Lock & Load

Respect candidate would execute gays

I have never had any doubt watching George Galloway’s histrionics and Lindsay German’s equivocations that the Respect Party would make an alliance with Scarabaeidae Deltochilum gibbosum if they felt that its ball of shit would add anything to theirs.

When Ms German notoriously warned that gay rights shouldn’t be a shibboleth in forging alliances with reactionary religious groups many said that she was just being practical… I mean, a little homophobia is surely tolerable in the interest of a greater cause. Isn’t it?

Well how much is a little and how much is too much?

Enter Dr Mohammed Naseem.

According to the Electoral Commission, with whom all registered political parties are obliged to share financial statements, the single largest donor to the Respect Party’s election war-chest was Dr Naseem. He paid £ 15 457.00 towards Respect’s Election drive, a whopping 29% of their total budget of ₤ 53 486.67 and more than 50% more than the next largest single donor – three times what George Galloway contributed.

You can check these facts and figures here. Just select “Respect” from the drop-down.

He was also the Respect candidate for Birmingham Perry Barr and a member of the party’s executive committee and an active campaigner. He is also the chair of the Birmingham Central Mosque.

But this is all bland compared to his other day job: on the executive of the Islamic Party of Britain and their Home Affairs spokesperson. As such, laws about homosexuality fall under his ambit.

So what is the IPB’s position on homosexuality?

Well, it is neatly explained here. But here’s the executive summary:

Of course, they sport the usual right-wing religious fundamentalist hallmarks, the linking of homosexuality to paedophilia and saying both are “a danger to society” and revealing a great big gay conspiracy. This is so stock-standard that it’s hardly worth mentioning. Is this what Lindsay German means by shibboleths?

But now things really get serious.

They would ban gay organisations, or to put it in their words, they would “safeguard public decency by preventing any public advocacy for homosexuality”. Any violation of this law would fall under “public incitement”, which leads us to their next point – how to deal with public displays of homosexuality or “lewdness witnessed by several people” as they quaintly put it. The penalty for that is death!

So, far from having a chuckle on Oprah, George Michael would have been stoned to death in Piccadilly Circus – or perhaps Dr Naseem had something more creative in mind – I shan’t try to second-guess what method of execution he’d advocate.

How – or rather why - does Respect take money from this man and field him as a candidate? The home affairs policy of the other party he represents as the home affairs spokesperson is that gays should be executed!

Why are we not hearing the tell-tale clunking sounds of falling shibboleths?

Why? Because none are falling, and even if they were you wouldn’t hear them amidst the nitter-natter of equivocation. I can hear it now: oh he doesn’t think all gays should be killed, and it’s only under certain conditions, yada-yada-yada…

Respect claim on their website (though I’ve never seen it in their printed material) that they support LGBT rights. So how does this square with having as a donor, and executive member and as a candidate a man that would kill us?

posted by Brett Lock @ 10:22 pm