I promise that it is worthwhile to watch all six+ minutes. Really!

Just a review, but a very thorough one. It's an hour and a half, and worth the time. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

Thanks for reminding me of this, tanner.

New Online Library Documents LGBT Human Rights Abuses Worldwide

Rights Abuses Against Gay, Lesbian and HIV+ People Now Available to Help Those Seeking Political Asylum

(New York City) The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) announced today the launch of a new online library that will provide support to worldwide claims for political asylum made by people who fear persecution based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV/AIDS status. The online library documents human rights abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and people living with HIV/AIDS in countries around the world. It is the most complete documentation resource of its kind in the world. The information now available online will enable asylum seekers or their legal advocates to quickly provide immigration authorities with proof of human rights abuses in their country of origin.

Working in partnership with asylumlaw.org, IGLHRC's Asylum Documentation Program (ADP) has made its vast store of documentation available free and online to meet the urgent needs of thousands of asylum seekers and their attorneys. The instructions on how to use on our online library is available by going to http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/content.php?type=1&id=138.

This country condition documentation library is organized by individual "country packets." There are 144 different country packets that chart for each country various types of documentation, which may include court decisions, human rights declarations related to sexual minorities, as well as expert opinions, newspaper articles, and reports on human right conditions for LGBT and HIV-positive people.

We get nearly 40 requests a week from people who call and need information to support their claims, said Dusty Aráujo, Asylum Documentation Program Coordinator at IGLHRC. By having our country packets online, it will be easier and more efficient to get the documentation out quickly to asylum seekers. When people are forced to flee a country, they take very little with them and usually not the information that shows how or why they were persecuted. The documentation we provide can clarify or confirm why they're seeking asylum and the country packet can become evidence in their cases. While a person's story can be compelling, often it is documents that prove a case.

A former asylum seeker, Rafael Dominguez, shared his experience with IGLHRC, saying:

Applying for asylum is a very scary, painful, and emotional process. I had such a relief when I came across the Asylum Documentation Program at IGLHRC: it changed my outlook and the possibilities of success on my asylum claim. It was not enough having my story of why I was applying for asylum; I needed to provide reliable information about how the LGBT community in Mexico is being discriminated against. For one person to engage in that kind of research can be impossible: the window time to prepare and submit the documentation to the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] is very short... Thanks to IGLHRC I was able to corroborate my claims and build a strong case for my asylum claim. In other circumstances, I would not have had the same success. I was granted asylum a year ago.

IGLHRC's country conditions library began in 1990 and has assisted over 6,600 people worldwide. ADP's information is critical not only to asylum seekers and their legal representatives, but also to researchers, academics, and journalists investigating persecutin of LGBT people and those living with HIV/AIDS around the world.

Every day in countries throughout the world, the fundamental rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and people living with HIV/AIDS are violated. These abuses include: murder, incarceration, forced psychiatric "treatment," torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, denial of the freedoms of association, self-expression, press and movement, denial of the right to seek refuge/asylum, immigration restrictions, forced marriage, the revocation of parental rights and numerous other forms of discrimination.

In addition to the country packets, the Asylum Documentation Program's online library offers three thematic packets that may compliment a particular case on different topics. Thematic Packets include:

Islamic World Country Packet: This packet illustrates the difficult juncture between Islam and homosexuality and the impact it may have on LGBT people and those living with HIV/AIDS in different countries.

Lesbian Issues Packet: This packet was created to further support the asylum claims of lesbians, who because they are women, may face other types of issues not shared with homosexual men.

Transgender Issues Packet: This packet has been put together to assist immigration attorneys and asylum seekers in front of an immigration judge or immigration authority who may be unfamiliar with transgender issues.

We are tremendously excited about the new IGLHRC project, said David Berten, president of asylumlaw.org, a non-profit dedicated to using the Internet to help lawyers and other accredited representatives worldwide prepare the best asylum cases they can. IGLHRC's Asylum Documentation Program has one of the most extensive collection of documents in the world relating to the persecution of sexual minorities. The ready availability of these documents on the Internet will help thousands of asylum seekers and their attorneys today and for years to come.

---

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is the only human rights organization solely devoted to improving the rights of people around the world who are targeted for imprisonment, abuse or murder because of their sexuality, gender identity or HIV status. IGLHRC addresses human rights violations by partnering with and supporting activists on the ground in countries around the world, by monitoring and documenting abuses, by engaging offending governments, and by educating international human rights officials. A US-based non-profit, non-governmental organization, IGLHRC is based in New York, with offices in San Francisco and Buenos Aires. Visit http://www.iglhrc.org.

New York Times, October 15, 2006

The Gay Old Party Comes Out
By Frank Rich - Op-Ed Columnist

PAGING Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: Here's a gay Republican story you probably did not hear last week. On Tuesday a card-carrying homosexual, Mark Dybul, was sworn into office at the State Department with his partner holding the Bible. Dr. Dybul, the administration's new global AIDS coordinator, was flanked by Laura Bush and Condi Rice. In her official remarks, the secretary of state referred to the mother of Dr. Dybul's partner as his "mother-in-law." Could wedding bells be far behind? It was all on display, photo included: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/2006/73788.htm, on www.state.gov. And while you're cruising the Internet, a little creative Googling will yield a long list of who else is gay, openly and not, in the highest ranks of both the Bush administration and the Republican hierarchy. The openly gay range from Steve Herbits, the prescient right-hand consultant to Donald Rumsfeld who foresees disaster in Iraq in Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial," to Israel Hernandez, the former Bush personal aide and current Commerce Department official whom the president nicknamed "Altoid boy" http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051017&s=hacks101705 (Let's not go there.)

If anything good has come out of the Foley scandal, it is surely this: The revelation that the political party fond of demonizing homosexuals each election year is as well-stocked with trusted and accomplished gay leaders as virtually every other power center in America. "What you're really seeing is the Republican Party on the Hill," says Rich Tafel, the former leader of the gay Log Cabin Republicans whom George W. Bush refused to meet with during the 2000 campaign. "Across the board gay people are in leadership positions."

Yet it is this same party's Congressional leadership that in 2006 did almost nothing about government spending, Iraq, immigration or ethics reform, but did drop everything to focus on a doomed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The split between the Republicans' outward homophobia and inner gayness isn't just hypocrisy; it's pathology. Take the bizarre case of Karl Rove. Every one of his Bush campaigns has been marked by a dirty dealing of the gay card, dating back to the lesbian whispers that pursued Ann Richards when Mr. Bush ousted her as Texas governor in 1994. Yet we now learn from "The Architect," the recent book by the Texas journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater, that Mr. Rove's own (and beloved) adoptive father, Louis Rove, was openly gay in the years before his death in 2004. This will be a future case study for psychiatric clinicians as well as historians.

So will Kirk Fordham, the former Congressional aide who worked not only for Mark Foley but also for such gay-baiters as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (who gratuitously bragged http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/008962.php
this year that no one in his family's "recorded history" was gay) and Senator Mel Martinez of Florida (who vilified his 2004 Republican primary opponent, a fellow conservative, as a tool of the "radical homosexual agenda"). Then again, even Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator who brought up incest and "man-on-dog" sex while decrying same-sex marriage (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm) has employed a gay director of communications. In the G.O.P. such switch-hitting is as second nature as cutting taxes. As for Mr. Foley, he is no more representative of gay men, whatever their political orientation, than Joey Buttafuoco is of straight men. Yet he's a useful creep at this historical juncture because his behavior has exposed and will continue to expose a larger dynamic on the right. The longer the aftermath of this scandal continues, with its maniacal finger-pointing and relentless spotlight on the Republican closet, the harder it will be for his party to return to the double-dealing that has made gay Americans election-year bogeymen (and women) for so long.

The moment Mr. Foley's e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman's predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It's the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.

The Family Research Council's Mr. Perkins, a frequent White House ally and visitor, led the way. "When we elevate tolerance and diversity to the guidepost of public life," he said on Fox News Channel, "this is what we get - men chasing 16-year-old boys around the halls of Congress." A related note was struck by The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009033,
which asked, "Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?" The answer was no because "today's politically correct culture" - tolerance of "private lifestyle choices" - gives predatory gay men a free pass. Newt Gingrich made the same point when he announced on TV that Mr. Foley had not been policed because Republicans "would have been accused of gay bashing." Translation: Those in favor of gay civil rights would countenance and protect sex offenders.

This line of attack was soon followed by another classic from the annals of anti-Semitism: the shadowy conspiracy. "The secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled," said Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4923_0_3_0_C/, another right-wing outfit that serves as a grass-roots auxiliary to the Bush administration. This network, he claims, was allowed "to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus" and worked "behind the scenes to sabotage a conservative pro-family agenda in Congress."

There are two problems with this theory. First, gay people did not "infiltrate" the party apparatus - they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley's behavior is preposterous. Mr. Fordham, the gay former Foley aide who spent Thursday testifying under oath about his warnings to Denny Hastert's staff, is to date the closest this sordid mess has to a whistle-blower, however tardy. So far, the slackers in curbing Mr. Foley over the past three years seem more straight than gay, led by the Buffalo Congressman Tom Reynolds, who is now running a guilt-ridden campaign commercial, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-foley11oct11,0,5098340.story , desperately apologizing to voters.

A Washington Post poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100906.htm
last week found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Democrats would behave just as badly as the Hastert gang in covering up a scandal like this to protect their own power. They are no doubt right.

But the reason why the Foley scandal has legs - and why it has upstaged most other news, from the Congressional bill countenancing torture to North Korea's nuclear test - is not just that sex trumps everything else in a tabloid-besotted America. The Republicans, unlike most Democrats (Joe Lieberman always excepted), can't stop advertising their "family values," which is why their pitfalls are as irresistible as a Molière farce. It was entertaining enough to learn that the former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed wanted to go "humping in corporate accounts" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/15/AR2006011500915.html) with the corrupt gambling lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The only way that comic setup could be topped was by the news that Mr. Foley was chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. It beggars the imagination that he wasn't also entrusted with No Child Left Behind.

Cultural conservatives who fell for the G.O.P.'s pious propaganda now look like dupes. Tonight on "60 Minutes," David Kuo, a former top official in the administration's faith-based initiatives program, is scheduled to discuss his new book recounting how evangelical supporters were privately ridiculed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,0,3875008.story?coll=la-home-headlines) as "nuts" in the White House. If they have any self-respect, they'll exact their own revenge. We must hope as well that this crisis will lead to a repudiation of the ritual targeting of gay people for sport at the top levels of the Republican leadership in and out of the White House. For all the president's talk of tolerance and "compassionate conservatism," he has repeatedly joined Congress in wielding same-sex marriage as a club for divisive political purposes. He sat idly by while his secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, attacked a PBS children's show (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40188-2005Jan26.html)
because an animated rabbit visited a lesbian couple and their children. Ms. Spellings was worried about children being exposed to that "lifestyle" - itself a code word for "deviance" - even as the daughter of the vice president was preparing to expose the country to that lifestyle in a highly promoted book.

"The hypocrisy, the winking and nodding is catching up with the party," says Mr. Tafel, the former Log Cabin leader. "Republicans must welcome their diversity as the party of Lincoln or purge the party of all gays. The middle ground - we're a diverse party but we can bash gays too - will no longer work." He adds that "the ironic point is that the G.O.P. isn't as homophobic as it pretends to be." Indeed two likely leading presidential competitors in 2008, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are consistent supporters of gay civil rights.

Another ironic point, of course, is that the effort to eradicate AIDS, led by a number of openly gay appointees like Dr. Dybul, may prove to be the single most beneficent achievement of this beleaguered White House. To paraphrase a show tune you're unlikely to hear around the Family Research Council, isn't that queer?


A healthy vital society is not one in which we all agree. It is one where those who disagree can do so with honour and respect for other people's opinions... and an appreciation of our shared humanity. - Marianne Williamson

West Point Thesis Challenges Gay Policy
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; 5:05 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080800915.html


WASHINGTON -- Alexander Raggio says he was 16 when he learned one of his relatives was gay - and watching that person's struggle gave him a grim introduction to discrimination against gays. He carried those feelings into West Point, and in his senior thesis argued that the military's policy banning gays is not only wrong, but harmful to the Army.

The Pentagon may not agree, but the U.S. Military Academy gave him an award for the paper.

"I love the Army and I think that this is hurting the Army," said Raggio, 24, in an interview this week from his new military post at Fort Riley, Kan. "I see it as my obligation to say 'I don't agree with what you're doing.' I'm not being insubordinate - I just think we're making a mistake here."

He said it was the first time he had spoken publicly about the paper or the award, which he received last year when he graduated from West Point in New York.

While the topic was controversial, and the argument contrary to the military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, Raggio was presented the Brig. Gen. Carroll E. Adams Award for the best senior thesis in the art, philosophy and literature major in the academy's English department.

"It won independent of the subject matter and content," said his thesis adviser Richard Schoonhoven, a philosophy professor at West Point. "It was a closely argued piece of philosophical prose. He tackled a substantive issue, took a stand and didn't back down from the controversy. He presented a good case."

Initially Raggio worried about a backlash from his paper, saying people told him, "There's a possibility this will come back to haunt you, that people will use it against you." But in the end, he said he felt obligated to say what he thought.

"The Army often talks of doing the harder right rather than the easier wrong, and now it is time to put the policy where the propaganda is," he wrote in his 24-page thesis. "Allowing the open service of gays in the military is the right thing to do, no matter how difficult a transition it may be."

Under the Pentagon's policy, the military is prohibited from inquiring about the sex lives of service members, but those who openly acknowledge being gay must be discharged. There were 726 military members discharged under the policy during the year that ended last Sept. 30.

"I have a problem where you have a military that says you can't discriminate based on race; in all but very minimal ways you can't discriminate based on gender, and you can't discriminate based on religion or lack of religion. The only people not getting a fair shake were homosexuals," said Raggio, who is from Muncie, Ind., and describes himself as "about the straightest guy you can imagine."

He says he knew by the time he was in seventh grade that he wanted to go to West Point and become a career Army officer. Now a 2nd lieutenant, leading a platoon in the 97th Military Police Battalion, he talks eagerly of going to Iraq, possibly next year.

He plans to spend at least 20 years in the service, and he said he believes the Army he loves is capable of integrating openly gay soldiers, much as it brought in minorities and women.

In his paper Raggio acknowledged that changing the policy may create tension or put openly gay soldiers at risk of violence. But he argued that soldiers who make life and death decisions in Iraq and handle volatile situations with insurgents and prisoners are capable of dealing with a gay soldier in their battalion.

Advocates of gays in the military said they were encouraged that Raggio's paper was lauded by the school.

"I think that this award symbolizes a shift in military culture," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. "Raggio was brave enough to write about it in the first place, but the fact that West Point would give him an award for challenging the gay ban is a powerful indication of how far the military has come culturally."

I signed this manifesto, after reading it on Tom Head's blog, which is part of the Jackson Free Press. Be warned -- this is long. It has to be long, to be clear and complete. Once you are done reading it, don't forget to SIGN IT.

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere - in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.

The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.

B. Statement of principles

1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures - freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.

2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy - regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

3) Human rights for all.
We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

4) Equality.
We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations - as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations for the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism. Labour rights are human rights. The universal adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions - now routinely ignored by governments across the globe - is a priority for us. We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse.

5) Development for freedom.
We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. The benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in all countries. Globalization must mean global social integration and a commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. Development can bring growth in life-expectancy and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends. Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth.

6) Opposing anti-Americanism.
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.

7) For a two-state solution.
We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute.

8) Against racism.
For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror. The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.

9) United against terror.
We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.

10) A new internationalism.
We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law - in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the "common life" of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".

11) A critical openness.
Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.

12) Historical truth.
In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists, Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement, and some have still not learned that lesson. Political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.

13) Freedom of ideas.
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas - even whole bodies of ideas - to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.

14) Open source.
As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries.

15) A precious heritage.
We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. We stand against all claims to a total - unquestionable or unquestioning - truth.

C. Elaborations

We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left.

The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people - children in particular - die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way.

These things are a standing indictment against the international community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other.

We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11, 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or "understandable" in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted - rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. "Anti-Zionism" has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other "polite" and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics - remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.

D. Conclusion

It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda - the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression - are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.

Notes for media
Solely for legal reasons this document is ©Norman Geras 2006. It will be made available under a Creative Commons licence.

The Euston Manifesto Group

Norman Geras, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Manchester University, normblog;
Damian Counsell, Director, Bioinformatics.Org, PooterGeek;
Alan Johnson, Editor, Democratiya, and Reader in Social Science, Edge Hill;
Shalom Lappin, Professor of Computational Linguistics, King's College London;
Jane Ashworth, Director of Engage;
Dave Bennett;
Brian Brivati, Professor of Modern History, Kingston University;
Adrian Cohen, Unite Against Terror;
Nick Cohen, journalist;
Anthony Cox, Black Triangle;
Neil Denny, Little Atoms;
Paul Evans;
Paul Gamble, Engage;
Eve Garrard, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University;
Harry Hatchet, Harry's Place;
David Hirsh, Editor of Engage, Lecturer, Sociology, Goldsmiths College;
Dan Johnson, Muscular Liberals;
Hak Mao, [link];
Gary Kent, Director, Labour Friends Of Iraq (signing in a personal capacity);
Jon Pike, Chair of Engage, Senior Lecturer - Philosophy, Open University;
Simon Pottinger, Unite Against Terror;
Andrew Regan, Bloggers4Labour founder (signing in a personal capacity);
Alexandra Simonon, Managing Editor, Engage;
Richard Sanderson, Little Atoms;
David T, Harry's Place;
Philip Spencer, Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Kingston University;
Will @ A General Theory Of Rubbish

Other signers

Joe Bailey, (Prof.) Head of School of Social Science, Kingston University
Ophelia Benson, Deputy Editor, The Philosophers' Magazine
Paul Berman
Pamela Bone, journalist, Melbourne
Robert Borsley, Professor of Linguistics, University of Essex
Michael Brennan, Department of Sociology, Warwick University
Mitchell Cohen, City University of New York; co-editor of Dissent
Marc Cooper, The Nation
Thomas Cushman, Editor of The Journal of Human Rights
Heather Deegan, Reader in Comparative Politics at Middlesex University
Luke Foley,
Marko Attila Hoare,
Quintin Hoare,
Anthony Julius,
Oliver Kamm, blogger, journalist and author
Sunder Katwala, General Secretary, Fabian Society (in a personal capacity)
Jeffrey Ketland, Edinburgh University
Mary Kreutzer, Austrian political scientist, WADI Austria , and editor of the human rights-journal LIGA
John Lloyd, The Financial Times
Kanan Makiya,
Jim Nolan, barrister, Sydney
Will Parbury, Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Fylde 2005
Thomas Schmidinger, Assistant Lecturer for Political Science (Vienna University), WADI Austria
George Szirtes, Poet
Michael Walzer, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; co-editor of Dissent
Bert Ward, Advisory Editor, Democratiya
Jeff Weintraub, University of Pennysylvania
Francis Wheen, journalist and writer
Sami Zubaida, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Sociology, Birkbeck College, London

SIGN IT.


Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time. - Thomas Edison

COMMENTARY
by Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

I never expected New Yorks high court to rule for us on marriage. For a lot of solid legal reasons, New York was never in the first tier for marriage test case litigation and I distinctly remember having the unpleasant task 10 years ago of dissuading couples from going to court to press the issue.

So when I read the summary Friday morning that the state constitution doesnt require the recognition of same-sex marriage I expected the body of the decision to be scholarly and well-reasoned. I also expected that it would express sympathy for the real discrimination and hardships gay and lesbian couples face and that it would very likely urge the Legislature to act to address these injustices.
Boy, was I wrong. The opinion was more than poorly written, illogical and insulting to any legal mind, it was plainly homophobic and a prime example of the failure of too many allegedly thinking straight people in this case judges to grasp that we are fully and equally human.

Sentences like:

Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. (When a judge has to resort to intuition and experience rather than legal precedent and fact, you know youre in deep trouble.)

The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. (In other words, straight people need marriage more than we do because they can become parents as a result of accident or impulse. Score one for the gays?)

I could go on, but you get the point.

Relying on stereotyping (always a bad thing to do), one would be tempted to think this kind of crap could only be written by some upstate, right-wing political hack with no experience with gay people.

Wrong again. The author grew up in Manhattan and attended Stanford and Columbia. He clerked for Constance Baker Motley, a colleague of Thurgood Marshall at the NAACP and a solidly progressive judge. And get this: He teaches Sunday school at a church that is one of the nations most welcoming and affirming of gay people, where gay people are part and parcel of everything that happens, including the Sunday school program.

So how did this happen? The same way our parents, brothers and sisters, co-workers and friends can blithely vote for homophobic candidates and even anti-marriage constitutional amendments. The same way so many decent people feel no compunction about loudly guffawing at a joke about gay people. (Remember the joke industry Brokeback Mountain created?) The same way an elected official whos been married for 30 years will look you in the eye, year after year, and say, Im behind you 100 percent but I need to be educated about this whole marriage issue.

Bottom line: So many people who should know better, dont. They do not get us, our lives or our love. In sum, they do not view us as fully or equally human.

Its not all their fault, either. So many of us assume that because people know were gay, invite us over to dinner, thought Will & Grace was hysterical, comment on our lawns or welcome our partners home for the holidays.

Wrong, yet again. The reality is that most of us have never had a serious conversation about our lives with straight people close to us. (Case in point: Ive been out to my parents for 26 years but I didnt ask them to actually do something like write a legislator until three years ago.) People are astonished to find out that anti-gay discrimination is still legal in 33 states. They dont believe you can be denied hospital visitation or control over the remains of someone youve been with for 50 years.

And equally important, theyre not going to stand up for us at the polls, when they hear an ugly joke, or even when writing a legal opinion unless we tell them why its essential and ask them to. Person to person, heart to heart. That needs to be our challenge and mission every day of the year.

As for the New York marriage opinion, the only good news is that the decision is so pathetic we wont need to worry about thoughtful judges in other states relying on it theyd be too embarrassed. And thats exactly the way the majority of the New York Court of Appeals should feel the rest of their lives.

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection which is noblest, second, by imitation, which is easiest, and third, by experience, which is the bitterest. - Confucius

I'm listening to the most amazing BBC Radio story about the deaths of the South African children thirty years ago, which brought about the end of apartheid. So often kids and teens feel powerless to change the world, but let me tell you -- you have power. The power structure wants you to believe that you are powerless, that you are only a consumer, that your only concerns should be your looks, your toys, your social life, your grades.

Anne Frank was imprisoned in an attic, and never knew that she would change the world. She wrote her journal until she was taken to a death camp, where she died. But millions of people have read her journal, and she changed the minds of people about Jews, about the Nazis, and most of all, about the inner life of a young girl.

These SA children who did not want to be taught in Africaans, but instead in their own language, marched along singing and dancing. Teens organized the march, but some of the little ones wanted to come also, and the first child killed by the police was only 13. When the world saw the pictures of the dead children, the condemnation was universal. Ultimately, those deaths brought about the end of apartheid, and then the end of minority rule. Thirty years later, black people in South Africa are still fighting for good education and equal treatment, but they now hold the tools of power in their own hands.

Never believe the lies you are told, about your "powerlessness." The fact that someone would try to persuade you of this, shows that it is a flimsy lie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5085450.stm for a picture and some detail.

Remarks of President Bush on the Marriage Protection Amendment

Corrected and Annotated by Mark Agrast, Sam Berger and Brodie Butland

Center for American Progress

June 5, 2006

Thank you all. Please be seated.

Good afternoon and welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with so many fine community leaders, scholars, family organizations, religious leaders, Republicans, Democrats, independents. Thank you all for coming.

You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization and it should not be redefined by activist judges.

FACT: Marriage is not being redefined by "activist judges." As a new Cato Report by Professor Dale Carpenter notes, "The 'threat' from courts is more imagined than real." Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision; 45 states have barred same-sex
marriage by various means. The question isn't whether "activist judges" should redefine marriage, but whether the states should have the opportunity to settle this matter in their own fashion, without federal interference.

You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And I am proud to stand with you.

FACT: Clearly this is not a representative group. Recent polling shows that the country is closely divided over whether to support a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. In fact, a June 4th ABC News poll found that only 42% of the public supports such an
amendment.

This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment. And I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.

FACT: A constitutional amendment would not put power back "in the hands of the American people"; it would all but permanently remove the issue from the democratic process by preventing states from allowing same-sex marriage if they choose to do so. As conservative scholar Bruce Fein
states, "[The Federal Marriage Amendment] precludes legislative bodies from recognizing same-sex unions irrespective of majority sentiments."

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution.

FACT: This is certainly true. But it is not an argument for denying gay and lesbian Americans the opportunity to participate in that institution.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society.

Our policy should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them.

FACT: There is no reason to believe-nor has any evidence been produced-that allowing people to marry who cannot now do so would "undermine" or have any other discernable effect on the families of those who are currently permitted to marry. On the other hand, denying gay men and lesbians the ability to marry does undermine their families.

And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

FACT: There is no reason to believe-nor has any evidence been produced-that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry would have any effect on the "family structure." There have been no reputable studies showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage has any adverse effect on family integrity, child welfare or societal well-being.

America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives.

FACT: People should be free to choose how they live their lives, including choosing whom they wish to marry. As Vice President Dick Cheney said in opposing a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, "freedom means freedom for everybody."

In our free society, decisions about as fundamental a social institution as marriage should be made by the people.

FACT: Absolutely. But the amendment would prevent this from happening. The decision should be made by the people of each state through the normal democratic process.

The American people have spoken clearly on this issue through their elected representatives and at the ballot box.

FACT: They have indeed. Eighteen states have enacted their own constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and additional states are considering them. So why do we need a federal amendment? As Senator John McCain said, "[the proposed federal amendment] usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law.

FACT: That's why the Marriage Protection Amendment is superfluous. Former representative Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, strongly opposes the amendment as unnecessary and an affront to federalism.

And since then, 19 states have held referendums to amend their state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

In every case, the amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of 71 percent.

FACT: The enactment of these amendments demonstrates how unnecessary it is for opponents of same-sex marriage to tamper with the federal Constitution.

Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. The people have spoken.

FACT: These amendments and laws indicate that a majority of the people oppose same-sex marriage, not that they favor a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Indeed, on that question the public is evenly divided. Moreover, majority opposition to same-sex
marriage continues to shrink. Before we convert the wishes of a transitory majority into a permanent amendment to our Constitution, we should be sure that the proposed change will stand the test of time.

Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Since 2004, state courts in Washington and California and Maryland and New York have ruled against marriage laws. Last year a federal judge in Nebraska overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, an amendment that was approved by 70 percent of the
population.

FACT: The cases in Washington, California, Maryland and New York are all lower court decisions. The Nebraska case, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, is the only case in which a state marriage amendment has been overturned, and that case is under appeal. The court invalidated the amendment because it was drafted so broadly that it would have prohibited every type of same-sex relationship, not just same-sex marriage.

And at this moment, nine states face lawsuits challenging the marriage laws they have on the books.

FACT: Not one of these states has been forced to recognize same-sex marriage. Why enact a constitutional amendment to address a problem that does not exist?

Some argue that defining marriage should be left to the states. The fact is, state legislatures are trying to address this issue.

FACT: State legislatures are not simply trying to address the issue, they are succeeding. Forty five states have banned same-sex marriage, two have created civil unions, four states and the District of Columbia have created some form of domestic partnership laws, and the California
legislature has passed legislation allowing for same-sex marriage, although it was vetoed by the governor.

But across the country, they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the express will of their people. And these court decisions could have an impact on our whole nation.

The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by the courts, then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else.

FACT: There is no reason to think that the Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned, and there are no cases in which challenges to the law have been upheld. In fact, the only two courts that have considered challenges to DOMA have upheld it.

That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriage as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own state laws or their state constitutions say.

FACT: It is inconceivable that the current Supreme Court would invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. But even if this were to occur, the duty to give "Full Faith and Credit" to marriages contracted in another state is subject to a "public policy" exception that has always
permitted states to refuse to recognize such marriages. The exception would certainly permit states to continue to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages if they choose to do so.

This national question requires a national solution.

FACT: Marriage has never been a "national question." It has always been governed by state law, and should remain so.

And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts but from the people of the United States.

FACT: The solution should come from the people through the normal democratic process. It should not be set in stone by a transient majority.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice.

FACT: The Marriage Protection Amendment is a solution in search of a problem. Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision. Since other states do not have to recognize such marriages, this is hardly an emergency requiring the extraordinary remedy of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution: the only law a court cannot overturn.

FACT: An amendment to the Constitution should always be a last resort. There is certainly no need for one here. While one lower federal court has called into question the validity of a state constitutional amendment in Nebraska, that decision is being appealed. Meanwhile, state constitutional amendments all over the country appear to be on firm ground.

The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider this week would fully protect marriage from being redefined.

It will leave state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

FACT: The Defense of Marriage Act allows states to create their own definition of marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment would change this by imposing a uniform definition on the states. The language of the amendment is unclear as to whether the amendment would permit the state legislatures to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

A constitutional amendment is the most democratic process by which our country can resolve this issue.

FACT: The most democratic process by which our country can resolve this issue is the normal one in which the people of individual states can debate and consider their own solutions.

In their wisdom, our founders set a high bar for amending the Constitution: An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

This process guarantees that every state legislature and every community in our nation will have a voice and a say in deciding this issue.

FACT: Since the consent of only three-fourths of the states is required, the amendment could become law over the objections of some of the most populous states in our nation, including California, New York and Illinois. States that have chosen to extend the right to marry to their
gay and lesbian citizens could have their decision negated, and marriage defined for their citizens, by the residents of other states.

A constitutional amendment would not take this issue away from the states, as some have argued. It would take the issue away from the courts, and put it directly before the American people.

FACT: A constitutional amendment would override state decisions, whether they are made by courts, legislatures, or popular referenda, and it would be virtually impossible to reconsider.

As this debate goes forward, every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity.

FACT: No American is treated with respect and dignity by this amendment, which not only demeans gay and lesbian citizens but shows contempt for the ability of the people to rightly decide this issue for themselves through the democratic process.

On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. And all of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another.

FACT: Civility and decency are not served by a discriminatory constitutional amendment introduced as a political ploy in an election year. As First Lady Laura Bush said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

All people deserve to have their voices heard, and a constitutional amendment will ensure that they are heard.

FACT: A constitutional amendment will silence the voices of millions of Americans today and those of generations to come.

I appreciate you taking an interest in this fundamental issue. It's an important issue for our country to debate and to resolve. And the best way to resolve this issue is through a constitutional amendment, which I strongly support.

God bless.

Victory belongs to the most persevering. - Napoleon Bonaparte