Oh please do tell me what it is you think rather than just you wondering?
Maybe other posters I certainly haven’t said anything like that. Moses keeps saying things like we wonder why in reply to some of my posts, he clearly thinks I must be a homophobe because I had the audacity to say I would think the deaths of migrant workers is more of a cause (not the only cause) to boycott this WC and ran with the you (me) must be homophobic because I dont want to give LGBT rights or want to oppress them or something.
If you go back to the start of the thread you will see posters who have lived and fo live in that part of the world say any public display of affection is outlawed and thats what a few of the posters myself included were agreeing with.
Does that make me against the LGBT community as a few replying to me are suggesting?
I don't think that's an invalid point itself, but it seems to me that topic was covered far more extensively previously and only recently (perhaps now that the stadiums have been completed, and therefore that momentum of public outrage diminished) has the focus shifted more dramatically towards LGBT rights, presumably because that's a pressing concern for the actual tournament visitors now that the world cup is just around the corner. That doesn't mean we should ignore the migrant worker issues, but we can discuss both things at the same time without creating a hierarchy of injustices as someone else here has called it.
I don't want to accuse you of that, but there have been plenty of examples of people deflecting criticism by bringing up awful things other countries have done, accusing people of hypocrisy or just generally saying things like "don't like it, don't go". I'd argue that in many of those comments there's an element of subconsciously trying to shut down the debate, ignoring that people can view each of these things as worthy of criticism, however the world cup is a unique opportunity to bring that spotlight on Qatar specifically. Public attention span is sadly short (and I include myself in this, I'm certainly no activist even if I have strong opinions on certain topics), so why undermine whatever momentum exists in trying to highlight injustices that are in the public spotlight in this specific moment for good reason?
That line of arguing may not mean the commenter is against the LGBT community, but I can't help but think they often come from a point of view where the plight of such a small minority is just not worthy of being a priority, or a nonissue all together. And the tone of
some comments does read like that these deflections come from a place of intolerance, whether they're aware of it or not.
Sure, I don't disagree with anything here, and I don't mean to come across as endorsing homelessness; clearly all over the world during several points in time we have observed social progress, which by definition means moving to a better position from a worse one. What I struggle with understanding is seeing someone oppressed for acting outside of acceptable norms - either from the perspective of society at large or from the ruling powers - as any sort of sign without any reaction or consequence to that oppression.
You bring up Iran, so let me try to explain what I mean in that context. While it's probably a bit simplistic to say that the protests are because of the death of Mahsa Amini, rather than that being a symbolic boiling point similar to the death of George Floyd, lets go with that. There are reasons to be hopeful of the protests leading somewhere, though of course they also might not, but the reason to be hopeful is the protest itself rather than the incident that sparked the protest. If we saw Amini being arrested and subsequently dying for not covering her hair, but then nothing further happened and status quo trucked ahead as normal, there would be no reason to see anything positive or hopeful about that. It would be business as usual. Likewise, someone fleeing their country due to their sexuality, that's a normal thing. What reason is there to be hopeful when there has been no indication of anything changing? If it happens, sure, but so far it hasn't and I don't see how it became more likely to at the end of May than in the beginning of May.
Absolutely, I agree with that. It's the reaction that counts, and all too often even huge public backlash doesn't result in anything. And to be honest, the Qatari public will certainly not revolt in support of the LGBT community. But public visibility matters nonetheless. LGBT rights might go back (only) several decades in many western countries, but the much more progressive normalisation of accepting LGBT people in society is a lot more recent even, and a lot of that could arguably be attributed to how many public figures have come out, even in fields as unlikely as Hip Hop. That article talking about the first publicly out Qatari citizen for instance talks about the many messages he has received from LGBT Qataris, and perhaps that gives some individuals hope. A common theme for young LGBT people growing up not so long ago was the almost complete absence of knowing (of) anyone like them. So yes, it could potentially be a (very small) first step.
Another thing that I haven't seen discussed is that this international outrage may well give politicians elsewhere more of an incentive to put pressure on countries like Qatar, now or in the future. Yes, money and trade relations often trump moral principles at the highest level of international relations, but that can go both ways. And for many politicians championing a cause that they know has widespread public appeal in their country may be enough to speak up. While I doubt the Emir of Qatar has a much more tolerant view than the general population in his country, like many ruling class people in countries with similar systems of government, he was educated in the UK for instance. Granted he probably stayed within his bubble, and British society at the time wasn't as tolerant as it is now, but regardless it's not like the ruling class there haven't been exposed to different societies. I know this is an extremely optimistic hope, but perhaps the mere attempt to display a facade of tolerance for the duration of the World Cup as a way of promoting their country, could lead to the realisation that it would be counterproductive to backtrack too excessively afterwards. If they manage to pull off a successful tournament without any major incidents, which I do believe is what they're hoping for, cracking down on human rights afterwards could lead to eroding any goodwill the tournament might generate. Or more likely, people will have moved on to the next cause and nothing changes. Regardless, I find it hard to argue now that public outrage is entirely pointless.
