Dutch gay man assaulted by youths

A gay man in Amsterdam was assaulted by three Moroccan youths. Jeroen Bulterman reports that his partner and he had been having dinner together at the home of Jeroen's mother. His partner Alexander stayed there for sometime after Jeroeen left. He was on his way home when the gang attacked him.

He was knocked to the ground and then three youths, speaking Arabic to one another, dragged him to Rembrandt park and threw him into a lake. They spent two hours on the shore taunting him and throwing things at him trying to hit him. Only when a car drove into the park with bright headlights did the youths run away. Dutch police have confirmed the incident and say that the victim was very traumatized by it.

Comment: What I find interesting about this Expatica article on the attack is that while it tells us the gang were Moroccan and spoke "Arabic" that it never mentions the word Islam. Why ignore the fact that Islam may be involved here due to its demands that homosexuals be killed? Can the media forget that when Theo van Gogh was murdered it in Amsterday it was by an Islamist intent on punishing him for his criticism of the bigoted nature of Islamic fundamentalists? It's not politically correct even if it is factually correct.

Consider this story at Expatica. The editor of the gay newspaper The Washington Blade, Chris Crain, was visiting Amsterday when Moroccan youths attacked him. Crain had previously praised Amsterdam for its tolerance but learned that tolerance didn't carry over to the Islamic community. Henk Krol, editor of Gay Krant, says he later told Crain that it is now "safer in the countryside for homosexuals than in the large Dutch cities." A survey of Dutch gays showed that a third said they are afraid to hold hands in city. And the article quotes a gay immigrant saying: "it is known that homosexuality is difficult to harmonize with the Arab mentality."

The world "Muslim" only comes up in the article to imply that anyone concerned about Islamic values is racist. The article says there is "a culture clash with the predominantly Christian ethnic Dutch" when in fact most Dutch are secular. The article, in masterful understatement says "immigrant Muslims have been reported to view homosexuality with disdain." See, it is only "reported" they hate gays. It says that: "This view and differences over the treatment of women, concerns of immigrant crime and issues of integration hae sparked a backlash against immigration from ethich Dutch." Forced marriages and subordination of women is just a "difference". How quickly the Left is willing to allow bigots to go on the rampage as long as they are a racial minority.

But the real asshole in that article has to be Scott Long, who is supposed to be director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Rights Project of Human Rights Watch. Long blames the whole attack on gays, not on Islamic hatred of homosexuals, but on the racist Dutch (some of the least racist people around). "There's still an extraordinary degree of racism in Dutch society. Gays often becomes the victims of this when immigrants retaliated for the inequities that they (Muslims) have to suffer." See because people are racists the poor, peaceful, normally gay-loving loving Islamists "retaliate" and run around bashing gays. It's not the Islamic culture at fault it is Dutch racism. This is how Expactica reports on gay bashing. Talk about PC crap. And I only hope that Long ends up swimming in a lake in Rembrandt Park in the middle of the night. With advocates for gay rights like this who needs enemies!

Photo: The photo is of Chris Crain three days after the assault by Islamic bigots in Amsterdam. So you can imagine how much worse it was when it happened. I repeat: Scott Long is an asshole and the Human Rights Watch is a joke unworthy of support for hiring this apologist for bigotry. By the way this moron is still on the staff of this organization. If these are the people watching out for human rights no wonder rights are going down the toilet.

Gay threat bigger than terrorist threat

So exactly how much of a threat is terrorism? Apparently not much, at least not as much as the threat from being gay. That is how the Neanderthals that run the US military see things. Recently three more Arabic language interpreters for the military were discharged for being gay. It is more important to the Bush administration to get the anti-gay message alive than to interpret information about potential terrorist attacks. I know the "gay threat" issues is entirely bogus and I suspect that most of the "terrorist" issue is overblown considerably.

One former interpreter who was discharged, Stephen Benjamin, says his work was so vital that his supervisor tried to persuade him to sign a statement saying he was straight. But if he did he could later be prosecuted for lying so he refused. Benjamin did not violate the phony "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy imposed by Bill Clinton. Instead the military actively investigated the matter. He did not tell but they did ask. Like most government "contracts" the bureaucrats feel they have the right to change the terms anytime they wish while you are bound to strict letter of the "contract". That's not a contract. It's more akin to blackmail.

Now you know how serious the terrorist threat really is.

Falwell follower arrested with bombs.

One of Jerry Falwell's followers, a student at Falwell's Liberty University, has been arrested. Mark Uhl, 19, was apprehended with six explosive devices. Police say he told his family he had made the bombs and that he planned to attend Falwell's funeral. But the police insist that the funeral was not a target for disruption by Uhl.

The police also say there are indications that others were involved with Uhl in the bomb making and investigations continue. ABC News reports that the targets for the bombs were anti-Falwell protesters. ABC says Uhl "reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service." Three other suspects are currently being sought by police.

Jerry Falwell wasn't a big fan of free speech either. And the Right tries to tell us that American Fundamentalists don't use bombs! Uhl isn't the first either. I have to wonder if Alberto Gonzales is going to recommend that Bush authorize the use of torture on Uhl in order to secure more information about the bomb plot.

Update: I suspected as much and news accounts now confirm that the protesters who would have been the object of Uhl's bombs were the cult members from the odious Westboro Baptist Church -- a truly sad lot of people. It is also revealed that Uhl and the three other suspects who are being sought were all together in an ROTC program (Reserved Office Training Corps) which the military sets up in schools to recruit kids into the military. One of the suspects is currently in the military.

Uhl was also a member of the ROTC program at Falwell's school and was planning to become a military chaplain. The military has been a prime target of fundamentalists in recent years causing numerous problems. The Air Force Academy had a major investigation because fundamentalists had apparently taken over and used their positions there inappropriately to recruit people into their churches. At a VA Hospital another fundamentalist chaplain is lying low after a Jewish soldier complained of constant harassment. The orthodox Jew was also denied kosher food and staff refused to call his rabbi for him to bring kosher food privately.

What is shocking is how many on line news stories have headlines implying that there was a bomb plot against the funeral of Falwell. This is false. Actually it is dishonest. AOL News says: "Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral"; Lynchburg News and Advocate says: "Arrest made in Falwell funeral threat. Australia The Age: "Falwell funeral bomb plot". True, the articles do mention the bomber was a student from Falwell's own school but many people never read past headlines.

Arrest in Porn Producer's Murder
Intrigue, lust and greed

This blog has previously reported on the murder of gay erotica producer Bryan Kocis. Two men, Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes have been arrested for the brutal murder and details are coming out that ought to make this the biggest story in gay porndom.

As the story goes the two men ran a competing porn web site and also ran an male prostitution service.

These two wannabes went to a gay porn convention where they met the porn actor Sean Lockhart, a.k.a. Brent Corrigan. They wanted to make a film with Corrigan but at the time Corrigan was in a messy contract dispute with Kocis. He had signed a contract with Kocis and the name “Brent Corrigan” belonged to Kocis not to Lockhart. Lockhart had continued to use the Corrigan name and was in legal hotwater over it. So he was reluctant to make a film with the pair.

But they had a suggestion. Cuadra said to Lockhart: “What if Bryan left the country?” Lockhart complained that the man would only return so it was useless. Then Kerekes explained to him: “Harlow knows someone who would do anything for him.” Now it was clear. And just a short time later Kocis had been brutally murdered.

The two men and Lockhart met again in California and spent the day at a nude beach where Cuadra admitted he was in the Kocis house at the time of the murder. Cuadra told Lockhart: “Don’t worry, he [Kocis] went quick.” Lockhart’s blog only says: “I have been advised by my attorneys and law enforcement officials in charge of the investigation not to make public comments or statements regarding this very sad and senseless crime.”


Cuadra apparently sent emails to Kocis using a psuedonym asking for an interview to do modeling for his company. And this is how he and Kerekes gained entry. After the killing Cuadra apparently called Lockhart and suggested he check out a news website reporting on the murder. Lockhart did and Cuadra told him: “I guess my guy went overboard.” Supposedly Lockhart became upset by this.

Photos: (1, 2) Corrigan and Cuadra at Black's Beach, San Diego. (3) Corrigan and Cuadra with Corrigan's business partner.

Gays in the Military?
No Big Deal

The New York Times took a look at the big contentious gay issue in England of a few years ago -- whether or not openly gay individuals could serve in the military.

The arguments there, were pretty much the same as in the US. It was said that gay people openly serving would destroy unit cohesion, reduce morale, etc.

But that was seven years ago. And the moral conservatives lost that one. So what happened? Not much of anything. No decay, no lack of cohesion, no reduction in morale. It just didn’t happen.

No could find any problmes that arose out of this policy. So what does it mean?

Should we assume that the gay men and women of 2007 are vastly different from those of a few years ago? Is the reason there are no problems because homosexuals have changed?

No. What has changed is the views of the people who serve. Gay men and women today are not vastly different of those who came of age in the 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, etc. So if there are no problems today it is because the social views of straight personnel has changed.

This ought to be encouraging to gay people. Whether the Religious Right nut cases like it or not they have lost the culture wars. They might as well run up the white flag and retreat to their revival tents. No one is going back into the closet. Even polls of evangelical Christians show that a good number of them are no longer anti-gay and that younger evangelicals simply don’t share the obsession about homosexuality that gripped the leaders of the Religious Right.

All along the reality was that the problem was not created by the gay man or lesbian. It was created by the bigot. It was prejudice that was always the problem.

There is a downside to this as I see it. Previously homosexual exempted one from compulsory military service as well. And I just don't trust the government enough to say they won't coerce people into joining the military involuntarily (slavery) if they get involved in another stupid war.