people as a whole group are not speaking with a single voice, we have those that are bosses and politicians, those that are happy to take our money or our labour, defend the status-quo and even become complicit in our oppression. For them, liberation is just a buzz word. For the vast majority of us, the capitalist society we live in oppresses us, with its gendered hegemony, exploitation, alienation and the constant threat of physical, emotional and economic violence. For us, liberation is the idea that we should be able to love who we want, be who we want, and have control over our own lives.

This highlights the class divisions that exist in the so called “LGBT(Q) community”, we can reminisce about the power of resistance and the Stonewall Riots – but reformists, capitalists, unrepresentative LGB (or even LG) organisations talk about Stonewall all the time. We need a radical re-envisioning of LGBTQ history and struggle, we need to build links with between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people and show them that liberation is for straight people too. We know that failure and material conditions in the past meant that liberation groups splintered from the class struggle, however we cannot therefore dismiss the state of things as they stand – we are socialists and we should fight to be united as a class once again.

Liberation and Activity

Socialists have the best understanding of the roots of oppression and how it is formed, but we need more than just this on the revolutionary left. We need to re-ignite the flame of the sexual revolution, and take the struggle for sexual and gender liberation into the 21st century. From my party I have found my history that I wouldn’t have found anywhere else, I have met some excellent experienced and new LGBTQ comrades. However this needs to translate into our practise – not just day schools that re-hash the literature that most of us have already read – but meetings that draw the best LGBTQ fighters and develop and shape LGBTQ liberation, to call and fight for members to attend protests for LGBTQ issues. This has already begun (as I have found out from some socialists), however we need a concerted LGBTQ and straight effort to show ourselves as the best fighters. We need to show how much power we have all together as a class, unity between LGBTQ and straight, black and white, women and men (and non-binary).

The intense alienation under capitalism means that it is hard for LGBTQ people and straight people to build trust. As socialists we must recognise this and not jump down people’s throats with accusations of “identity politics”, “ultra-leftism” and “separatism” whenever party line is challenged. We have to believe that we have the power to change each other in the struggle, to break from the drudgery of life under capitalism.

Fighting The Cuts

The cuts that this government are pursuing are a pure ideological attack by the 1% that control our economy, our resources, our jobs and our welfare system. We did not create an economic crisis – this is the inevitable result of a capitalist system. However we are being made to pay as a class, as the 99%, for the failure of bankers, bosses and politicians. Currently the movement against the Tory government is picking up. In cities and towns across the country, trades unionists, students, unemployed, disabled, working-class families and kids are building the resistance from the bottom up, challenging their local council’s cuts where they hit us directly, and getting Labour councillors to sign up to Councillors Against the Cuts. As we build local resistance and demand that councils refuse to do the Tory’s dirty work we need to show that these cuts affect everyone. We need to show how the cuts disproportionally affect oppressed groups – the cuts are homophobic and transphobic, they are sexist, racist and ableist.

This means accepting where we have gone wrong in the past, opening up more room for discussion about sexuality and gender, and winning LGBTQ people to socialism. Gone are the days of calling liberation as a deviation from class politics. Any socialist who claims this, quite frankly, isn’t a socialist. The overwhelming majority of LGBTQ people are the class, their demands are class demands, and sexual and gender liberation is for ALL the class.

Many people will realise they are oppressed because of their sexuality or gender, well before they realise the impact of the cuts or the capitalist system. It is therefore incumbent upon us as socialists to intervene more often and more effectively into LGBTQ issues, and articulate that we have unity and power in our class – the issues of sexuality and gender are inseparable from the class struggle. We need to show them what will happen if we let capitalism and the ruling class go on, and speak to them about the threat of fascism and capitalist imperialism. Liberation should not be seen as secondary, or “dressing” for the class struggle, but instead an integral part of what it means to be oppressed by the ruling class.

Our anti-cuts groups should take it upon themselves to find out how the cuts are affecting LGBTQ youth provision, LGBTQ services and LGBTQ people’s lives. We should provide leaflets and pamphlets for our demos, encourage LGBTQ people to speak at rallies or meetings. Right now the Tory government is trying to pass itself off as “gay friendly” with its half-hearted support for gay marriage – we must show them that we still remember Section 28. If we do not intervene we leave LGBTQ to the ravages of modern capitalism, and give the Tories an upper hand. We must show them that the Tories are no friend of LGBTQ people, they have historically attacked our community, and continue to attack us in each round of cuts. A huge number of young LGBTQ people like me are angry right now, and many are already radicalised, but lack direction or leadership in fighting back. Many are isolated and alienated, so we need to break through that, and approach them first.

We need to show them that they can lead, fight and win.

Maxi B

Comments are welcomed and if anyone wants to guest post with any ideas feel free to PM me here or on Facebook.

“Classism” misses the point. Class gives us power.

I just wanted to write a short post about the idea of “classism” when we talk about oppression. Often it is used as a parallel with racism or sexism (usually in privilege theory which I will write about soon), to mean the oppression that someone faces due to their “economic background”, their income or sometimes in relation to an individuals access to cultural capital. I fundamentally reject this notion of class, primarily because it overlooks the immense power that class gives us, and its vague conception of what class actually is.

Within the capitalist system class is an antagonism built into the system, which is our primary means of overcoming oppression. If we want to end racism at all levels of society, or sexism, homophobia, transphobia or ableism – we need to realise the huge potential for overcoming oppression that our class gives us. Class is not about being poor, or about your education, or how much you earn (though these things are the result of class among other things) – it is the relationship you have the the means of production within the capitalist system.

If we all went on strike and withdrew our labour (that we are forced to sell for a wage in order to live) we would bring a halt to production and stop our bosses from profiteering from the system. It is through our labour that they make profit, and in order to stop us banding together they continue to maintain their power structures and institutions which support divisive ideas, discrimination and a heterosexist hegemony. It is why our activism cannot just stop at “raising awareness” because we cannot win the battle just by putting out a different message. We need to smash the power structures that allow oppression to prevail,  whilst the 1% reap their reward in terms of a profit. Currently we have an elite privileged class of capitalist property owners who keep control of what we create, and who gets it – but if we took back the means of production, and collectively owned what we create, and democratically decided what we do with it, we could provide for human need, not profit. We could build homes, feed the worlds population, provide jobs, stop environmental disaster and seek new liberating ideas about ourselves and our relationships with others.

Class is about being the 99% and although that means we suffer immense oppression, it is also our primary means of resistance. If we all stopped working and demanded an end to oppression and capitalism, the economic power base that our rulers use to control us and our lives would be lost to them. Class is about fighting back, organising the rest of the 99% so that we no longer have to suffer. Class is our agency in the struggle, and if we miss this huge and integral point to our resistance, we will fail to overcome the oppression we all wish to end for good.

Arguments about queer ‘identity politics’ are divisive and inconsistent

I spoke in an earlier post about how statements dismissing identities outside of LGBT as ‘identity politics’ are often reactionary and ill thought out – usually just a resistance to the changing face of the sexual and gender liberation movement. Often new identities are dismissed as problematic, because we see a proliferation of new expressions and words to describe the differences between us. Ultimately it draws the premature conclusion that we shouldn’t acquire new identities because ultimately we are trying to rid ourselves of labels – we should be fighting for a society where sexuality is fluid and gender doesn’t exist, not adding further letters to the acronym that represents our movement.

But these arguments miss the fact that they are just defending the current set of identities – lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. Even before the liberation movements kicked off in the west in the 60s (Comptons Cafeteria riot, Stonewall riot, etc) we still had a language in our community that described our differences, who we were attracted to, our gender expressions, our lifestyles – queens, dykes, homophiles, etc.

It was through struggle that some of these identities were politicized - lesbian, gay, bisexual, and later, transgender. Slogans like ‘gay is good’ were used to rally our people together, to cast off the shackles of shame and to show we were proud and defiant. These are the identities we are left with today, but are they any more ‘identity politics’ than queer identities?

I have heard the argument leveled at queer identity that we are taking on more labels, when we wish to see ourselves rid of them, but aren’t we doing them same with LGBT? We are defining ourselves all the time to communicate how we are different in our community, like we have always done. If anything these identities serve as important social identities, they allows us to respect the sexual and gender expressions of others and communicate to each other how we wish to be treated.

Therefore I think identities need to be considered in two steps:

1) What are the social meanings of this idenitity – what do they tell us about the people we meet, and the way in which they wish to be viewed?

2) What are the political meanings of this identity – what does it tell us about this person’s oppression?

Now I think I can safely say that all our identities have social meaning, they all communicate an understanding of how that person wishes to be viewed, their sexual preferences, their gender identity, etc.

But I would also conclude that they all have political meaning – they tell us that each person is oppressed because of the society we live in. A genderqueer person for their non-binary gender identity, a lesbian for being attracted to other women, a bisexual person for being attracted to both sexes (or pansexual to people). We are ALL oppressed, because we are ALL different.

So why are we ignoring or denying queer identities, when LGBT identities seem to serve the same function? They both describe how we wish to see ourselves an others in a social aspect, but also all describe how we are oppressed by the society we live in. A gay man is oppressed for sleeping with other men, just as a genderqueer person is oppressed for not fitting in with gender binaries that are expected and enforced in our society. To dismiss the role of identity in liberation can be divisive and catastrophic – it places the emphasis on our differences as the problem, as opposed to commonality.

It is looking at our commonalities and celebrating our differences that will bring us together, not prioritising one set of identities over another. So maybe its time to scrap the name ‘the LGBT movement’ and start talking about ‘the sexual and gender liberation movement’?

International students face deportation: Students and staff remain defiant

International students at London Metropolitan University were left in shock on Wednesday night, as they were informed that the university’s license to teach international students from outside the EU had been revoked by the UK Border Agency (UKBA). In a disgusting and provocative move by the UKBA, over 2,500 students were left with invalid visas, with only 60 days to find enrolment at another institution, or face deportation.

This crisis for international students comes at a time when tensions between the UKBA and academics and students at London Met have escalated. The UKBA flaccidly claim that students had not been keeping up attendance, that their English was not upto UKBA’s standards, and that some visas appeared to be invalid.

On the face of it UKBA may appear to have a case, but this is a politically motivated attack on its students – one which they haven’t the sufficient data to back up. The “Highly Trusted Status” has actually been revoked due to the non-compliance of sections of the University’s staff and students with the requirements of the new points-based immigration system, which requires academics to pass records of attendance and changes of circumstance to the UKBA for their international students.

When these controls were introduced lecturers and staff across the country came out to condemn the government’s move to monitor international students more closely than their UK peers – a move that was condemned as racist. Academics refused to hand over attendance records, backed by the University and Colleges Union (UCU) and the National Union of Students (NUS). The UKBA and the government have exploited the situation at London Met in an attempt to target a university whose record of standing up for student rights and defending their multicultural student body has been exemplary.

The UKBA have earned a reputation as an institution full of itchy right-wing thugs, intent on deporting the UK’s migrant population, in line with the UK’s right-wing stance on immigration. Their actions have left many students devastated. With many university courses now fully enrolled, many will be unable to find a place at another institution where they can continue their education. Emmanuel Eqwu, International Students Officer at London Met condemned the UKBA’s decision: “This period is a very tense period – most universities have finished enrolling students. So how is it possible within 60 days to get a place at a university to complete a year?”

Those who will lose out the most are the students who are left without valid visas. If you thought UK national fees were high, international students often get the sharpest end of the deal – university management who have attracted students from across the world will now be cashing in, whilst these students are left without a qualification, and huge debts. Tunde, a Nigerian student studying for an MA in Information Technology at London Met has been left with an impossible situation: “I’ve got 60 days to stay in the country” he said, “I’ve paid £9,800 for nothing and no-one is talking about refunds. I can’t call my mum to tell her – she is responsible for my fees. How can I tell her this?”

This move by the UKBA has been backed by the government, who are making it increasingly clear they wish to see London Met closed. This debacle has come weeks after university management announced plans to privatise virtually all of its support services in a £75m deal – a move that is dangerously putting profit before the welfare of its students.

Students and staff have protested and occupied their university against a huge package of cuts levelled at the university two years ago by the Higher Education Council, after mismanagement and national funding cuts. Staff at the university have also bolstered student protests against the cuts with a series of strikes that have built a united campaign on campus. Increasingly the government appear frustrated with one of the defiant campaigns against the education cuts, and Tory think tank, Policy Exchange, has targeted London Met for closure – one of the first potential casualties in the governments rolling cuts to education.

Students and staff at the university have already launched a protest outside Downing Street, calling for students to support their international peers. Amid fears that the licenses of other universities will be revoked, students are circulating a petition condemning the actions of the government and the UKBA, declaring “Hands off our students – Hands off our classmates”. On 20^th October at the national TUC demonstration and on 21^st November at the NUS national demonstration, students and education staff will demand an end to student deportation, and the UKBA’s harassment of London Met students.

Anders Breivik is sane and guilty: but the far-right is still a threat

Neo-Nazi Anders Breivik has been sentenced to 21 years in prison for murdering 77 people and wounding 242, in a killing spree in Norway. The verdict comes after Oslo district court declared that Breivik was criminally sane during the attacks, recognising that his political violence was a result of his fascist ideology.

This is a welcome admission that the far-right is a serious threat to communities across Europe. Breivik himself wished to be tried as an ideological fascist declaring that his actions were “necessary to protect Norway”. The day before he carried out the attacks, Breivik published an online manifesto, which targeted black people, LGBT people, women and left wing activists. Breivik also specifically identified Islam as one of the main causes of social problems in Europe, a view that is both disgusting and deeply Islamophobic. This case has highlighted a particular brand of fascism aimed at Muslims that is rising across Europe, revealed by his political alliances with the English Defence League (EDL) and other European far-right groups that specifically target Muslims.

Breivick’s attack was not the first of its kind in Norway, in 2001 a group of neo-Nazis called the ‘Boot Boys’ murdered black teenager Benjamin Labaran Hermansen. In outrage over 40,000 people took to the streets in one of Norway’s biggest demonstrations. Breiviks actions also caused thousands to come out onto the streets across the world to declare “Never Again”.

We can see the far-right’s violence spreading across Europe. The conditions placed on Greece by the IMF and the Eurozone have lead to a political crisis where fascists in the Golden Dawn party (whose supporters include a large section of the Greek police) have begun organising to terrorise trades unionists, immigrants, women and LGBT people.  Many European far-right parties have also made significant gains due to the crisis. It was just this last month in Wisconsin, when known white supremacist Wade Michael Page killed six members of the Sikh community and one police officer at a temple in Oak Creek.

To be clear, Oslo district court has made the right decision. Dismissing Breivik as a ‘loner’ or ‘insane’ only ignores the increasing activity of the far-right. In context, Breivik was another in a long string of fascist attacks – a result of the increasing activity of the far-right. Campaigns and protests countered the message of the far-right in the Oslo, Wisconsin, Greece, the UK and across the world. Hopefully this case will mark as a watershed for challenging the far-right, and organising in our communities to stop these ideas driving us apart.