Zionists use false charges of anti-Semitism to silence people of color in the Palestine solidarity movement
by Pauline Park

I have been thinking about how to respond to Rafaella Gunz and her personal attack on me and my Palestine solidarity activism (Rafaella Gunz, “This transgender Jew is tired of the anti-Semitism in the LGBTI community,” Gay Star News, 16 July 2017) or whether to respond at all. There is a good argument for simply ignoring this hit piece, as it is entirely devoid of substantive argumentation or evidentiary support of any kind and it has had zero impact on my standing as an activist in general or as a Palestine solidarity activist in particular. But because the knowingly false charges that Gunz hurls at me are part of a larger campaign of harassment and intimidation directed against critics of Israeli occupation and apartheid, I will respond to those charges and take them more seriously than they deserve to be taken.

Gunz writes, ” Many LGBTI advocates, like the organizers of the Chicago Dyke March, are vehemently anti-Israel, claiming the country is participating in an ‘genocide’ of the Palestinian people. One such activist is Pauline Park, a transgender woman associated with the group NYC Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, who often posts publicly about her pro-Palestinian activism, using buzzwords like ‘genocide,’ ‘apartheid,’ and ‘occupation’.” Gunz goes onto quote Dana Beyer’s Zionist hit piece on me in which she writes, “That Pauline has no clue as to what genocide actually is, or what apartheid actually means, is obvious, but it is just as clear that she understands that such terms are trigger words for many whom she claims she is trying to persuade.” Gunz concludes by quoting Ariel Lipson at length, declaring, “If you want to be more inclusive to the Jewish LGBTQ+ community, start by listening. Like any other minority that you do not belong to, you do not get to dictate what is, or is not anti-Semitic. You do not get to tell us what our oppression is, or is not. That is for Jews, and only Jews, to decide. Your job is to stop talking, listen, learn, and act upon what you have learned to make your spaces safer for Jews. You do not get to interrogate every person with a Magen David Necklace or a Kippah. You do not get to stop listening to a Jewish person because they are a Zionist. That is not how activism works.” Gunz, Beyer and Lipson heap absurdity upon absurdity in their frantic attempts to label my critique of Israeli occupation, apartheid and genocide ‘anti-Semitic.’ But let’s take these false charges of anti-Semitism seriously just for the sake of argument and examine them in some detail.

It strikes me as highly revealing that Gunz starts her attack piece by focusing on my use of the terms ‘occupation,’ ‘apartheid’ and ‘genocide’ and calling them ‘buzzwords,’ entirely sidestepping the question as to whether they are in fact accurate descriptions of the situation in Israel/Palestine as they so clearly are; and it seems to me that that is the question, not whether or not some people (Jewish or otherwise) are offended by my use of those terms. In fact, all three terms are actually defined in international law, something Gunz seems entirely ignorant of.  “Belligerent occupation is governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907, as well as by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949,” writes Prof. Francis Boyle, noting that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1322 of 2000 is a legally binding mandate on the Israeli government to end its illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (Francis Boyle, “The International Laws of Belligerent Occupation“). A professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Boyle points out that Israel is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel’s occupation of the occupied territories is illegal because Israel has no legal or legitimate claim to them; simply having seized the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in war does not give Israel any title to them, regardless of who started that war (and there’s a very good argument that Israel provoked the 1967 War, contrary to Zionist propaganda); the notion that ‘occupation’ is simply a ‘buzzword’ would be laughed out of the courtroom in the Hague or in any classroom at any reputable school of law.

The same is true for both ‘apartheid’ and ‘genocide,’ which are also clearly defined in international law, in the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 1976 and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1951. Zionist propagandists falsely assert that even the slightest differences between Israel and South Africa invalidates application of the term ‘apartheid’ to Israel’s illegal occupation regime in Palestine, but  It is important to note here that use of the term ‘apartheid’ in international law is not restricted to a direct comparison with the former apartheid regime in South Africa; and even the most casual perusal of the apartheid convention shows that Israel is clearly contravening every one of the provisions of that convention. Article II of the convention on genocide defines it as involving any or all of five different actions, three of which (a, b and c) Israel is clearly guilty of in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and even more so in the Gaza Strip; note here that a state does not have to have committed all five in order to be guilty of the crime of genocide. Israel’s bombing of the Gaza Strip in 2014 clearly constituted genocide and Israel’s most distinguished historian, Ilan Pappe, refers to Israel’s policy in Gaza as ‘incremental genocide’ (Ilan Pappe, “Israel’s incremental genocide in the Gaza ghetto,” Electronic Intifada, 13 July 2014). Rafaella Gunz, Ariel Lipson and Dana Beyer seem to be entirely ignorant of international law and of these international conventions, which are fully binding on the Israeli government and to which it is a signatory.

Also striking is the fact that Gunz, Lipson and Beyer conflate Judaism with Zionism, even as Lipson accuses me of doing so by labeling a critique of Zionism as an ideology as inherently anti-Semitic; in fact, a majority of Zionists are non-Jewish, including a large number of Christian fundamentalists as well as non-Jewish politicians in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, such as Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron. It is also extremely odd that Lipson accuses me of “leaving Jews out of their speeches, out of their activism.” In fact, I regularly including Jews in my activism and in my Palestine work, most importantly by working with them, including colleagues in Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No as well as Jewish colleagues in New York City Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (NYC QAIA), a majority of the core members of which are Jewish.

Gunz ends her screed with a long quote from Lipson, quoting him as saying, “Like any other minority that you do not belong to, you do not get to dictate what is, or is not anti-Semitic. You do not get to tell us what our oppression is, or is not. That is for Jews, and only Jews, to decide. Your job is to stop talking, listen, learn, and act upon what you have learned to make your spaces safer for Jews.” It is hard to take this absurd statement seriously, but for the sake of argument, let us do so in order to understand its true meaning and intent. First of all, pointing out the falsity of false allegations of anti-Semitism is not ‘dictating’ anything to anyone; it is simply stating the truth about such false accusations. Second, the false allegations of anti-Semitism that I was referring to in the Facebook post that prompted Gunz and Lipson to start their smear campaign against me and my Palestine activism referred to the accusations leveled against the Chicago Dyke March collective, which Gunz refers to only in passing at the beginning of her hit piece; significantly, Gunz is either ignorant of the fact that the collective includes Jewish members or else deliberately and conveniently excludes mention of that fact; one of those collective members, Stephanie Skora, is a Jewish transwoman, and it is illogical and frankly bizarre of Gunz and Lipson to call me ‘anti-Semitic’ for defending a Jewish transwoman, but that is the ‘logic’ of their superficial and ultimately toxic identity politics in which no one has the right to talk about Palestine but Jewish Zionists. One could argue that it is Gunz and Lipson (and Beyer as well) who are the anti-Semites by smearing Jews like Stephanie Skora as ‘anti-Semites’ who are engaged in the vital work of challenging Zionist propaganda defending Israel’s illegal and brutal apartheid regime and non-Jewish Palestine activists working with Jewish colleagues in doing so.

There is probably not a single Palestine solidarity activist in the United States, in Israel or anywhere else who has not be smeared with false accusations of anti-Semitism, which is why not a single Palestine solidarity activist (Jewish or non-Jewish) who has regarded Gunz’s screed and Lipson’s false accustions of anti-Semitism as having any credibility whatsoever. It is ironic that both Gunz and Lipson have denied being Zionist because what they have done in attempting to smear a Palestine solidarity activist with false accusations of anti-Semitism is exactly what Zionists do. Zionists call non-Jewish anti-apartheid activists ‘anti-Semites’ and call Jewish anti-apartheid activists ‘self-hating Jews’ or ‘Jewish kapos’; it is in fact such a commonplace that it has become something of a joke among anti-occupation activists. And since it simply is not possible to do Palestine solidarity work without facing false allegations of anti-Semitism, Gunz and Lipson’s assertion that it is illegitimate for non-Jews to question false accusations of anti-Semitism is in effect a prohibition on doing such work; it is significant in this regard that neither Gunz nor Lipson have done even an hour’s work to end the illegal occupation of Palestine, as far as I am aware; and Beyer is on the board of directors of A Wider Bridge, an organization specifically established to ‘pinkwash’ the occupation.

A perfect example of the failure of the logic of the Gunz/Lipson attack on me to meet even the most minimal standard of credibility and coherence is the fact that their assertion that non-Jews do not have the right to contest false accusations of anti-Semitism is the case of Rabab Abdulhadi, a professor at San Francisco State University (SFSU) who has been subjected to a campaign of vilification and intimidation by the AMCHA Initiative, Canary Mission and Campus Watch, Zionist organizations that target Palestinian academics and faculty, staff and students who are critical of Israeli apartheid (Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, “‘AMCHA aims to suppress scholarship honestly discussing Israel’s violation of Palestinian rights’: Prof. Rabab Abdulhadi respons to Israel lobby smear campaign,” Mondoweiss, 23 June 2014). Gunz and Lipson insist that a non-Jewish person has no right to respond to false charges of anti-Semitism; by that logic, a Palestinian woman like Abdulhadi would have no right to respond to false allegations of anti-Semitism by Zionist organizations even though it is clear that they are engaged in a smear campaign that is part of an attempt to shut down any discussion of Israeli apartheid or Islamophobia in an academic context such as the Arab Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas (AMED) program at SFSU (General Union of Palestine Students at San Francisco State University, “GUPS Statement of Support for SF State’s MOU with Al-Najah Uniersity in Palestine, the AMED program, and Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi,” Medium, 21 September 2016). In denying a woman of color the right to respond to her accusers and challenge false accusations of anti-Semitism that are part of a campaign to shut down study of Arab and Muslim communities simply because she is not Jewish, Gunz and Lipson are in effect asserting a right to silence any and all criticism of Israeli government policy, including criticism of Israeli apartheid by Palestinians who are forced to live under the illegal occupation. If a Palestinian such as Rabab Abdulhadi does not have the right to question let alone challenge her own oppression as a Palestinian by Israeli occupation and apartheid, for Gunz and Lipson, neither do non-Jews have the right to stand in solidarity with Jewish Americans such as Stephanie Skora and other members of the Chicago Dyke March collective as well as Israeli Jews under attack from Zionists over their criticism of Israeli government policy.

It is also striking to me that the whole thrust of the Gunz screed and Lipson’s comments are so entirely referential; virtually every reference is to their own Jewish identity, without any acknowledgement of the brutality of the illegal occupation of Palestine; in effect, Gunz and Lipson (and Beyer as well) are saying that their identity as Jews is based on excluding non-Jews from participation in any discussion of Palestine, including Palestinians who are forced to live under apartheid and who are being subjected to what Pappe calls ‘incremental genocide’ in the Gaza Strip, and any reference to or criticism of Israeli government policy is somehow a challenge to their own Jewish identity. Lipson would ‘instruct’ me on “How to Criticize Israel Without Being Anti-Semitic” via a Tumblr post by Peter Vidani, but he like Gunz and Lipson simply falsifies the reality of what’s going on in Israel/Palestine by asserting that “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a real minefield in that it’s a clash between oppressed people of color and an ethnoreligious group that is dominant in Israel but marginalized and brutalized elsewhere” without even acknowleding the fact that the government elected by the ‘ethnoreligious group that is dominant in Israel’ (as he refers to Israeli Jews) is maintaining an illegal occupation under which Palestinians have no ability to exercise their human rights much less any say in how the apartheid regime is run.

If the object to my using the legally defined terms of ‘occupation,’ ‘apartheid’ and ‘genocide’ is that using such terms offends Zionists, then it is not much of an objection; as I see it, the sensibilities of Zionists defending Israeli occupation, apartheid and genocide are far outweighed by the compelling need to end the occupation and apartheid under which Palestinians have been forced to live for half a century and the incremental genocide to which they are being subjected in the Gaza Strip. And in truth, there is simply no way to refer to what is going on in illegally occupied Palestine without using such terms.

But unlike Gunz, Lipson and Beyer, Vidani at the very least acknowledges the fact that Palestinians (like me) are people of color; Gun, Lipson and Beyer seem blithely unaware of the enormous white skin privilege they enjoy in this white-dominant society and in attempting to silence a transgendered woman of color challenging Israeli occupation, apartheid and genocide, they show themselves to be the very embodiment of white privilege; and in the end, their campaign of harassment and intimidation against this transgendered woman of color for advocating human rights for all in Israel/Palestine will only reinforce her commitment to challenging the Israeli apartheid regime that they think no person of color has the right to challenge.

Pauline Park is chair of the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA); she led the campaign for the transgender rights law enacted by the New York City Council in 2002. Park participated in the first US LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine in 2012. She did her B.A. in philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, her M.Sc. in European studies at the London School of Economics and her Ph.D. in political science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The post Zionists use false charges of anti-Semitism to silence people of color in the Palestine solidarity movement appeared first on Pauline Park.

ESPA goes out with a whimper not the bang of having passed GENDA
by Pauline Park

On Dec. 12, the Empire State Pride Agenda abruptly announced it would be shutting down the Pride Agenda — which so many people over the years have called ‘ESPA’ — and its Foundation, though its political action committee will apparently remain active.

The announcement was reported by media outlets from the New York Times (“Empire State Pride Agenda to Disband, Citing Fulfillment of Mission,” 12.12.15) to Gay City News to PlanetTransgender.com. This is big news for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, because ESPA is the only statewide LGBT advocacy organization in New York and widely viewed as its voice, especially by members of the state legislature. In its Dec. 12 press release, ESPA declared,

The Boards’ decision comes on the heels of securing the Pride Agenda’s top remaining policy priority — protecting transgender New Yorkers from discrimination in housing, employment, credit, education and public accommodations — in the form of new regulations announced in partnership with Governor Andrew M. Cuomo at the organization’s Fall Dinner on October 22…

Of course, an executive order and even a state Division of Human Rights regulation can be rescinded by any of Cuomo’s successors as governor, so it does not have the force of an enacted statute law, and many saw this as a George W. Bush ‘mission accomplished’ moment, in particular because the Pride Agenda is closing shop without having gotten the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) through the state Senate and signed into law.

But Norman C. Simon, chair of the Pride Agenda board and co-chair of the Foundation, responded to criticism of the decision and the announcement of it by telling Gay City News,

We did not and are not declaring mission accomplished on LGBT equality. What we are saying is that our top priorities have been completed, and that the remaining work that needs to be done we will transition to other organizations in the coming months in an orderly process (Paul Schindler, “ESPA Leadership Pushes Back on Charge They’ve Declared ‘Mission Accomplished’,” Gay City News, 12.13.15).

In his story for Gay City News, Paul Schindler wrote, “Matt Foreman focused his criticism both on the way the Pride Agenda reached its decision and on the message the announcement of that decision sent,” quoting the former executive director as saying,

There was zero consultation with folks who spent their lives building the Pride Agenda. If they are going to make a decision of that magnitude, there has to be a consultative function. They need to talk to the stakeholders, to the communities around the state… This is an abrogation of a fundamental obligation that an organization has to its constituency… And, it plays into the national narrative that the job is done.

But the same could be said of ESPA’s decision to endorse Cuomo’s executive order without any consultation even with the coalition attempting to advance GENDA in the state Senate. I have been involved with what originally was called the GENDA Coalition from the beginning, far longer than all of the current ESPA staff, and I represented the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA) in that coalition from its formation, and at no time was there even a conference call to discuss the executive order, which will have the effect of undermining any remaining efforts to push GENDA through the Senate. Why would the Republican majority in the Senate feel pressured to pass GENDA when ESPA and the governor are both touting the executive order/regulation as providing sweeping protections for transgendered people in the state? And the lack of even the most rudimentary consultation on the decision to endorse the governor’s executive action is why it feels to me like a backroom deal cut between ESPA and the governor rather than a genuinely community-driven policy victory. Hence the decision to settle for an executive order rather than to demand that the governor use his power and influence to push GENDA through the Senate — in which Republicans maintain a majority in large part due to Cuomo’s efforts to keep the Senate in Republican hands — is not only substantively questionable but really represents a betrayal of the transgender community and the process through which the GENDA coalition was working to achieve a legislative remedy to the lack of protection from discrimination based on gender identity or expression in state law.

The most negative reactions to the news of the shutdown of the two most important parts of the Empire State Pride Agenda empire have focused on the organization’s abandonment of its transgender legislative agenda, Kelli Anne Busey writing,

Realizing the trans community’s worst fears, the New York Empire State Pride Agenda announced the shocking news Saturday that they are ceasing operations after 25 years of operations…  [executive director Nathan] Schaefer just said the job isn’t finished without saying transgender and every fucking person in the room knows that’s what he’s eluding to. (it’s their little secret) They’ll just walk. So gay New Yorkers will spend money on making sure the laws protecting them aren’t eroded but will throw the T under the bus. Nice. (Kelli Anne Busey, Empire State Pride Agenda Disbands, Screwing NY Transgender People,” Planet Transgender, 12.13.15)

On Twitter, a number of people ‘tweeted’ critical comments:

This is what superficial justice looks like: “Empire State Pride Agenda to Disband, Citing Fulfillment Mission” (Jen Jack Gieseking @jgieseking, 12.13.15)

“We got marriage equality our work is done.” “What about trans equality, we aren’t done?” “Well we are!” (Mia Marie Macy @Miamariemacy, 12.13.15)

The closure of NYC’s @prideagenda is a sad indictment of legal activism. Marriage equality does not heal all wounds. (Senthorun Raj @senthorun, 12.13.15)

I have worked with every executive director and deputy director of the Pride Agenda from 1998 onwards as well as every transgender community organizer and every coordinator of the New York State LGBT Health & Human Services Network, which Tim Sweeney founded when he was deputy director of the Pride Agenda and in which I represented Queens Pride House (the only LGBT community center in the borough of Queens), so I actually know ESPA’s history better than the current members of the board and staff. And . So my perspective is the long view, informed by my experience leading the campaign for the transgender rights law enacted by the New York City Council in 2002, in partnership with Tim Sweeney and Matt Foreman and other ESPA staff; it is also informed by my participation in the steering committee of the coalition that led the campaign for the New York State Dignity for All Students Act (DASA), enacted in 2011.

And so what I would like to do is offer an assessment of the Pride Agenda’s record from 1998 to 2015 as informed by 17 years of working with the organization. That relationship goes back to the founding of NYAGRA in 1998 and our very first meeting with another organization; several co-founding members went to the Pride Agenda’s old office on Hudson Street. In the cramped office in the West Village, we met with Tim Sweeney, then deputy director, to seek ESPA’s support for inclusion of gender identity and expression in the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) then pending in the Republican-controlled state Senate after having already passed the Democrat-controlled Assembly; we also sought Pride Agenda support for transgender inclusion in the hate crimes bill, which had also passed the Assembly and was also stalled in the Senate. Tim Sweeney told us that NYAGRA should join the state hate crimes bill coalition if we wanted to have gender identity and expression added to the hate crimes bill; he also told us that ESPA was not prepared to add gender identity and expression to SONDA but that the Pride Agenda would be willing to work with us on a local transgender rights bill. As a result of that collaboration, we launched the campaign for the bill that would eventually pass the City Council in April 2002 and be signed into law later that month.

It is important to recognize that the Empire State Pride Agenda was a self-defined ‘lesbian and gay’ organization when we met with ESPA staff in November 1998; transgender simply was not a part of the organization’s mission and there was no indication that they had even considered including transgendered people in their work. NYAGRA was the first transgender advocacy organization in the city or the state, and its formation and our pressing ESPA on transgender inclusion in pending state legislation is what prompted the Pride Agenda to move toward transgender inclusion in its work.

Any assessment of the Empire State Pride Agenda has to focus primarily on legislation, because that is where the organization has made its mark, along with the founding of the Network and the funding that it was able to garner for the over 60 LGBT-specific social service providers in the state. The major legislation that ESPA played a role in getting enacted since 2000 have included the state hate crimes law (2000), SONDA (2002), DASA (2011), and marriage equality. ESPA also helped with the campaign for the New York City Dignity in All Schools Act (NYC DASA), enacted by the City Council in 2004 over Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s veto, though the organization didn’t play the leading role with that legislative campaign as it did with the aforementioned state bills.

The first and best-known charge of transgender exclusion leveled against ESPA is also the most misunderstood; it is often thought that the Pride Agenda stripped gender identity and expression from SONDA so that it could be pushed through the Senate in December 2002; but in fact, transgender-specific terms were never in SONDA; the more mundane truth is that ESPA simply refused to bow to pressure from various parties to add gender and expression to the bill when it became viable in June 2001 when Gov. George Pataki first expressed openness to supporting it. As executive director of the Pride Agenda, Matt Foreman cut the deal that secured passage of SONDA: in exchange for ESPA’s endorsement of Pataki for a third term as governor, Senate majority leader Joe Bruno allowed a floor vote on SONDA in December, with the bill passing with a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans before being signed into law by Pataki.

GENDA was introduce the next year and has since passed the Assembly several times but never the Senate, where it was even defeated in a vote in committee in 2011. The bill that did finally pass the Senate in that year was the Dignity for All Students Act, the first and so far only explicitly transgender-inclusive legislation enacted by the state legislature and signed into law. But the history of DASA does not reflect unqualified support for transgender inclusion on ESPA’s part. When Moonhawk River Stone was co-chair of NYAGRA with me, we were twice approached by Alan Van Capelle, then executive director of the Pride Agenda, about a possible compromise that could satisfy the Republican Senate leadership sufficiently to allow the bill to come up for a vote in the Senate. The first was an overture from the Senate leadership that entailed stripping gender identity and expression from the bill altogether; the second a proposal by Kevin Jennings, then executive director of the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to water down the language of the Dignity bill to remove the definition of gender, which included identity and expression, and instead put ‘identity and expression of’ in front of the list of characteristics in the bill; the dubious language had never been tested in any court or even enacted by any state language. Alan Van Capelle convened a small group of transgender activists, hoping I am quite certain that we would all go along with the dubious proposal; but Hawk Stone and I stood firm and refused to put NYAGRA’s imprimatur on it. After these two overtures were deflected, the coalition continued to work on the bill, even after the lead sponsor in the Senate, openly gay Sen. Thomas K. Duane, completely lost interest in his own bill; Dignity did eventually pass the Senate in June 2010, ironically enough as a kind of consolation prize to the LGBT community for the Senate’s rejection of the marriage equality bill that would eventually pass a year later, in June 2011.

As for the marriage equality legislation itself, on the one hand, it is certainly true that it ultimately redounded to the benefit of transgendered New Yorkers as well as non-transgendered gay and lesbian New Yorkers; but many felt that those who would be the most immediate beneficiaries of same-sex marriage recognition in New York would be the relatively more privileged members of the LGBT community, including wealthy gay white Manhattan professionals who — just as Andrew Cuomo no doubt calculated they would — opened up their checkbooks to make donations not only to ESPA but also to Cuomo for his 2014 re-election campaign. The most deleterious effect of the drive for marriage legislation by ESPA and Cuomo as well as marriage organizations such as Freedom to Marry and Marriage Equality-New York was that marriage came to dominate discussions of LGBT issues in the state legislature and coverage of the LGBT community in the media for most of the decade that preceded passage of the marriage equality bill, to the detriment of discussion of virtually anything else. I can remember one media interview in which I attempted to discuss GENDA and DASA with a reporter who seemed to insist that marriage was the most important issue facing the LGBT community and misquoted me to that effect in her write-up, despite my having said the opposite. Because of the enormous media attention on marriage, even Tom Duane, the lead sponsor of both GENDA and DASA, lost interest in those bills and let them languish. Nor did ESPA do anything effective to pressure the Democrats when they were briefly in control of the Senate from January through mid-June 2011 to bring GENDA to the floor for a vote, when it would almost certainly have passed.

The Empire State Pride Agenda Foundation honored Christine Quinn and Louis Bradbury at its annual fall dinner in October 2012, which was a disgraceful political act intended to ingratiate the organization with the Council Speaker when she was preparing to run for mayor; the press release announcing the honorees declared, as Council Speaker, “she was at the helm of some of our community’s most historic victories, including ensuring dignity and protections against bullying for all students, and New York’s momentous marriage victory in 2011.”  Chris Quinn had little if anything to do with the marriage bill passing — the Speaker of the New York City Council has no authority in the state Senate — and she did nothing but sign her name to the New York City Dignity in All Schools (NYC DASA) bill as a co-sponsor; I was on the NYC DASA Coalition steering committee and Chris Quinn didn’t lift a finger to help us get the bill passed, which actually passed during Gifford Miller’s speakership, not Quinn’s; in fact, after NYC DASA was enacted, she conspired with Mayor Bloomberg to block its implementation by the NYC Department of Education (NYC DoE); so to give her credit for NYC DASA’s enactment is doubly false. The same ESPA release asserted of Bradbury, “As Chair of the Board of the Empire State Pride Agenda, which under his leadership helped to secure passage of The Dignity for All Students Act.” I was on the steering committee of the New York State DASA Coalition and Louis Bradbury had zero involvement with that effort; the bill finally passed the New York State Senate when he was chair of the ESPA board, but enactment had nothing to do with him, and it was clear to me that he was just using his position as chair for yet further self-aggrandizement after he fired Ross Levi — ESPA’s best executive director, in my view — back in March 2012 in a sordid power struggle initiated by Bradbury that significantly undermined the organization’s credibility. Truth does not come from falsity and honoring the dishonorable only dishonors the LGBT community that the Pride Agenda claimed to represent; honoring Chris Quinn and Louis Bradbury by making false claims about their achievements was a disgraceful act.

The manner of one’s passing says a great deal about an individual and I think the same is true of an organization. Organizations die just like individuals, and the rather abrupt, almost hasty manner of ESPA’s passing is telling. Just as the Pride Agenda consulted with no one — not even the coalition working to advance GENDA — when it cut a deal with Gov. Cuomo to endorse his executive order on transgender discrimination and give him a platform at its annual fall dinner in October 2015, so the boards of the Pride Agenda and its Foundation consulted with no one, not even former board and staff members, on the decision to close their doors. Norman Simon’s talk about an ‘orderly process’ of winding down and collaboration with other organizations to try to parcel out its current work seems to mask something quite disorderly. Because of the secretive nature of ESPA deliberations, it would likely be impossible to get confirmation of my suspicions, but I suspect that the board voted to shut down operations for the very mundane reason that ESPA and even its Foundation were no longer financially viable operations. As Gay City News reported,

Pauline Park is chair of the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA) and served as executive director of Queens Pride House from 2012-15; she led the campaign for the transgender rights law enacted by the New York City Council in 2002 and served on the steering committee of the coalition that led the campaign for the New York State Dignity for All Students Act that was enacted in 2011.

The post ESPA goes out with a whimper without having passed GENDA appeared first on Pauline Park.

Israel & the LGBT Community Center ban on Palestine organizing 2011-13
by Pauline Park

Americans tend to think of Israel/Palestine as a foreign policy issue, an intractable conflict removed from us by 7,000 miles or more; and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community generally do not regard the ongoing illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem as being an LGBT issue at all, let alone one of direct relevance to the LGBT rights work that US-based activists do in the United States. But the conflict over Palestine solidarity organizing at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center of New York City from February 2011 to February 2013 vividly demonstrated how the Israeli occupation of Palestine is in fact an LGBT issue and one of direct relevance in the largest city in the country as well as throughout the US. In fact, the story of how the Center became drawn into the  conflict, despite the desire of its board and staff to avoid such entanglement — or perhaps because of it — is a cautionary tale for LGBT community centers and LGBT organizations and queer politics more generally — both in New York and beyond.

So how did this ‘controversy’ begin? It began with that most controversial of characters in the ensuing drama, Michael Lucas, a right-wing pornography mogul. Lucas was furious to discover that the Center had rented a room to the Siege Busters Working Group, which is calling for an end to the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.  The group had contracted with the Center to rent space for ‘a party to end Israeli apartheid,’ a term that raised the hackles of the porn king. Lucas then threatened the Center with a boycott of donors if it did not cancel the Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) fundraiser scheduled for March 5. That set of facts is the full extent of what all parties agree to; from that point onwards, there is no agreement even on the facts of the matter, let alone the interpretation of them.

“Lucas Entertainment founder and president Michael Lucas was born in Moscow, Russia, on March 10, 1972,” the website of Lucas Entertainment states. “He was raised in Moscow and attended college there, graduating with a degree in law. In 1995, Michael Lucas moved to Germany, then to France, where he began modeling and appearing on several European television programs and covers of many European magazines. In 1998, Lucas opened his own production company, Lucas Entertainment, in New York City,” the site adds. The biography on LucasEntertainment.com also notes that he was naturalized as a United States citizen in 2004 and even goes on to describe him as 6 feet tall and weighing 180 pounds.

Does the devil make him do it…?

“Michael Lucas is the most mainstreamed, provocative, and controversial figure in gay adult entertainment,” declares the right-wing porn king on his blog site. “With his unparalleled character, activism, and distinction, Michael Lucas is at the forefront of his industry and beyond,” he modestly asserts. Among the adjectives that Lucas describes himself, ‘provocative’ and ‘controversial’ are the only two that his critics as well as his supporters are likely to agree with.

‘The Zionist porn star impresario,’ as the Huffington Post described him, “intimidated New York’s LGBT Center into canceling its hosting of another group’s Israeli Apartheid Week event scheduled for next month,” declared HuffPo on February 27. “And it took him only a few hours of emails and phone calls, plus a little more than $1,000, to do so,” added the popular website, linking to the full-length news story in the Village Voice.

The self-described ‘top’ with a (self-reported) penis size of ten inches (a claim for which I could find no independent verification) plunged into the world of public policy and queer politics with a letter to the Center that threatened a boycott of major donors if the Center did not expel the Siege Busters Working Group; sadly, the Center capitulated to the blackmail, and in doing so, betrayed its mission to be an open and safe space for all members of the LGBT community.

It is precisely because of the sensitivity of  the issue that I feel compelled to make clear that this analysis and any opinions expressed here are solely mine, speaking in an individual capacity, and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organizations with which I am or have been associated. That all being said, of course, in speaking and writing about this issue, I draw on over 17 years of experience in activism and advocacy work across a wide variety of organizations, including the one I currently chair, the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy (NYAGRA); I also draw on my experience as executive director of Queens Pride House (2012-15) and president of the board of directors (2010-16); and my views are also informed by my experience with the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) (as a member of the board of directors from 2008-12), the Out People of Color Political Action Club (OutPOCPAC) (which I served as co-president), the Gay Asian & Pacific Islander Men of New York (GAPIMNY) (which I served as a member of the steering committee), Iban/Queer Koreans of New York (which I served as coordinator from 1997-99), Q-Wave (the organization for LBT API women, of which I am currently a member, though not in a leadership position), the National Queer Asian/Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA) (of which I am a founding member but which I have not served in any leadership capacity), Gay Asians & Pacific Islanders of Chicago (GAPIC) (of which I was the founding chair), and the Guillermo Vasquez Independent Democratic Club of Queens (GVIDCQ) (which I served as vice-president).

While GAPIC, GVIDCQ, OutPOCPAC and Iban/QKNY are now sadly defunct, all of the other organizations are active and all but NQAPIA are based in New York City. I mention this long list of organizations simply because one point that the Center insisted on is that the process which led to the decision in question involved ‘wide consultation’ with many different organizations and constituencies; and yet, none of the above mentioned organizations was consulted in any way before, during, or after the decision that was made; of that I have certain knowledge.

In any case, the Center’s executive director, Glennda Testone, rebuffed attempts by Siege Busters members to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement before the controversy widened. As Brad Taylor told Steven Thrasher of the Village Voice, Testone was evasive and controlling in responding to questions from Siege Busters members in a meeting following the Center’s cancellation of their March 5 fundraiser, telling them “that our event had generated too much controversy from both sides, and it wasn’t ‘queer enough'” (“‘Party to End Israeli Apartheid!’ Still On at Gay Center, Activists Vow, But With Picketing, Not Dancing,” Steven Thrasher, Village Voice, 4 March 2011).

Ironically enough, in cancelling the March 5 event, Testone and the Center leadership brought far more attention to the Siege Busters and their cause than simply allowing the event to go forward (as the Center was contractually obligated to) ever would have. And the outrage over the Center’s decision to embrace censorship as well as to implicitly endorse the illegal Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories was hardly limited to a small number of queer activists in New York: over 1,600 individuals signed the petition on iPetitions.com, which declared:

We, the undersigned, are LGBT people and allies who condemn the stifling of free speech at New York’s LGBT Center due to pressure from wealthy supporters of Israel’s anti-Palestinian policies. A slanderous press release followed by a threatening call-in campaign led to the cancellation of an Israeli Apartheid Week event scheduled for March 5, 2011, and the right of peaceful pro-Palestine activists in the Siegebusters group to meet at the Center. New York’s LGBT Community Center has a 28-year history of accommodating the needs of oppressed and marginalized groups and allowing controversial opinions to be aired. It is a sanctuary for those seeking a democratic organizing space.

The recent press release by Michael Lucas, a wealthy gay porn entrepreneur, threatened a boycott and defunding campaign if the Center didn’t cancel the event, which it tragically agreed to do. If activists allow this decision to stand, the Center will go from being a liberated space of democracy and free speech to yet another occupied, homogenized venue where wealthy and powerful voices can squelch all the rest. Lucas’s accusation that the March 5 event and groups organizing to build it are ‘anti-Semitic’ is not simply an odious lie, it is an attempt to manipulate hatred of anti-Semitism to draw attention away from the ongoing Israeli crimes of dispossession, systematic racism, collective punishment and wholesale warfare on a population guilty of nothing other than their own existence. An international campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel has global support, including diverse voices from queer theory icon Judith Butler and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu to Auschwitz survivor and International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network spokesman Hajo Mayer. The LGBT Center must return to its mission as a space for the oppressed and marginalized and reverse its decision on the March 5 event and reinstate the right of Siegebusters activists to meet there. Please email or call the Executive Director of the Center, Glennda Testone at glennda@gaycenter.org or 212-620-7310.

In solidarity and struggle,
Siegebusters Working Group,
Existence is Resistance,
Sherry Wolf, author, Sexuality and Socialism; International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
Cleve Jones, AIDS and LGBT rights activist
Judith Butler, author, Gender Trouble; Professor, University of California-Berkeley
Sarah Schulman, Writer. Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, City University of New York.

The petition was entitled, “Save New York’s LGBT Center! Don’t Let Wealthy Bigots Shut Down Free Speech,” and I signed the petition, posting this comment:

I have been attending events & meetings at the Center ever since I moved to New York City in 1995 and have always supported the organization, but I find I cannot continue to support the Center in good conscience after it has engaged in censorship and — by banning Siege Busters and canceling the March 5 event — implicitly endorsed the illegal Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Center must acknowledge the violation of its own process as well as the betrayal of the LGBT community that this decision constitutes, and it must reverse the decision itself; and the Center’s leadership must show that it is the LGBT community as a whole and not merely a few privileged gay white millionaires who determine policy at the Center.

Mine was the 1,646th signature. Many of the signatories left thoughtful comments, such as Eric Mills, who posted his on March 13:

If Pride Toronto could (after some struggle) uphold its dignity and independence by welcoming Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) to its parade last year, surely New York’s LGBT Center could at least host a meeting to oppose racist oppression in Palestine. What happened to the Stonewall spirit?

William Lee, signing the petition on February 23, wrote,

It is outrageous that the Center should buckle under to pressure like this, particularly in this case where the denial of rights to a people living under a harsh military occupation for more than 40 years was to have been highlighted. Shame on the Center for caving in to spurious charges and big-money pressure.

Signing the petition on April 2, Ray Sutton put it even more succinctly:

I strongly disagree with your caving in to monied Islamophobes.

Bob Lederer, self-described ‘queer producer, WBAI Radio’ and ‘former ACT UP organizer,’ wrote on March 23,

Thank you for standing up against censorship and affirming the right to keep the LGBT Center as a space for the entire community.

A prominent activist, Lederer was by no means the only Jewish member of the community to sign the petition. On February 23, Otto Coca wrote,

As a Jew and an American, I know the sensitivity of this issue, but the priority is freedom and the right to free speech. Allowing an unpopular group to meet is a decision of tolerance and acceptance of diverging views: capitulating to the will of a wealthy group intent on stifling discussion is COWARDICE. THE LGBT community fought too hard to be co-opted by Porn Star activists hiding behind two flags. Michael Lucas is NOT a voice of the LGBT community.

On February 23, Gary Lapon wrote,

Support for the Palestinian people is NOT the same as anti-Semitism. Not only are Lucas’s claims a smear against a legitimate liberation struggle, they are particularly offensive to Jews such as myself who object to false claims of discrimination against us being used to justify the oppression of others. Rarely have I felt more comfortable than among my brothers and sisters in the Palestinian solidarity movement.

On February 23, Ellen Davidson wrote,

As a Jew, I am offended by the equation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. This serves to stifle dissent and shut down any reasoned discussion of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

Writing on February 23, Hannah Mermelstein addressed her comments directly to the Center management:

You claim that the Center should be a safe space for LGBTQ people. It is no longer a safe space for me, based on my political views, and it is no longer a safe space for my queer Arab and Muslim friends, due to their ethnic and religious identities. Please reconsider your decision.

Not only did many Jewish Americans sign the petition, but even Israelis signed on, Daphne Tier writing on February 23,

I am an Israeli anti-Zionist, anti-Zionism is NOT antisemitism ! When you expel hundreds of thousands of people, massacre them, put the rest in camps, steal their lands, and deny their history, you are doing something wrong. When you blockade access to roads, demolish homes, destroy water wells, build walls down the middle of orchards and villages and kill hundreds of unarmed civilians every year, you are doing something wrong. Regardless of your religion. People have the right to oppose U.S imperialism, and Israel is a colony propped up by U.S imperialist interests!

Former members of the Center staff also weighed in on the controversy. On February 23, Sabelo Narasimhan signed the petition, writing,

As a former employee and always a visitor at the center — I plead for you to keep it a space for ALL KINDS of oppressed and marginalized people locally and globally.

Organizations of color also sent letters to the Center. The Audre Lorde Project, FIERCE, Queers for Economic Justice and the Sylvia Rivera Law Project issued a joint statement on March 4:

Open Letter to the NYC LGBT Community Center from The Audre Lorde Project, FIERCE, Queers for Economic Justice and Sylvia Rivera Law Project:

The Audre Lorde Project (ALP), FIERCE, Queers for Economic Justice, and the Sylvia Rivera Law Project write to express our extreme disappointment and concern with the NYC LGBT Center’s decision to cancel the Israeli Apartheid Week’s event and to disallow Siege Busters from continuing to meet at the Center. Our four organizations recently hosted an event as part of the Palestinian Queer Activist Tour on February 18th. Co-sponsored by the South Asian Lesbian Gay Association (SALGA), Q-Wave, and the Gay Asian Pacific Islander Men of New York (GAPIMNY), the event featured alQwas for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society and ASWAT Palestinian Gay Women. Reflective of the history of ALP’s dialogue with Palestinian queer activists over the last decade, the panel drew over a hundred LGBTQ folks of color and allies and resulted in a rich, fruitful discussion about the intersections of sexuality, culture, race, class, nationalism, and colonial occupation. This event made clear to us that our constituencies are eagerly interested in and in need of community spaces where they can be educated about the relevant issues and debates regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and where community members can openly discuss the ways in which these issues have impacted them on a personal level. We are aware that you have received many statements and letters detailing the many ways that the Israeli Occupation of Palestine is a LGBTSTGNCQ issue. As organizations also working in service of NYC’s LGBTSTGNCQ community and movements, we believe that the LGBT Center should be a space where all experiences of oppression and struggles for liberation are valued. Since its establishment, the Center has been a space that our communities and movements have sought to access for support against isolation, safety from homophobia and transphobia, and access to resources that we need to survive. By canceling the IAW event, you risk alienating many members who frequent your Center by sending a strong message to our communities and allies that the issues with which we struggle such as racial justice, anti-imperialism, immigration, economic justice, disability justice and militarization are not genuinely welcome to be discussed at the NYC LGBT Community Center. We hope you will reconsider your decision in light of the polarization that it creates amongst our diverse community. We invite you to be in conversation with our organizations as you think through this issue. Furthermore, we hope you will engage your funders who oppose the IAW event with courage and accountability in support of the concerns voiced by the very individuals and communities who use the Center.

SALGA, Q-Wave and GAPIMNY — the three queer API organizations in New York City — also sent an ‘open letter’ to the Center:

We, the undersigned Queer Asian Pacific Islander groups, are very concerned with the LGBT Community Center’s decision on canceling the scheduled March 5th “Party to End Apartheid” event. The Center has a long history in providing a space, for many LGBTQ and other vulnerable groups, to hold dialogue and give voices to explore conflicts, issues and resolutions. The Siegebusters Working Group, while not identified a LGBTQ group, it is a minority voice seeking to address oppression and deserves a safe space. In cancelling this event and disallowing Siegebusters Working Group from meeting at the Center, the center comes across as supporting censorship. The LGBTQ movement has always had many voices, and suppressing these voices does not serve to make the center a “safe haven for LGBT groups and individuals.” Social justice and open dialogue has always been a central part of LGBTQ organizing. Many of us in the QAPI Community believe that queer rights are human rights, and therefor human rights issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict are inexorably linked to our struggle for queer rights. We are pleased to know that there will be an open forum to help clarify and possibly amend this decision, and we believe that the outcome will be supported with full consideration of justice. LGBTQ minorities have always found a safe space at the center, and we hope that this space continues to exist for us. Thank you very much.

The Center’s response to the furor was to host a community forum on March 13, which was billed as ‘a chance to talk, listen and be heard.’ “Recent events have led us to build on our process for providing space at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center,” declared the Center’s leadership on the Center’s website. “As we do, we invite members of the LGBT community to join us for an open forum to share their perspectives and provide us with feedback,” the announcement on gaycenter.org added.

The air was tense when I arrived at the Center on March 13, and the big hall on the third floor was packed, with every chair taken and even standing room filling up. Oddly enough, for a room that can hold 250-300 people and that was filled to capacity, Gay City News reporter Duncan Osborne reported a crowd of only 100 people.

Of 23 members of the Center’s board of directors, only two actually attended the forum — Mario Palumbo, Jr., the board president, and Tom Kirdahy, the at-large member of the board’s executive committee. Of the few senior staff, only the Center’s executive director Glennda Testone spoke for the Center. (Robert Woodworth, the long-serving director of meeting & conference services & capital projects, was present for the entire meeting and did respond to one informational question from Testone.) Neither of the two board co-chairs (H. Gwen Marcus and Paul Gruber) were in attendance. Nor did I see Richard Winger — the immediate past board president and (reportedly) the partner of Michael Lucas — at the forum.

The fact that only two members of a 19-member board of directors were present for a meeting of such signal importance was taken by many in the audience as an indication of a lack of interest on the part of the board in the event and as yet one more indication that the Center was not serious about dialogue with Siegebusters or with other critics of the Center’s decision to cancel that group’s IAW event.

Of the board members, I know only three: Tom Kirdahy, Ana Oliveira, Stephanie Battaglino; I have also known Glendda Testone for many years — back from when she was on staff at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) — and I like all four of them and respect the work they have done for the community over the years. By way of full disclosure, I should mention that Stephanie Battaglino has just joined the board of directors of the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), one whose board I serve as vice-president (I was in fact the first and original member of that board). Of these four individuals, my only conversation about the current controversy was a very brief one with Stephanie following a TLDEF board meeting as we descended in an elevator at the end of that meeting; other than that minute-long conversation on the day that the story broke in Gay City News, I had no interaction with the board or staff of the Center about this controversy before the March 13 forum.

That forum drew many prominent activists, including Jon Winkleman, Melissa Sklarz, Bill Dobbs, Andy Humm, Urvashi Vaid, Sarah Schulman, Lisa Duggan, Jasbir Puar, Terry Boggis, and Geleni Fontaine, as well as the union leader Stuart Applebaum and Michael Lucas himself. One transman, Tom Léger, did live blogging at the March 13 forum, in order to provide a detailed account of it to those who could not attend. Glennda Testone asked Ann Northrop to facilitate the discussion, and she moderated the frequently heated debate as well and as even handedly as one possibly could in the difficult circumstances.

On a table at the door, I found a pink sheet signed by Bill Dobbs, Brad Taylor, Emmaia Gelman, Naomi Brussel, Sammer Aboelela, Sarena Melcher that was addressed ‘to participants at the LGBT Community Center public forum – March 13, 2011’:

Greetings to All,
We don’t know how this meeting will go. We are (separately) members of Siegebusters, members of groups who wrote to the Center to object to the treatment of Siegebusters and queer political activists in general, organizers of the last week’s protest against the Center’s censorship, Palestinian and Jewish queers, and active participants in queer community. The Center hasn’t included any of us as “stakeholders” in planning this meeting. However, we’d like to offset some of the chaos by offering a few starting ideas. Some bottom-line issues:

1. The Center dealt badly with Siegebusters. An apology is due, and the Center should immediately restore Siegebusters’ access to meeting space until it can provide a transparent process for deciding otherwise. The reasons given by Center staff for cancelling the March 5 event and Siegebusters ongoing meetings in scattered e-mails and announcements (that Siegebusters is somehow not queer enough, or that queer activism on Palestine makes queer space “unsafe”) have been broadly refuted in public comment from many corners of the queer community.

2. This controversy reveals a much bigger problem at the Center – lack of transparent decision-making. Center Executive Director Glennda Testone and the Center’s Board of Directors have made major decisions about our space and community with no real community engagement.

No one from Siegebusters was consulted before the cancellation. No organizers of the ensuing protest against the Center were contacted before the Center decided to hire private goons to police our community center against us. No public response has been made to the queers – particularly queers of color and Palestinian queers – who told the Center that this decision has marginalized them and made them unsafe. The forum today has been organized without input from affected groups. The Center must have a transparent process for making (and that allows for challenges of) decisions about who can use the Center. The Center also must open its board meetings to the public and take public comment. The board should be accountable, and it isn’t. Its operations aren’t public, its members don’t represent our communities, and it doesn’t provide the Center’s constituency with any lines of communication – although it’s clearly making decisions about us. What this meeting shouldn’t be about:

The Center shouldn’t be blessing or disapproving queer political work, nor should this meeting. The Center shouldn’t be making political calls about the Middle East, nor should this meeting. It’s not a ‘neutral position’ to shut down queer organizing or anti-occupation work because it’s “too controversial.” But having gotten itself into this mess, the Center now has the responsibility to transparently and neutrally bring folks back to the table. This meeting doesn’t satisfy that responsibility. Here’s hoping for a productive discussion.

In Steven Thrasher’s March 15 news report for the Village Voice, he called the controversy ‘the Gay Battle of Zion‘ and  he wrote that

“At the heart of the debate was the right to free speech for anyone renting space in the Center versus the right of donors to have their say about who gets to use the space. That argument is far from settled…”

Thrasher paraphrased the comments I made at the forum, writing, “As transgender activist Pauline Park pointed out, the Center’s decision to cancel Siege Busters’ event was already a way of choosing sides.”

In a response to the March 13 forum, Lisa Duggan wrote a letter to Glennda Testone on March 16:

Here is a link to VV coverage of the Center foum, if you haven’t seen it yet: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/03/more_sniping_in.php#more I was very disturbed by a number of things said by the (only 2!) Center board members present at the forum.  Mario made it quite clear, repeatedly, that there is a ban on the word ‘apartheid’ applied to Israel at the Center – he called it quite simply ‘offensive.’  When questioned, he was clear that even an ‘LGBT focused’ group would not be permitted to use that term for events, etc.  Though he said this was ‘just’ his opinion, he also made it clear that it was the basis for his vote on this matter.  This is an effective ban based on point of view.  Tom voiced the belief that organizing critical of the state of Israel creates an ‘unsafe’ environment for vulnerable people at the Center.  But the feeling of ‘safety ‘s also based on point of view.  The feelings of ‘safety’ of queers of color, and not only anti-Zionist queer groups, are not included as important in assessing the overall sense of ‘safety’ in this context (I use scare quotes here because I don’t think ‘safety’ is an appropriate goal with regard to political disputes).  The result is the exodus of queer of color groups from the Center, as was noted by 2 speakers from ALP.  And, as Bill Dobbs noted, using ‘controversy’ as a rationale for excluding groups and events echoes the rationale used by the National Portrait Gallery for censoring the David Wojnarowicz video on exhibit there.

The range of rationales provided by you and Center board members at the meeting were largely contradictory and clearly ad hoc.  I think the underlying forces at work have been shaped by the recent successes of the Palestinian BDS movement on campuses and in the LGBT communities across the U.S.  There has been a backlash mobilization, featuring efforts to frame critiques of Israeli policy as anti-Semitic, and responsible for creating a ‘hostile environment’ for Jewish students/Center users, etc.  Since the Israeli government has quite deliberately created a ‘branding’ campaign designed to whitewash apartheid policies by focusing on progressive policies with regard to LGBT populations, it is no surprise that this contest is being played out within the LGBT community.  The recent highly successful US tour of Palestinian queer activists, with two events in NYC (standing room only at both), has (I believe) specifically motivated the timing for this ruckus at the NYC gay community center. Here is an article on how this is playing out on college campuses: http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Dept-Investigates/126742/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

It doesn’t seem to me that Center staff and board are aware of the wider context for this conflict.  Both the wider conflict over Middle Eastern politics that has been focused on LGBT populations, or the widening split among LGBT groups over the definition of what is a ‘gay’ issue.  You and your board repeatedly stated that the Siege Busters are not an LGBT focused group, as if that were just a fact.  But the reframing of queer politics as properly and centrally concerned with the forces that oppress and constrain queer people all over the world–lack of health care, the violence of occupations–has been going on for nearly a decade now.  There is no agreement about what is properly a ‘gay’ issue, and it is primarily prosperous white gay men who see ‘gay specific/only’ as the right frame.  Many activists, especially lesbians, queers of color, and social justice activists generally, now use an intersectional frame for their queer activism, and do not isolate sexual identity in the way that seems ‘natural’ to many monied white gay men.  So the Center is taking a political position on this question, without seeming to understand that this position is precisely the point that has been debated for years, and that now frames an increasingly wide gulf within LGBT communities, splitting Pride events worldwide in the past couple of years (google Pride Toronto or Pride Berlin Civil Courage Award 2010, or Pride East London 2011). It’s quite true as you eventually acknowledged that the decision the Center made reflected a very flawed process.  And the process from here on out will be an anti-democratic, corporate style decision–with the board of trustees making final decisions that are neither transparent nor accountable.  And as you no doubt know, boards of directors are all about funding.

There is no structural mechanism to give community ‘feedback,’ as you call it, any teeth.  The board will do what it wants, when it wants, for whatever reasons it wants.  There are two steps that might be taken immediately to democratize the Center:  Establish clear guidelines (not the current power to ban any group at any time for any reason) with an appeals/complaint process included, and open the board meetings to the public, or at least to Center members.  A clear timetable for this series of decisions also seems necessary as a sign of minimal responsiveness to community ‘feedback.’ You might have noted the wide gap at the forum between the activists/orgs that opposed your decision–mostly (but not only) lesbian leaders, and queer of color organizations, and the mostly (certainly not entirely) white gay men who support the decision.  I think the split is over class and race, as well as right/left perspectives, and not primarily about gender.  Nonetheless it was striking.  That room was full of the heaviest hitters in NYC lesbian and social justice activism:  Urvashi Vaid, Leslie Cagan, Sarah Schulman, Alisa Solomon, Jasbir Puar, and many more….  All on the same “side” of this debate.  And then so many more who called or wrote:  Sue Hyde, Kate Clinton, Judith Butler.   I’m not sure you realize the weight of this consensus among so many lesbian leaders? (If you don’t know who these folks are, you should google them.)  Plus Andy Humm, Bill Dobbs, Brad Taylor, transgender activist Pauline Park and others present, of course, as well.  And I’m not meaning to invoke celebrity here, but rather the decades of experience in LGBT organizing in New York City.  So much collected in that room at the forum it was kind of mind boggling.  In that context, the relative ignorance of the Center representatives and their supporters (as well as the absence of most board members, and the presence of that clown Michael Lucas) was quite stark. I’m sorry you all seemed to be digging in around your decision, even if willing to consider some process and guidelines changes.  As the weeks roll by, the LGBT Community Center is going to become whiter, richer, more male and more politically conservative–as the progressives and queers of color leave for more welcoming pastures at the ALP, QEJ building and elsewhere.  You might consider renaming it the LGBT Clubhouse, to reflect the private governance and restricted viewpoints permitted there.

Lisa DugganProfessor, American Studies and Gender and Sexuality Studies
Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University

On March 21, Bill Dobbs e-mailed Glennda Testone, Tom Kirdahy, and Mario Palumbo a message from 11 activists (including Dobbs himself) who were present at the event — the others being Naomi Brussel, Brad Taylor, Leslie Cagan, Pauline Park, Emmaia Gelman, Lisa Duggan, Steve Ault, Jasbir Puar, Andy Humm, and Ann Northrop:

Dear Glennda, Mario and Tom,

We’re writing to stay in touch about the issues raised in the community forum and to get an update. There were several issues on the table when we ended the forum–particularly the questions of whether the Center would invite Siegebusters to resume meeting there, and whether the Center Board of Directors would open its own meetings to the community. We are members of an ad hoc group meeting tonight to talk about all this and we would appreciate knowing whether the Center has made any decisions about any of the above. Thank you,

Bill Dobbs
Ann Northrop
Naomi Brussel
Brad Taylor
Leslie Cagan
Pauline Park
Emmaia Gelman
Lisa Duggan
Steve Ault
Jasbir Puar
Andy Humm

Later on March 21, Glennda Testone responded,

Hi Bill and everyone,

Thank you for checking in with us.  We are continuing to carefully review the community feedback from the forum and the input coming in through the online suggestion box.  This issue is a priority for us and we will keep you apprised.  One of the things we heard loud and clear at the forum was that people wanted more avenues to communicate input and concerns to the Center, so in addition to the initial community forum and the online suggestion box, we have decided to offer other community forums as well.  We also plan to share the details of our process for analyzing and revising our room rental policies in a public memo as soon as possible. Thanks again, Glennda

Meanwhile, between the March 13 and March 24, when a monthly meeting of the Gay & Lesbian Yeshiva Day School Alumni Association (GLYDSDA) was scheduled, a controversy arose over the group’s invitation to Michael Lucas to speak at that March 24 event, which was advertised to members thusly:

Monthly GLYDSA meeting with special guest Michael Lucas [boldface GLYDSA’s]. We will be discussing the recent events of the past few weeks that have pitted anti-Israel organizers against the Center, as well as other topics of interest to our community, followed by socializing. Michael Lucas is a well-known columnist, activist, film maker and strong supporter of gay rights and Israel. Please join us, on time, at the Center 208 W.13 St, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues. As a follow up to the open community meeting that was poorly attended by the pro-Israel side, The Center is receiving a lot of pressure to re-allow Siegebusters and other anti-Israel groups to rejoin the center.  The Center wants to do the right thing but needs our support. Please take a moment to go to the below link and send in your thoughts — this comment box was created just for thoughts about space rental…

After Bill Dobbs alerted Sarah Schulman and other activists about the GLYDSA event and the promotional message sent to members highlighting Lucas, Schulman then wrote to Glennda Testone on March 15,

Dear Glennda,

Clearly the elements of the pro-Seige of Gaza gay community who favor censorship, and we who favor open debate both have the same perception of your actions – namely that the Center is now officially partisan on the question of The Occupation. What are you going to do about this?

Testone responded later that day by e-mail,

Hi Sarah,

We did not know about this and are looking into it as we process everything that was shared and conveyed at the community forum. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Scott Long, a visiting fellow in the human rights program at Harvard Law School and one-time LGBT research director at Human Rights Watch, e-mailed NYU’s Gender & Sexuality Studies list this response:

Earlier this month, as most of us know, the New York LGBT Community Center decided to draw a line around what it considered its community by banning a an event for “Israeli Apartheid Week” from its premises.  In doing so, it acceded to the demands of Michael Lucas, an adult entertainment star whose loathing for Muslims is notorious. And it acceded as well to Lucas’s contention that criticism of Israeli policy is prima facie anti-Semitism. At a community meeting last weekend–which I couldn’t attend because I’m working in the Balkans this week–one board member of the Center reportedly stated that the word “apartheid” would be banned at the Center if applied to Israel; he called it ‘offensive.’ (Presumably Jimmy Carter will not be speaking at the Center anytime soon.)  Another board member reportedly said that organizing critical of the state of Israel creates an “unsafe” environment.  (I owe this information to Lisa Duggan.)  According to a New York newspaper (sometimes, I have to note, inaccurate in its coverage of the gay community) the Center’s Director, Glennda Testone told the meeting that the Center could not afford to host ‘an incredibly controversial and contentious event.’ I am therefore especially shocked to find that the Center is hosting Michael Lucas himself to speak on March 24 from 8:00 – 10:00 PM… One can only conclude the Center doesn’t find *him* controversial. There’s no secret about Lucas’ racism.  Last year, he informed a waiting world that “I hate Muslims, absolutely. It’s a horrible, horrible religion. It’s a plague … they’re stuck in a horrible lie, brainwashed from birth to death. And now they have been stuck in time since the 7th century. They have not contributed to civilization in any way, in any field — political thought, science, music, architecture, nothing for century after century. What do they produce? Carpets. That’s how they should travel because that’s the only way they travel without killing people.” (http://www.queerty.com/michael-lucas-muslims-have-not-contributed-to-civilization-in-any-way-for-centuries-20100714/#ixzz1GxTNbfWz) I don’t support banning Lucas. Let him talk; let the rest of us, who believe in the Center’s professed values of acceptance and inclusion, respond–preferably loudly.  But the inconsistency in the Center’s policy, and its increasingly explicit decision to align itself with Lucas’s overt racism, is not just an assault on tolerance–it’s intolerable. Insult has been piled on injury. I don’t know whether protests against Lucas and the Center’s cowardice are planned that night–I’m still in Serbia–but if so, please let me know. If not, we need one.

On March 24, the date on which the GLYDSA meeting was scheduled, Steven Thrasher reported that “at the last minute, the Orthodox Jewish gays decided to call off their own meeting at the center and hold it at another location.” (”Gay Center’s Feud Over Middle Eastern Politics Flares Up Again,” Village Voice, 24 March 2011). “The group decided not to do it at the Center. The reason is simple. The Gay Center told the Jewish group that they had received threats and at the same time cannot guarantee the safety of the members of GLYDSA who attend. So the group decided to meet at a different location and I am still speaking,” said Lucas, ‘the gay-porn impresario and ardent Zionist’ (as Thrasher described him). But GLYDSA flatly contradicted Lucas’s assertion. “We are a small private group with no interest in publicity,” a group spokesman told the Voice. “We received no threats, nor did the Center ask us to ‘un-invite’ Michael Lucas.”

But Lucas charged Testone with lying about the GLYDSA event. “From this email it is very clear that the Center is lying when saying that they did not interfere by pressing GLYDSA to disinvite me,” Lucas e-mailed Gay City News (“Michael Lucas Says LGBT Center Pressed Jewish Group to Move Meeting,” Gay City News, 31 March 2011). “Yes, we were pressured to cancel Mr. Lucas,” a GLYDSA spokesperson was quoted by GCN reporter Duncan Osborne as saying.

Once again, the credibility of the claim made by the Center’s executive director that the Center had nothing to do with GLYDSA’s withdrawal of its invitation to Lucas to speak and its decision to move its monthly meeting out of the Center — just like Testone’s assertion that the Center’s decision to cancel the Siege Busters’ March 5 fundraiser — was undermined by key actors in the drama, leaving no one satisfied. Having alienated not only Siege Busters but fair-minded members of the LGBT community as well, the Center’s leadership then ham-handedly managed to alienate Michael Lucas, the figure who was instrumental in pressuring the Center to cancel the Siege Busters event that was the original flashpoint in the controversy. By this point, even those sympathetic to the Center were beginning to question Testone’s competence as well as her honesty.

The fact that Testone had come to the Center from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) — supposedly the most media savvy of all the national LGBT organizations — made her apparent inability to handle media relations seem all the more ironic.  Having done corporate public relations in my first career, I was intimately familiar with the requirements of crisis management and damage control in such situations, and in that context, I was struck by the astonishing incompetence of the Center’s executive director and its board of directors. Even setting aside the merits of the Siege Busters event as well as the underlying issue of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories, the Center’s handling of the controversy purely in terms of its own institutional self-interest was bumbling at best, dishonest and disastrous at worst. “The decision [to cancel the Siege Busters March 5 event] was made in good faith and it as not made in response to any one individual,” Testone told Gay City News (“Michael Lucas Says LGBT Center Pressed Jewish Group to Move Meeting,” Gay City News, 31 March 2011). But neither Michael Lucas and those who supported that decision nor the Siege Busters and those who were critical of it believed the party line coming out of the Center’s executive suite. By insisting on pushing a story line that no one believed, Testone and the Center’s board undermined their own credibility as well as their ability to speak as leaders of the city’s large and diverse LGBT community.

Meanwhile, on March 21, the ad hoc group of activists critical of the Center’s decision to cancel the Siege Busters fundraiser, gathered at the Audre Lorde Project in Manhattan and decided to call themselves ‘Queers for an Open LGBT Center.’ (I did not attend, as I was chairing a meeting of the board of directors of Queens Pride House that evening.) The new group followed up with a second meeting at ALP on March 31.

The controversy spread from New York to Israel itself, as Gil Shefler of the Jerusalem Post reported on the upcoming March 13 forum on March 8 (”NY activists to debate scrubbed gay center event”). Ben Weinthal’s March 27 news story for the Post (”Gay opposition rises against Israel Apartheid Week”) characterized Michael Lucas as ‘the game changer’ in the center’s decision to cancel the Siege Busters event, writing that “Lucas’s efforts garnered a rare victory in a battle arena where anti-Israel forces have gained traction over the years.”

Weinthal went on to quote Phyllis Chesler, a professor emerita of psychology and women’s studies at the City University of New York (CUNY) — whom Weinthal characterized as ‘a leading expert on contemporary anti-Semitism’ — saying that “over the years, the gay liberation movement, world-wide, has become increasingly Stalinized and ‘Palestinianized” and that “to retain their place in the larger Left, feminist and gay movement, they have identified Palestinians as the most victimized of all, and to retain their own value as outcasts and victims, they, too, especially lesbian feminists and lesbian Jewish feminists, must toe this politically correct party line.”

Chesler had the opportunity to peddle her bizarre ‘analysis’ in a rabid opinion piece (”Out for Israel: A New Answer to the Hate Speech of Queers for Palestine“) in Right Side News (’The Right News for America’) on March 26, in which she wrote of Siege Busters that “the Center trembles when they demand something.” Well, the Center did not seem to tremble much when they cancelled the Siege Busters fundraising event and banned Siege Busters from the site. And characterizing Siege Busters members as ‘Palestinianized lesbians’ not only ignores the non-lesbian members of the group (including quite a few gay men), it also raises the question as to what precisely a ‘Palestinianized lesbian’ might be — a lesbian who actually recognizes the common humanity that she shares with Palestinian people, perhaps?

Chesler concludes that “the Gay and Lesbian Center of NYC [sic] has joined [the] ranks… [of the] angry hecklers, silencers of anything that is pro-Israel or anti-Islam, intimidators, shriekers, haters, Nazi brownshirts (who view themselves as ligerationists and progressives and view the ‘other side’ as Islamophobic demons…” In one regard, Chesler has much in common with the ‘Nazi brownshirts’ she references — she seems drawn to telling the Big Lie in order to disparage those with whom she disagrees. It was not, after all, Michael Lucas who was banned by the Center, but rather the Siege Busters. But neither Chesler nor Lucas — whom she describes as ‘a heroic gay Jewish man’ — have much interest in the facts of the matter or in anything that might be described as ‘the truth’ in any sense of the word.

The truth, rather, seems to be that the leading institution in the LGBT community of New York City caved into a threat of blackmail by a right-wing Islamophobic bigot because of the fear of losing a few wealthy donors, and the Center’s executive director and board of directors then engaged in damage control that was not based on any version of truth that any of the parties — whether Michael Lucas or the Siege Busters — would recognize. Rather, the Center’s leadership insisted that Michael Lucas — the one person almost universally acknowledged by supporters and critics alike as having been instrumental in bringing about the initial decision to ban the Siege Busters — had absolutely nothing to do with that decision. In insisting again and again on an explanation that beggars credulity, the Center’s leadership has diminished if not completely undermined its own credibility within the LGBT community.

It is important to recognize that the issues involved in the controversy that the Center provoked by instituting its moratorium went well beyond any tempest in a teacup involving an outrageously bigoted gay porn mogul; they touched on the most fundamental issues of process and accountability, community and justice:

1) Process. It seems to me that the Center’s own admission of a faulty process in coming to the decision to ban the Siege Busters and cancel their event falls far short of any genuine acknowledgement of the full extent of that failure. A decision of signal importance was made by a craven and incompetent cabal who did not even bother to consult with the full board of directors. Even so, not even all the members of the executive committee of the Center’s board bothered to attend the Center’s ‘community forum’ on March 13, suggesting that the issue of the Center’s relationship with the community it ostensibly serves was really of little interest to the executive committee, let alone the full board. The Center leadership has not provided a shred of evidence that it ever bothered even to consider the ethical obligations of running a community center.

2) Accountability and community. By its actions, the Center has made clear that it sees its primary — perhaps exclusive — responsibility as being to its wealthy donors, with little or no sense of being part of, let alone accountable to, a larger LGBT community. The ‘extensive process of consultation’ that Glennda Testone engaged in seems to have consisted in a hurried conversation with one Siege Busters member which Testone apparently used simply to issue an ultimatum and then inaccurately reported to the participants in the March 13 community forum. By caving into a threat of blackmail from a right-wing bigot, the Center made clear that for its management team, the ‘bottom line’ was indeed the bottom line.

3) Censorship and freedom of assembly. Among the most shocking aspects of the affair has been the Center’s endorsement of censorship — its willingness (eagerness, one is tempted to say) to silence discussion of an issue of signal importance to the LGBT community, locally, nationally, and globally. The insistence that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is patently absurd: there are LGBT/queer-identified people in both Israel proper and in the Palestinian territories; and more to the point, the illegal and immoral Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories has had and continues to have a significant and deleterious impact on the lives of LGBT/queer Palestinians.

4) The underlying issue. At the March 13 forum, the executive director made a point of insisting that the Center wanted to avoid taking a position on the underlying issue of Israel/Palestine. One could argue that a community center committed to a vision of justice had an obligation to support those — including the Siege Busters — who were working to make that vision a reality. But if the Center were serious and sincere in wishing to remain neutral on the Israeli occupation of Palestine itself, the decision should have been to issue a statement that the Center would allow the Siege Busters event to take place, but that the Center itself took no position on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and did not endorse the Siege Busters event, the group’s views, or their use of the term ‘apartheid.’ By canceling the March 5 event and banning the Siege Busters group, the Center did in fact endorse the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories, though the Center’s leadership was never honest enough to acknowledge that fact.

By the end of March, the ad hoc group of activists critical of the Center’s decision to ban the Siege Busters adopted the name ‘Queers for An Open LGBT Center,’ and on April 5, they e-mailed Mario Palumbo, Jr., the Center board’s president:

Dear Mario–

It’s good to hear from Glennda Testone that the Center Board and Administration are engaged in a serious process of examining the Center’s room rental policies and community access to Board meetings.

As part of that process, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the full Board to provide some information and discuss these important issues. It was good to see you and Tom Kirdahy in attendance at the March 13 Community Forum but there’s an ongoing need for a conversation between us, as longtime users and supporters of the Center, and the full Board. Please email Steve Ault (you may recognize his name as a founding board member)…  and Ann Northrop…  to arrange a mutually agreeable meeting time.

We would like to hear back from you by Monday afternoon, April 11. Please share this memo with board members whose email addresses we don’t have. Thank you.

Bill Dobbs
Lisa Duggan
Leslie Cagan
Steve Ault
Pauline Park
John Francis Mulligan
Shawn Jain
Emmaia Gelman
Andy Humm
Bob Lederer
Ann Northrop
Scott Long
On behalf of Queers for An Open LGBT Center

On April 11, Palumbo responded with a message to the signatories, writing,

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your email.  We appreciate your recognition of the extensive amount of time and energy Center staff and board have invested in this process, including continuing to meet with community groups and members on this issue each day since the forum.  We look forward to sharing our process and timeline for the review of our space-use guidelines once completed. As Executive Director, Glennda represents the organization in meeting with groups on the issue of our space guidelines.  Glennda and relevant staff members would be happy to meet with your group.  We would love to hear your input.  While the board has been kept apprised of Glennda’s and the staff’s activities and meetings, the board has not held meetings with individual groups. We are designing a process that will provide ample opportunity for community input into the revised policies, which the board will ultimately approve.  The board will not meet with individual groups outside this process.  Such a meeting could be seen as unfair by other stakeholders who may have different points of view and who will also want individual audiences with the board.

In addition to the avenues already in place for the community to provide feedback to the Center, we are exploring additional vehicles which will provide community members a regular opportunity to communicate concerns and meet with representatives of the Center in the future. We are taking this issue and process very seriously while at the same time maintaining our focus on serving the daily needs of the Center’s users.  We very much want to hear from you and all community members who care deeply about the Center and this issue. We look forward to doing so as part of this process and sooner, if you choose, in a meeting with Glennda and her staff. She is copied on this email. Please feel free to contact her to schedule a mutually convenient time. Thank you,

Mario

In the meanwhile, as president of the board of directors of Queens Pride House, I welcomed the Siege Busters to the only LGBT community center in the borough of Queens on May 7 for a screening of the moving documentary, “Arna’s Children,” about the work of Juliano Mer-Khamis, a social justice activist and actor murdered in March 2011. Following the screening, attendees engaged in a discussion of the issues raised in the film, including the ways in which the continued Israeli military occupation of the West Bank have produced the very conditions for armed struggle and resistance that the Israeli government and its supporters deplore.

The film screening at Queens Pride House was the very first time that an LGBT community center in New York City had hosted an event sponsored by the Siege Busters since their expulsion from the Center in Manhattan in early March. While the decision to invite the Siege Busters to Pride House prompted some discussion among members of QPH groups, no members left Pride House because of it and the organization lost no donors.

What the May 7 event demonstrated quite clearly was that an LGBT community center could host a Palestine-related event without incident, without safety or security issues, and without any fall-off of support for the organization. Above all, I and my Queens Pride House colleagues felt it was important to underscore the principle of inclusion and the need for every LGBT community center to be a safe space for discussion of issues of importance to the community — serving, as queer theorists would have it, as a ‘site of contestation’ for debate over precisely those issues that are most controversial within the community.

More than a month after the April 11 letter to the Center from Dobbs et al., there was still no word from Testone or anyone at the Center about any follow-up meeting and there was absolutely no indication that the Center had any intention of lifting the ban on the Siege Busters. Hence, the formation of Queers for an Open LGBT Center (QFOLC) as well as Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QAIA).

QFOLC was the formalization of the ad hoc group that formed to protest the ban on the Siege Busters, and QAIA was a new group formed out of the memberships of both QFOLC and Siege Busters to mount an LGBT-specific challenge to Israeli apartheid. QFOLC members agreed that continuing media coverage of the Center/Siege Busters controversy was necessary to keep up the pressure on the  Center, but momentum seemed to be slowing after the initial flurry of activity, and the Center’s administration seemed determined to ‘stonewall’ QFOLC on the issue of opening up the Center and ensuring inclusion there. In mid-May, an opportunity afforded itself when Steven Thrasher, a blogger for the Village Voice, contacted me, requesting an interview in order to update Voice readers on the status of the controversy.

My initial impression was that Thrasher would be interviewing me in order to extract a few quotes for a blog post on the controversy, but Thrasher decided to post a blog post consisting almost entirely of the interview itself (edited down for length), prefaced by a brief introduction which cited the Center’s declaration that it would no longer talk about the controversy; the (unnamed) Center spokesperson told Thrasher that “At this time, we are not doing any further interviews on the topic.” I actually did not know about that statement when I did the interview, but my comments were not only unusually blunt but deemed newsworthy enough that the transcript of the interview itself became the blog post, entitled, “Pauline Park Q&A: LGBT Center ‘Gives the Community the Finger’ in ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ Dispute” (VillageVoice.com, 5.12.11).

Thrasher referred to me as ‘veteran transgender activist Pauline Park — responsible for addiing the ‘T’ to Manhattan’s LGBT Center,’ and quoted me as president of the board of directors of Queens Pride House as saying that

We [at Queens Pride House] believe that community centers, and LGBT community centers above all, should be places for those excluded by society… Controversy, far from being the reason for banning groups, should be viewed as an opportunity to engage the LGBT community around debate. Centers should be open to discussion and debate of the important issues of the day…

Perhaps most controversial were my criticisms of the Center’s action in banning the Siege Busters. Thrasher quoted me as labeling the Center’s rationale for the ban — the allegation that the Siege Busters March 5 event was ‘controversial’ as ‘baloney’:

They caved in and they capitulated to blackmail. As the president of Queens Pride House, I would never capitulate to blackmail…

The interview with Steven Thrasher was the only occasion on which anyone publicly pointed out the fact that Michael Lucas was the boyfriend or partner of Richard Winger, the immediate past president of the Center’s board but that neither Lucas himself nor the Center board openly acknowledged that relationship, despite the fact that it gave Lucas access to Center board members and major donors that ordinary Center users or ‘consumers’ simply would not have.

In an indication of the intensity of opinion on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Village Voice blog post prompted 58 comments, including many attacking the Siege Busters and inaccurately labeling the group as ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘anti-Israel’ as well as a collaborator in terrorist activities undertaken by Hamas. But Samer Abuela, a Palestinian member of Siege Busters, responded to those comments by writing,

It is wonderful to see so many comments on this piece, especially the desperately pro-Israel ones.  Anyone whose mind has yet to be made up will surely notice that just about all of the pro-Israel posts rely on islamophobia and/or anti-Arab racism to make their point while the pro-Palestinian posts make no comparable racist attacks on the Jewish population.  It’s hard to blame zionists for using these tactics as they have worked for decades, but change is in the air and everyone concerned with the occupation knows it. Anyone with a memory of this issue spanning more than a few years understands how much the ground has shifted and why stories such as this one are important.  Israel’s brutality has been on open display thanks, in part, to the proliferation of independent media.  The racist language that has for so long worked to sway Americans in support of the occupation, now only underlines the brutal inhumanity with which the state treats it’s Palestinian citizens, prisoners, and occupied populations.  The comments to this story are a remarkably typical soup of racial and religious hatred, character assassination, and false accusations.  What I find exciting is that this is what every racist regime and mindset looks like in it’s waning moments… a totem of bigotry teetering on it’s own rotting foundation.  Justice for Palestine is on the way… it’s in the air and even zionists know it.

Brad Taylor, another member of Siege Busters, wrote,

The Center has been represented by its “leader”ship in this embroglio as a non-transparent, anti-liberationist shell of its prior embodiment as a progressive community stronghold.  If this is “dynamic and effective”, the direction of the dynamism must be the complete undermining of the credibility of the Center.  The community leadership on display here equates taking a “neutral” position on Palestine/Israel with censoring the discussion and banning the queer/allied organization that brings it up.  Unless they bring it up from the right side.  Center leadership has shown either indefensible bias or complete non-familiarity with the issues at play.  And no respect for dialogue whatsoever.  I don’t think it benefits Glennda to compare her to the authentic and politically knowledgeable Pauline Park.

I joined Brad Taylor, along with John Francis Mulligan, Emmaia Gelman, Leslie Cagan, Marla Erlien, Naomi Brussel and several other activists in founding New York City Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (NYC QAIA) in May in order to bring to the LGBT community in New York City the issue of Israeli apartheid. QAIA members began our work by submitting a request for space rental at the Center, which had justified its exclusion of Siege Busters in part because Siege Busters was not an LGBT-specific group, even though a majority of Siege Busters members were in fact openly LGBT-identified.

Ordinarily, such space rental requests are answered in two-t0-three days, and the only consideration in most cases is whether there is a room available on the date requested. In this case, however, the Center staff interrogated QAIA about the rental request in detail, posing questions that would have been asked of no other group submitting a space rental request, and the decision on that request ultimately went up to the executive director and the board of directors — not surprising, given the political sensitivity of the issue.

In the face of obfuscation on the part of the Center, QAIA and QFOLC members were gearing up for an action on May 26, the day that QAIA members had requested a room. Just the day before, on May 25, the Center released a public statement on its decision:

STATEMENT ON DECISION TO ALLOW SPACE USE BY OUTSIDE QUEER IDENTIFIED GROUP
MAY 25, 2011

The Center recently received a request for space rental by a group called “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid” for the purposes of holding recurring meetings to plan for local Pride events. This afternoon we informed the group that the Center would allow access for these meetings.

The decision is consistent with our current guidelines. Under the guidelines we provide space to community groups for a fee on a case-by-case basis, asking that they abide by the Center’s Space Use Agreement, Payment Terms, Code of Conduct and Good Neighbor Policy. Earlier this year we denied space to a group with a similar profile because among other reasons, it was not LGBT focused. In addition, the Center has a longstanding practice of allowing non-LGBT groups to meet so long as it doesn’t distract us from our primary purpose of serving the LGBT community; the circumstances surrounding the group in question diverted us from our core mission and we therefore asked it to move an event and all future meetings.

LGBT New Yorkers are facing urgent issues including: youth homelessness, violence, bullying, substance abuse, health disparities and the other myriad of challenges our community members encounter each and every day. The Center is here to help address these issues 365 days a year. Six thousand people pass through our doors every week. We have a responsibility to meet the vast and diverse needs of this community, and our number one priority is delivering critical services to the people we directly serve.

The Center also provides space for a variety of LGBT voices in our community to engage in conversations on a range of topics. The Center does not have a position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, nor does it endorse the viewpoints of this group or any others that use rooms here. This is a complex issue, and there is a tremendous diversity of viewpoints within the LGBT community.

We are currently undergoing a review of our space-use guidelines to ensure we have the most robust standards moving forward. As an interim step we are asking all new and existing groups to sign a Space Use Pledge of Non-Discrimination as part of their rental agreements. The group we approved today has signed this pledge.

Most recently we have also engaged the firm Ritchie Tye Consulting, Inc. to help facilitate a thorough review of the Center’s current standards and procedures for determining space use by outside groups, with the ultimate goal of strengthening our guidelines. Ritchie Tye Consulting, Inc. is a New York-based organizational development consulting firm with a long tenure of work with the LGBT and HIV/AIDS communities.

The firm has already been working closely with Center leadership on a process that includes opportunities for input from a diverse cross-section of Center and community stakeholders through interviews and small groups, and will deliver recommendations to the full Board of Directors later this year. At the conclusion of this process, we will apply the newly adopted guidelines to all existing, recurring and new space-for-fee requests.

The Center continues to welcome community input and feedback on this topic through our online suggestion box.

Extraordinarily, the Center did not send the statement to members of QAIA and QFOLC, merely e-mailing QAIA a document confirming the approval of the room rental request. On that Thursday, QAIA and QFOLC members held a joint meeting in Room 412 (the room rented to QAIA for the meeting), and then split into the two groups to consider matters pertinent to each.

On May 25, in response to the Center’s statement, Michael Lucas posted a message leveling a new threat against the organization:

“Dear friends, I have a very unfortunate update. The group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid was just granted the ability to have their meetings in the LGBT Center. As I always believed, the LGBT Center of NY is an anti-Israeli nest and we did not put enough pressure on them to stop their efforts to harm the Jewish state. But we have the power to stop them. The LGBT Center receives city, federal, foundation, and private funding. We have to work on reaching the government officials and ask them to cut that funding unless the Center changes its decision. We should also reach out to different organizations and individuals and collect money to take a full page ad in the New York Times Magazine. I know this is not cheap and I myself will generously contribute. I also believe that their support of political activity may jeopardize their ability to maintain tax-free status. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts, input, and suggestions. I do need your help.”

The hyperbolic language and the hysterical tone were typical of Lucas’s communication style, but despite making some absurd claims, the threat was based on a concrete reality: the Center has become dependent on funding from the City of New York, which has become an increasingly large part of the Center’s budget since Council Speaker Peter Vallone, Sr. gave the Center its first multi-million-dollar grant in 2001 as part of his campaign for the Democratic mayoral nomination.

It may nonetheless be useful to point out the absurdity of three distinct claims that Lucas made in this message to his supporters:

1) The claim that “the LGBT Center of NY is an anti-Israeli nest” is an extraordinary one, since Jewish groups — including the Gay & Lesbian Yeshiva Day School Alumni (GLYDSA) — meet regularly at the Center, while the Siege Busters remain banned from the Center; if that’s an ‘anti-Israeli nest,’ it’s a rather strangely ineffective one.

2) The claim that the Center is engaged in ‘efforts to harm the Jewish state’ is also an extraordinary and absurd one; all the Center did on May 25 was to concede the right of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QAIA) to meet at the Center; and QAIA, in turn, simply used that meeting space to begin planning for marching in pride parades in Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan; so there have been no ‘efforts to harm the Jewish state’ on anyone’s part going on at the Center.

3) The claim that the Center’s “support of political activity may jeopardize their ability to maintain tax-free status” is perhaps the most absurd of all. There are no implications for the Center’s federal tax status for simply renting rooms to a political organization. The Center regularly rents space to the Stonewall Democrats of New York City (SDNYC), a political club explicitly focused on party politics and electioneering, and has done so for years; no one has ever claimed that renting space to SDNYC and other political clubs has any consequences for the Center’s 501(c)(3) status; in such cases, the Center is simply renting space to a political organization, and is not in any way implicated in its activities.

QFOLC, in turn, responded to Michael Lucas’s statement, declaring:

“…Terrifyingly, it proposes that the Center is not allowed to host any political group meetings, and that the Center is itself an ‘anti-Israel nest.’ (What does a pro-Israel nest look like, then?!) If ever there were a time to shore up the Center’s principles of openness and commitment to queers’ long history of political organizing, it’s now.” (QFOLC, “Michael Lucas kicks up again,” openthecenter.blogspot.com, 5.26.11).

And that scourge of progressive inclusion, Phyllis Chesler, again reared her ugly head, screeching hysterically in a blog post misleadingly entitled, “NYC Queers for Jihad,”

The LGBT ‘queers’ [sic] had threatened to storm or ‘surge’ into the Center if they did not receive official approval for their group meeting. ‘Surging’ and ‘storming,’ Arab street mob behavior, is a vision and a tactic that… reminds me of Nazi Brownshirt behavior. Think Kristallnacht. Civilians and men in uniform breaking Jewish shop windows, breaking Jewish bones, burning Jewish books, eventually burning millions of living Jews… (“NYC Queers for Jihad,” Front Page Mag, 5.30.11).

Aside from ignoring the fact that a majority of members of Siege Busters and QAIA are in fact Jewish, Chesler’s bizarre rant mischaracterized the action that was planned: had QAIA been denied the space to meet, QAIA and QFOLC members were planning simply to find an empty room at the Center, and if none were available, to hold the meeting in the lobby of the Center  — to do a ‘sit-in,’ as it were, and nothing like ‘surging’ or ‘storming.’

And of course, the larger point is that neither QAIA nor Siege Busters nor QFOLC are in any sense anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic; rather, QAIA is committed to challenging the apartheid regime that governs and controls the lives of Palestinians under the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories, the Siege Busters are working to break the cruel and illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip, and QFOLC is committed to ensuring an open and inclusive LGBT Community Center.

But the outrageous falsehoods and the hysterical tone of both Chesler and Lucas may be taken as indicating the effectiveness of all three groups in challenging the Center’s illegitimate ban of the Siege Busters and the Center leadership’s betrayal of the values and principles upon which the Center was founded.

It is also worth noting that the Center, through its actions, put itself in an untenable position. The Center maintained a ban on the Siege Busters, because they used the phrase ‘Israeli apartheid in the name of the event that they planned for March 5; yet on March 25, the  Center leadership issued a statement explicitly recognizing the right of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid to meet at the Center even though QAIA includes the phrase ‘Israeli Apartheid’ in its very name — one of the reasons cited by Mario Palumbo, Jr. (the Center board’s president) for banning Siege Busters in the first place. Given the May 25 policy statement, the only conceivable rationale for maintaining the ban on Siege Busters would have been that the group is non-LGBT specific; but since many non-LGBT specific groups continue to meet at the Center (including a host of 12-step groups), that ‘policy’ clearly was not being enforced by the Center administration.

If the rationale for maintaining the ban was that Siege Busters was both a non-LGBT-specific group and once used the term ‘Israeli apartheid’ in the name of an event it was planning, the Center never said so. It was clear to me that the Center leadership painted themselves into a corner, defending a non-policy that was not only indefensible but that was not even coherent.

The inability of the Center’s leadership to respond coherently to the challenge from QFOLC and QAIA was made all the more evident in the news story on the QAIA meeting and the change of Center policy filed by Duncan Osborne for Gay City News on June 1 (“LGBT Center ‘Apartheid,’ Access Controversies Reignited“). Rather than a comment from the executive director or the board president, the Center provided the reporter only with an e-mail message from Cindi Creager, the director of communications and marketing who at one time was a colleague of Glennda Testone’s at GLAAD:

“We held a community forum on March 13th,” Creager wrote to Osborne in response to his request for an interview. “Ann Northrop moderated and board members were present. And our board meetings are not open to the public, but input from the community is welcome and encouraged,” Creager added, neatly evading the most pertinent questions and avoiding any comment at all on the renewed threat of a boycott from Michael Lucas. But Lucas himself had no hesitation in commenting for the record. “This group has had their first and last meeting in the Center,” Lucas e-mailed Osborne in response to a query from the GCN reporter. “If someone fucks with Israel, I fuck them back. And I usually win,” Lucas added in typically crude and adversarial language.

The Jerusalem Post, ever a sentinel of right-wing opinion in Israel, reported on the latest developments in the controversy as well (Benjamin Weinthal, “NY LGBT Center slammed as center of anti-Israel activity,” Jerusalem Post, 6.1.11).

On June 2, in response to the renewed threat of a boycott by Michael Lucas — this time, ominously focusing on pressuring elected officials to cut funding to the Center from the City of New York — the Center again capitulated to blackmail, reversing course yet again and issuing a statement banning Queers Against Israeli Apartheid just as it had banned the Siege Busters three months previously:

Significantly, the Center did not send this statement directly to either QAIA or QFOLC or the Siege Busters Working Group, and even more significantly, the Center’s media contact (Cindi Creager) refused to answer any questions about the new ‘policy’ when asked by Duncan Osborne. The Gay City News reporter told me that Creager merely referred him to her press release, as if the release itself would answer any question he might have about the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement itself.

To my mind, one of the most important questions in examining the reasons for the reversal of the May 25 policy statement by the Center on June 2 was whether calls from elected officials to the Center prompted that abrupt reversal. In his June 2 report for Gay City News, Duncan Osborne asked that question of Cindi Creager (the Center’s director of communications and marketing), Stuart Applebaum, and Michael Lucas (“Swift, Stinging Criticism of LGBT Center ‘Moratorium’,” Duncan Osborne, Gay City News, 6.3.11). I was struck by the fact that the three of them gave three different answers to that crucial question. Osborne quoted Lucas as saying, “I don’t know, you should ask them.” Speaking on behalf of the Center, Creager e-mailed Osborne to tell her that the Center had not been contacted by any ‘elected officials.’ But Applebaum “said he had spoken with many people, including elected officials or their staff,” Osborne reported. “I’m aware of offices of elected officials reaching out to try to save the Center from itself,” Applebaum was quoted by Osborne as saying. “I don’t know what happened, I don’t know what calls were made, but people at every level said they were going to call to find out what was going on,” Applebaum told Osborne, directly contradicting the official party line coming out of the Center, as voiced by Creager.

The question as to whether elected officials pressured the Center to reverse its May 25 policy statement and expel QAIA just as the organization’s leadership had the Siege Busters in early March is far from a purely academic one: rather, the lack of transparency on the part of the Center board and staff here was replicated by a lack of transparency on the part of elected officials who — Applebaum clearly indicated — were involved in working behind the scenes to get the Center to abruptly reverse course and ban QAIA as well as the Siege Busters.

Indeed, it is quite possible that it was the city’s highest-ranking openly LGBT elected official — New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn — who was behind the abrupt reversal of policy. The Council Speaker is universally recognized as the second most powerful person in New York City government, and Quinn is an undeclared but active candidate for the Democratic nomination for mayor in 2013. If Applebaum, as president of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union — one of the largest in the city — used that position to pressure the Council Speaker to pressure the Center, there would be not only the problematic misuse of power by the Center’s board and executive director, but by a major labor union and by a leading (openly lesbian) elected official as well.

New York State Senator Thomas K. Duane (D-Manhattan), in whose Senate district the LGBT Community Center is located, was asked at the Queens Pride Parade on June 5 what his response was to the participation of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in that event as well as the controversy surrounding the Center’s expulsion of QAIA and Siege Busters. “I know about the difficult discussions around the Center’s policies for meetings, and we have spoken with both sides,” Duane told Gay City News (Winnie McCroy, “The World, Again, Comes to Queens,” Gay City News, 6.8.11).  “It’s a very, very tough issue, and one that I think will eventually be resolved… But, they are a group that is in solidarity, that share a point of view represented by a tremendous number of peopled,” added Duane, the first openly gay person elected to the New York State Senate. “But with all of that said, there are people who simply disagree with them. It’s unfortunate, yet appropriate that it be played out with the Center being in the middle of it.”

Another elected official who was equally evasive and non-committal when asked directly about the Center’s ban on QAIA and Siege Busters was Daniel Dromm, who in November 2009 was elected to represent the 25th district in the New York City Council. “I don’t know exactly what their stand is,” Dromm said of QAIA,” although I have heard some of the press around it,” he told Gay City News  (Winnie McCroy, “The World, Again, Comes to Queens,” Gay City News, 6.8.11). “I know that the [Queens] Pride Committee, when they discussed the participation of that group here, felt that, look, they’re gay, they should be allowed to march and to express their viewpoint. We all agreed on that,” added Dromm, who along with Jimmy Van Bramer became the first openly gay person elected to public office in Queens (Van Bramer was elected to represent the 26th Council district in November 2009). Significantly, Dromm did not respond to the Gay City News reporter’s question about the Center’s newly announced policy banning QAIA and the Siege Busters as well as discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The fact that Dromm, Van Bramer, and especially Duane are all personal friends and political allies of Speaker Quinn — who has made a very public show of her continued support for the Center while at the same time refusing to comment on the Center’s ban on QAIA and Siege Busters — suggests that the openly gay and lesbian elected officials in New York are unwilling to take any stand on the issue that could potentially alienate voters and/or donors to their own campaigns.

In any case, the refusal of the Center’s board president and executive director to speak directly — or even honestly — even to LGBT media outlets such as Gay City News underlined the rejection of any concept of accountability to the LGBT community which the LGBT Community Center ostensibly serves.

As Duncan Osborne quoted me for his Gay City News report, “The Center was intended to be a location for the open and free discussion of controversial issues; it was never intended to be solely a social services provider. This was a cowardly act of betrayl of the Center’s mission by its executive director and its board of directors… They are no longer a community center.”

Significantly, Michael Lucas was widely perceived by those who supported the Center’s decision to ban QAIA — just like the decision to ban the Siege Busters — as having been instrumental in prompting that decision. “According to observers of the dispute, Lucas played a crucial role in waging the campaign against the center furnishing anti-Israel groups, including Siege Busters and QAIA, with space to organize activities, Benjamin Weinthal wrote in his report for the right-wing Jerusalem Post (Benjamin Weinthal, “New York LGBT Center ejects Queers Against Israel Apartheid,” Jerusalem Post, 6.5.11); and this, despite the Center’s own refusal to recognize Lucas’s role in the reversal of its May 25 decision to allow QAIA to meet at the Center. Typically, the Jerusalem Post reporter did not even bother to seek comment from QAIA members, contenting himself with quoting Michael Lucas and Stuart Applebaum as the only sources that he contacted for comment; Weinthal simply and lazily took a comment from the QFOLC website as well as two excerpts from the Center’s press release and dropped them into a ‘report’ obviously designed to defend the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories at all cost.

On June 7, Naomi Brussel and Brad Taylor of Out-FM — the LGBT program on WBAI Radio in New York City — interviewed three organizational representatives, who discussed the ongoing controversy. Sherry Wolf represented the Siege Busters Working Group, John Francis Mulligan represented Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, and I represented Queers for an Open LGBT Community Center. (A podcast of the Out-FM interview is available on Out-FM.org.)

In response to the Center’s ban on QAIA, members decided to hold a meeting in the lobby of the Center on the very date that their second meeting was scheduled to be held there; and so at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, June 8, members of QAIA, supported by QFOLC, the Siege Busters Working Group and LGBT community members, gathered in the lobby of the Center to hold the meeting that the Center had a contractual obligation to host. More than 50 individuals — at times approaching 60 people — crowded into the Center’s lobby to plan for the upcoming Brooklyn Pride Parade and New York City Pride March as well as to consider a possible action at the Center Garden Party on June 20. Duncan Osborne reported on the action for Gay City News (“Critics of Israeli Occupation Occupy Center Lobby,” Gay City News, 6.8.11).

The next step in the campaign for an open center was the QFOLC action at the Center Garden Party on June 20, the Center’s biggest fundraising event of the year. The Garden Party began in the Center’s tiny garden years ago but then moved to a playground/ basketball court a few blocks down the street; in that location, community organizations staffed tables with literature about their activities. But the Center eventually moved the Garden Party to the Chelsea Piers, where it has since become a corporate food fest, with restaurants providing food a different booths to the thousand or so attendees who now pay $100 or more for tickets.

I attended the Center Garden Party in June 2010, and while a pleasant experience with good food and an opportunity to catch up with friends and acquaintances. A few elected officials made brief references to the need for legal and political equality, while the speech by Glennda Testone simply thanked attendees for their support and reminded them of the need for more money to keep the Center running. Most of the attendees were middle class to upper middle class gay and lesbian white professionals. Other than the drag queens who were the ‘talent,’ there were only a handful of transgendered people, including Stephanie Battaglino, who had at that point recently joined the Center board. Most of the attendees were not activists, which was perhaps not surprising, given how nearly entirely denuded of political content the event had become.

And the 2011 Garden Party would have been just as denuded of political content had it not been for Queers for an Open LGBT Center and our vocal and colorful protest. Dozens of us positioned ourselves on the long corridor along the West Side Highway leading to the entrance to the pier on which the Garden Party was being held. We handed out more than 500 leaflets informing Garden Party-goers of the issues at hand; our leaflet reiterated our demand that  the Center:

1) lift the ban on the Siege Busters and Queers Against Anti-Israeli Apartheid,
2) hold open board meetings, and
3) reinstate free speech at the Center.

The full QFOLC statement, which was drafted by Steve  Ault — a co-founder and member of the original Center board — and other members of QFOLC, was printed on the back fo the flyer, and read as follows:

New York’s LGBT Community Center has served as an indispensable resource since its founding in 1983. But now, something has gone very, very wrong at the Center. Its Board has turned the simple matter of renting space to queer groups for organizing into a giant mess. Groups have been told they can meet and then are banned. Suddenly there’s a cloud of censorship on 13th Street. Claiming it “has been forced to divert significant resources from its primary purpose of providing programming and services to instead navigating between opposing positions involving the Middle East conflict,” the Center announced “a moratorium, effective immediately, on renting space to groups that organize around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Summarily canceled were scheduled meetings of the group, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QAIA), which the Center had approved only eight days earlier. One such meeting took place without incident. Previously, the Center banned the group, Siege Busters, from further meetings because of its organizing around Israeli Apartheid Week. Center Executive Director, Glennda Testone, stated that Siege Busters was expelled because it was both non-LGBT and controversial, with neither factor alone being grounds for refusing meeting space. Obviously, QAIA met this announced criteria. Also obvious ― now ― is that the banning of Siege Busters and the criteria were a smokescreen for something else. By banning queer political organizing groups in response to “controversy,” the Center is moving into a dangerous world of policing the queer community on behalf of outside forces ― forces that are openly trying to silence anyone with a position different from their own. Making matters worse, by banning discussion of the Middle East conflict, the Center is, indeed, taking a side: implicitly endorsing Israel’s policy on Palestine as well as the dangerous idea that anyone who objects to this policy is “anti-Semitic.” Only groups opposing that occupation had been meeting there, so the ban affects them only. Despite the extreme controversy surrounding this issue, these groups have affirmed the right of those supporting the opposite position to meet at the Center as well.

“The Center’s “primary purpose” as described in its release is historically inaccurate. The Center was founded in 1983 to provide meeting and office space to community groups for the purposes of organizing, developing programs and rendering services. That the Center now itself performs some of these functions is great, but this role should never be used as an excuse to negate its founding purpose by limiting access to community groups. Contrary to the Center’s claim, there is nothing around which to “navigate.” Republicans, Democrats, socialists and anarchists have met at the Center; so have Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and atheists. Before this latest statement from the Center leadership, no one―including the Center itself ― had ever suggested that the provision of rental space implied an endorsement of the groups renting rooms or of their political perspectives. Siege Busters was banned under pressure from anti-free speech, Islamophobe Michael Lucas who threatened to organize a donor boycott of the Center. When QAIA was briefly allowed to meet,  he threatened to take out a full-page ad in the New York Times against the Center, calling it an “anti-Israeli nest.” Thugs like Lucas are the last people the Center should be listening to when developing policy. Clearly, secret conversations are taking place behind the closed doors of the Center’s boardroom.  But if the word “Community” in the Center’s name has any meaning, we all have every right to know what’s going on. Instead of responding positively to requests from community activists to meet on this matter, the Center board hired a consulting firm to formulate a space utilization policy at exorbitant cost that is a complete waste of community resources. Calls for open board meetings have been heard before. Now, with the latest flip-flop and ever lengthening trail of obfuscation, the need for the Center to heed this call is more urgent than ever.

In a rare moment of contact with the Center board of directors, Andy Humm and a few other QFOLC members confronted Mario J. Palumbo, Jr. about the board’s refusal to meet with QFOLC. When asked directly by Humm if Palumbo would raise the QFOLC request for a meeting with the Center’s board, the board president initially seemed to indicate that he would raise it; but when Humm asked Palumbo if he would advocate for such a meeting, he said that he would not. Palumbo then started to say something about ‘our Center,’ but Humm reminded him that the Center belonged to the entire community. At that point, Palumbo stormed off, leaving QFOLC members present with yet one more confirmation of the current Center leadership’s disdain for the LGBT community and refusal to be accountable to it.

I reported on the confrontation with Mario Palumbo at the second meeting/sit-in of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid at the Center, which took place on July 5.

As on June 8, the Center management did nothing to try to expel QAIA members who occupied the Center’s lobby from 6-8 p.m. on July 5. “The Center, which declined to comment on this latest QAIA move, took no action against the two unapproved QAIA meetings and appeared to be content to let the group meet,” Duncan Osborne reported for Gay City News (Duncan Osborne, “Queer Critics of Israel to Test LGBT Center Ban,” Gay City News, 7 July 2011).

Comic relief came in the form of a gay man who held up a banner proudly declaring himself one of the “American Friends of Likud,” complete with the Star of David superimposed on the American flag; attached to his Likud-friend banner was a string of three Israeli flags, which he anchored to the lubricant container of the Center’s front desk. Precisely what the man thought he was accomplishing was unclear, but QAIA members found his presence a source of considerable amusement.

Michael Lucas blasted the Center for refusing to bodily expel QAIA members. “It is up to the Center how they want to approach intruders and hooligans that are trying to illegally occupy its premises,” Lucas told the Jerusalem Post (Benjamin Weinthal, “Support for gays, Hamas at NY’s LGBT Center sparks fury,” Jerusalem Post, 7.10.11).  “I think the center, by allowing this, is setting a bad precedent,” Lucas added. Despite the Center’s previous declaration that it would not comment any further on the Siege Busters/QAIA controversy, its communications and marketing director did in fact respond to a request from the Jerusalem Post for a comment. “The QAIA had a sit-in at the center this past week in violation of center policy,” Cindi Creager told the Post’s Weinthal. “It was very small. We are not permitting them to meet and the moratirum remains in place,” added Creager.

But the Jerusalem Post story on the July 5 QAIA sit-in could hardly be called reporting in any meaningful sense; Weinthal did not contact QAIA (or Siege Busters, or QFOLC, for that matter) for comment, instead relying only on one quote from Emmaia Gelman that he extracted from Duncan Osborne’s report for Gay City News. And the false impression created by the headline and the story that QAIA supported Hamas was unsubstantiated by the reporter; indeed, since QAIA does not support Hamas, Weinthal’s decision not to contact QAIA for comment must have been deliberate, as any QAIA member would have told him that QAIA had no connection with Hamas. But such is the climate of fear and intimidation created by the bullying behavior of ultra-Zionist pro-Israel propagandists that the Jerusalem Post story would be regarded in certain circles as objective journalism.

In the meanwhile, Michael Lucas and his partner, Richard Winger, continued to be active in the community, participating in a Lambda Legal fundraiser on Fire Island on July 9. The listing of Lucas as a sponsor of the July 9 Pines event prompted QFOLC to write to Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal’s executive director:

Dear Kevin,

Lambda Legal is one of the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) organizations in the country, and it is because of our recognition of the prominence and importance of your organization that we are writing to you to express our concern about the inclusion of Michael Lucas in the list of sponsors of your 33rd annual Fire Island event on July 9.

We fully recognize the need for any 501(c)(3) organization to raise funds to support its work, especially in an economic downturn such as we are now experiencing. However, we feel compelled to bring to your attention the involvement of Mr. Lucas in the operations of the LGBT Community Center — in particular, his pernicious influence in persuading the Center to expel and ban the Siege Busters Working Group in March of this year and Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QAIA) in May.

It was the ban on the Siege Busters and the silencing of free speech at the Center that prompted us to form Queers for an Open LGBT Center (QFOLC). Unfortunately, the ban on both of those organizations remains in effect to this day, and represents an unprecedented as well as entirely unjustified exclusion of individuals and groups working on behalf of the liberation of the Palestinian people — including LGBT Palestinians — who currently struggle to survive under an illegal and oppressive Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Michael Lucas has consciously and deliberately mischaracterized both groups as being ‘anti-Israel hate groups’ and its members as anti-Semitic — despite the fact that many members of both groups are Jewish — while he himself has made outrageously bigoted statements about Arabs and Muslims.  Lucas has been quoted as saying, “I hate Muslims, absolutely. It’s a horrible, horrible religion. It’s a plague.” Lucas has also said of Muslims, “They have not contributed to civilization in any way, in any field — political thought, science, music, architecture, nothing for century after century. What do they produce? Carpets. That’s how they should travel because that’s the only way they travel without killing people.” And Lucas has slandered the proposed Islamic cultural center on Park Place in Manhattan as a “monument to Muslim terrorism.”

We have to assume that Lambda Legal as an organization does not endorse Michael Lucas’s virulently Islamophobic and anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian bigotry or his efforts to exclude QAIA and the Siege Busters from the Center and repress queer political speech — in particular, his campaign to marginalize Arab and Muslim LGBT people and to silence community members who speak out against racism and bigotry. However, we would have to ask whether Lambda Legal would want to be seen as legitimizing the position as an LGBT community leader that Lucas so obviously wants to claim for himself.

Sincerely,

Naomi Brussel
Leslie Cagan
Bill Dobbs
Emmaia Gelman
Andy Humm
John Francis Mulligan
Pauline Park
Brad Taylor
for
Queers for an Open LGBT Center (QFOLC)

On July 11, Cathcart responded,

Dear Pauline, and all –

Thanks for your letter regarding Lambda Legal and sponsors of our Fire Island event.   You are right in assuming that Lambda Legal does not endorse any donor’s political views; we have tens of thousands of donors every year and they cover a wide spectrum of opinions on LGBT issues and beyond.  In some cases, I think that all they share in common is a desire to support Lambda Legal’s work.  Any listings we have show names of people who support Lambda Legal; not the reverse. It would be impossible for us to police the views of all of these donors, and any attempt to do so would take time and energy away from the work we exist to do and would, I believe, not serve the interests of our community.

Lambda Legal has been successful for nearly four decades by sticking to our mission statement and working to achieve full recognition of the civil rights of LGBT people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education, and public policy work, and I think that our work, accomplishments, and positions are clear to all who follow LGBT and HIV-related civil rights. I appreciate your taking the time to write with your concerns.

Kevin

At the same time that QFOLC was writing to Lambda Legal to express concern about Lucas’ prominent role in the Lambda event in the Pines, Lucas himself was writing an angry letter to the Center denouncing the executive director and the board president for allowing QAIA to continue to meet there despite the official ‘moratorium’:

Glennda Testone
Executive Director of the LGBT Center
212-620-7310
glennda@gaycenter.org
Mario Palumbo
President of the Center board
212-875-4900
mpalumbo@millenniumptrs.com

Glennda and Mario-

This is an open letter to you and I am copying it to others. It came to my attention that you, yet again, allowed a group of anti-Semites to meet on your premises, in the lobby of your Center. http://www.chelseanow.com/articles/2011/07/07/gay_city_news/news/doc4e15ce498112c075992096.txt This time, the size of the group was larger and consisted of several anti-Israeli groups. As I said before, the Center has become a magnet for anti-Semitism. The difference between previous meetings and the meetings that took place on June 8th and July 5th is that these times the meetings were more visible, instead of meetings and anti-Israeli fundraising campaigns behind closed doors. Meetings have now moved into a public space in the Center’s lobby for everyone to see. Again, you have publicly lied by saying that you would put a moratorium on these meetings, since the keep happening on larger scales. I, as others have, made up my mind long ago that you are vigorously anti-Semitic. Let me state that nobody cares if you have Jews on board, if there are self-loathing Jews taking part in anti-Semitic meetings that you host, or if there are self-hating Jews supporting you. If you think that you bought insurance by having a handful of Jews on your side, then you are mistaken. Don’t think you are fooling anyone. The American Jewish body overwhelmingly opposes your actions and is disgusted by them. As you know, there is a new meeting scheduled in your lobby for August 10th. If this meeting goes on, then I do hope that you will be forced to resign, since the Center deserves better leadership. I am including your contact information for anyone who would like to contact you.

Michael Lucas

What response, if any, the Center gave to Lucas, was not made public.

On 22 November 2011, Steve Ault provided an update on the Center controversy regarding his own personal attempt to meet with the  Center’s executive director:

As most of you probably know, I was on the founding board of the Center. I served from 1983-87 when I resigned upon having been elected co-chair of the 1987 March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights II. So, given my unique position as both a former board member of the Center and now an activist with QAIA and QFOLC, I decided to take the initiative of contacting former Center board members of a like persuasion on the issue of the ban to see if there may be something of substance we could accomplish given our relationship to the Center. First, I contacted Chris Collins, also a founding board member, who then told me he was opposed to the ban. Next, I contacted Michael Seltzer, a former board president, who had written to Gay City News in opposition to the ban and against those pressuring the Center with threats of withholding funding. We both agreed that a meeting with Center leadership, including board members, was the correct way to proceed, with Michael making the contacts and coordinating arrangements. Further, he suggested contacting Janet Weinberg, also a former board president. Michael reported that Executive Director Glennda Testone and Board President Mario Palumbo agreed to meet with the four of us. Initial contact was made in July but a mutually convenient date for the meeting couldn’t be found until early October. As the meeting date was approaching, Michael suggested that I write a memo on strategy so that we would all be on the same page. As I was putting the finishing touches on the memo Michael called to inform me that as a consequence of my participation in the meetings/sit-ins in the Center lobby, all involved were requesting that I withdraw from the meeting. Of course, I protested in no uncertain terms and said among other things that my participation in these meetings was hardly a secret. In closing I said the request was completely unacceptable. Michael promised to get back to me again before the meeting. He never did. Soon after our conversation I called Chris Collins who said he was in a meeting and would get back to me soon. He never did. I left a message with Janet Weinberg. She returned my call some days later but at the time I was at the edge of cell phone reception and in a few seconds the call dropped. Upon returning home I left another message with her. She never called back. It appears that Michael had a number of conversations with Glennda prior to the scheduled meeting, and I believe she managed to talk him into supporting the ban. He maintained to me that the Center’s continuing ability to provide services to those in need is essential and is, in essence, a ‘class issue.’ I believe Michael then masterminded my exclusions with numerous conversations to which I was not privy. I learned a number of things along the way that were never revealed to me as confidential information, but I assume there was an implicit understanding that they were so. However, given current circumstances, the hell with it.

* The Center has been viciously attacked, put under pressure, and threatened by the Zionist side. Two people particularly named (one assumes there are more) are Stuart Appelbaum (no surprise) and Jerrold Nadler. Some of these attacks/threats have been personal in nature (but not necessarily made by the aforementioned).
* The Center lost a considerable amount of government funding (was it $300,000?) for reasons that are not clear
* Glennda was particularly interested in the circumstances around the banning of NAMBLA.
* The Center is completely freaked out by this entire matter and has developed a bunker mentality.
* Michael Lucas is essentially a gadfly and has not been influential in determining policy.

By March 2012, a full year had gone by, and the Center had failed to fulfill its promise to produce a room rental policy, nor had it acted to lift the ban on Siege Busters and QAIA, and so QAIA members decided to mount a teach-in/demonstration on March 3. QAIA issued a media advisory announcing its teach-in/demonstration on March 3:

Occupy the Center!
Protest censorship by New York’s LGBT Community Center
WHO: Queers Against Israeli Apartheid and other groups (list below)

WHEN: Saturday, March 3, 2012 from 4-6 PM
WHERE: LGBT Community Center, 208 W. 13th St. between 7th and 8th Avenues
WHY: One year ago, amidst great controversy, the LGBT Center banned groups opposing Israeli apartheid. Protesters will confront the Center’s censorship policy and its secret closed-door board of directors meetings.

It’s been a year since NY’s LGBT Community Center banned Siegebusters, the anti-occupation organizers, from using space at the Center. Since that time NYC Queers Against Israeli Apartheid has also been banned from the Center—and a ‘moratorium’ has been imposed on ANY discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (meaning “discussion” of support for Palestinian rights). The Center’s board promised, but never delivered, a policy revision clarifying their rental/access/programming guidelines. On Saturday, March 3, as part of Israeli Apartheid Week, protesters will enact an end to the ban on Palestinian-related organizing at the Center, and re-institute the Center’s original access policy of full inclusion for all queers who organize for liberation. The ‘moratorium’ is over! The wealthy and powerful 1% should not be allowed to silence the voices of the 99%. Queers Against Israeli Apartheid will defy the ban on March 3 — Occupy the Center!

DEMANDS:
1. End the ban on Palestine solidarity organizing at the Center
2. Open the Center to all who respect its stated mission.

The editorial was not only thoroughly misguided but misleading on a number of points, including the suggestion that Israel was a welcoming haven to LGBT Palestinian organizations; in fact, while Aswat (the transgender-inclusive queer women’s organization) is based in Haifa and gets no funding or any other form of support from the Israeli government, alQaws and PQBDS are based in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank. And Israel does not ‘welcome’ Palestinian refugees from the West Bank or Gaza; in fact, Israeli authorities blackmail those queer Palestinians they identify as LGBT and put their lives in danger by turning them into informants; to date, not a single LGBT Palestinian from the occupied territories has been granted political asylum in Israel, to my knowledge.

But the larger point about the editorial is how it highlights Zionist control of US-based news media outlets even at the local level and how it underlines the fact that even sponsoring discussion of Israeli occupation and apartheid is a very risky business indeed. It is hardly a surprise then that the Queens Pride House forum is the only such event ever mounted by an LGBT community center in the United States.

The last shoe to drop in this little drama was a contretemps involving Mark Weidler, Charles J. Ober (then treasurer and chief financial officer of Queens Pride House) and me. I had ‘friended’ Weidler on Facebook after a meeting that charlie and I had had with him, Peter Mastrosimone and a reporter at the Chronicle office in 2012, without knowing how strident a Zionist he was. From that moment until September 2013, we had had no interaction via Facebook: he never ‘liked’ or commented on any of my posts until September 11 of that year, when I posted a link to a news report in the Guardian about the National Security Agency’s sharing information gathered from surveillance on US citizens with the Israeli authorities, with a comment about how outrageous it was for the NSA to be sharing information on US citizens with any foreign government and especially that of apartheid Israel, writing on my ‘timeline,’

So here’s my question to Barack Obama: why are you spying on me & sharing my personal info. with a foreign government — and one that is engaged in daily massive human rights violations as part of an illegal occupation? Why are you sharing my data with an apartheid regime…? That is illegal, unconstitutional & completely unacceptable to me~!

To which Mark Weidler responded,

Pauline — I am going to unfriend you on FB now. Do not want to read your anti-semitic rants ever again. Please never contact my newspaper.

Oddly enough, Mark Weidler had not ‘de-friended’ me even after our June 4 forum, but for some reason, he did so after I posted this link three whole months later. Not only was my comment not directed at Weidler personally, by that point in time, I had completely forgotten that we were even ‘friends’ on Facebook. But what struck me was that he was using his organizational position as publisher of the Chronicle to punish my organization for an expression of a personal opinion on my Facebook page — not that of Queens Pride House, which I never used to promote my own views. After I discussed Weidler’s comments with Charlie Ober, he e-mailed Weidler, who responded to him,

The post Israel & the LGBT Community Center ban on Palestine organizing 2011-13 appeared first on Pauline Park.

Korea 2015: return to the motherland
by Pauline Park

In June 2015, I returned to Korea for the first time since I left at the age of seven and-a-half months old; it was a momentous trip. 나는 한국에서 입양되었다 These are some photos from the month I spent in the Land of the Morning Calm. #입양 #입양인 #한국 #조선 #대한민국 #남한 #남조선 #한국말 #입양홍보

Sunday, June 14

On the eve of my flight to Korea, I visited my friend Mohammad in Brooklyn.

Mohammad made a splendid Palestinian dinner for me and for our mutual friend Ang and I played a little piano for them on the grand piano in Mohammad’s house.

Monday, June 15

I flew out of La Guardia the next morning to Dallas/Fort Worth.

I spent the night in a mini hotel at DFW — my first experience of a Japanese-style mini hotel; it was clean and comfortable and it was convenient, as I didn’t have to go out of the security perimeter of the airport; in the morning, I was ready for my flight to Korea.

Tuesday, June 16

An ill omen for the country — though fortunately not for my flight or my trip — was Donald Trump’s announcement of his presidential candidacy, which I watched on CNN while waiting for my flight to Incheon. But a good omen was something S-shaped that I will leave to the imagination of readers that I produced on the morning of my flight to Korea.

I flew out of DFW to Incheon, Korea’s largest airport; it was impossible for me to get more than just a few restless hours of sleep on the 13-hour flight, cramped as I was in coach; the saving grace was that — though I was up against the emergency exit — I didn’t have anyone in front of me on the flight.

At least I got a decent dinner on the AA flight from DFW; we were given a choice of an American-style dinner and a Korean one and I opted for the Korean.

Wednesday, June 17

Incheon’s new-ish airport impressed me with its cleanliness and efficiency.

I arrived at Incheon international airport, only to be confronted with bilingual posters in English and Korean warning of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) ‘epidemic,’ which turned out to be a hyped non-epidemic.

My first view of the city of my birth upon my return after 54 years from the patio outside Seoul Station. 서울

I took the AREX train into Seoul, arriving at Seoul Station around dusk.

I took a taxicab to the Ramada Hotel Namdaemun.

Thursday, June 18

I awoke the next morning to a spectacular panorama of Seoul as seen through the window of my room at the Ramada Hotel Namdaemun, with Seoul Station on the left.

The breakfast room at the hotel was large and airy and very woodsy.

I met two other participants in the Mosaic 2015 adult tour organized by Me & Korea which ran from June 17-28; we went out to lunch at Seoul Station and on the way back passed Namdaemun, the Great South Gate.

Namdaemun 남대문 has always held a special place in my heart: it is the only landmark in Seoul or Korea that I can distinctly remember from reading about the country of my birth in encyclopedias we had at home.

I was delighted to see Namdaemun for the first time.

I was delighted to meet Marie Frenette, a Canadian from Nova Scotia who had seen my post on Facebook about coming to Korea and was interested to meet me; after living in Korea for 9 years, she had become fluent in Korean — quite a feat for any North American with no familial connection with Korea. I remarked on the irony that I spoke the language of Marie’s ancestors (French) while she spoke that of mine…

Friday, June 19

I visited Soedaemun Prison Museum with my friend Kris; Korean nationalists were held here during the Japanese occupation and tortured and murdered. But the postwar Korean dictatorship continued to use Soedaemun to detain, torture and murder political dissidents for decades after the end of the Japanese occupation in 1945.

Saturday, June 20

Me & Korea’s Mosaic Tour began in earnest on Saturday.

After breakfast, we piled into a bus and drove to Gwanghwamun 광화문, the huge square in the center of Seoul that is where countless protests and demonstrations have taken place; there, we were greeted by an enormous statue of Sejong the Great 세종 대왕, the king who commissioned the creation of hangul 한글, the alphabet still in use today that is considered by many linguists to be among the most ingenious alphabets ever created.

I got to pretend that I was president of the Republic of Korea 대한민국 at the Cheongwadae Sarangchae 청와대사랑채 museum in Seoul 서울 한국 조선

I visited Gyeongbokgung 경복궁 — the largest of the five royal palaces in Seoul 서울 — at the beginning of my month in Korea.

It was raining so hard, the royal guard took cover under the great gate of Gwanghwamun 광화문 한국 조선 대한민국 남한 남조선

Gyeongbokgung houses a good part of the collection of the National Museum of Korea and I saw this magnificent dragon in the palace.

I saw many other fascinating works of art in the museum; perhaps the most unusual was a car once used by the royal family.

Sunday, June 21

On Sunday morning, Mosaic tour participants gathered in the lobby of the Ramadan Namdaemun.

We attended a service at the Jesus’ Love Church, featuring a rather extraordinary sermon by the Elder Pastor Kim, who told us that we shouldn’t think of ourselves as Korean adoptees but rather as warriors for Christ whose mission is to take over the United States so that it can convert the entire world to Christianity. I seriously doubt anyone in the group took the Elder Pastor Kim’s nonsense seriously either, but since the church was one of the co-sponsors of the tour, we all listened politely to his sermon. One of the two interpreters on the tour — a young progressive feminist who grew up in Korea but was by this point studying in the United States — was seriously offended by the sermon. But as for me, having been raised in a Christian fundamentalist household, I was in effect ‘inoculated’ against such nonsense and the sermon did not bother me; fortunately, the Elder Pastor Kim did not get into homophobic or transphobic discourse.

And thankfully,  the sermon was only half an hour long (even if it seemed much longer), and after the service, some of us were paired with ‘host families,’ others with ‘host buddies.’ I met my two host buddies, the wonderful Tae-kyung and Sinhae, and we saw much of Seoul together, including Changyecheon stream, one of the most delightful places in the city. The original plan for the members of the tour was to stay overnight with a host family from the church, but apparently after some internal discussion, the organizers quite prudently decided that pairing me with host buddies not associated with the fundamentalist Jesus Love church would make sense for the only openly transgendered or queer member of the motherland tour group.

Tae-kyung and Sinhae introduced me to the delights of Cheonggyecheon #청계천; the stream flows once again through the heart of Seoul as it did before being covered in concrete for 45 years; it’s a rare bit of nature in Korea’s capital 서울

We also visited Deoksugung Palace 덕수궁, one of the five royal palaces in Seoul 서울. I had been there the day before, but it was pouring rain on Saturday; on Sunday, it was gloriously sunny and the light brought out the wonderful yellow color on the side of the throne room building.

I was enchanted by the Joseon dynasty era architecture of the palace.

And it was sweet of Taekyung and Sinhae to be so patient with my touristy curiosity, Taekyung taking a number of shots of me in front of one of the pavilions.

Deoksugung 덕수궁 is the second largest of the five royal palaces but isn’t so much a single building as with most European palaces but rather a series of pavilions, this one being one of the largest and most prominent.

 

 

Monday, June 22

In the morning, I went with two other adoptees from the Mosaic tour and one of the interpreters to meet with staff at Social Welfare Services. Afterwards, we went out for lunch and I really loved the bibimbap that I had along with many other dishes I shared.

In the evening, participants in the Mosaic tour took a cruise on the Han River.

One part of a bridge on the river was spouting water from colored lights, which looked like the colors of the rainbow flag. It was a hot and humid evening, but the breeze on the river was wonderfully cooling.

And the nighttime views of Seoul were dazzling.

Tuesday, June 23

Around midday, Mosaic tour participants served lunch to elderly Koreans at a soup kitchen near Seoul station, which is the area where many of the city’s homeless congregate.

천 사 가 되 어 주 서ㅣ 요

Afterwards, we took a bus down to Gyeongju (Kyongju) in the southeast.

Cheomseongdae Observatory 첨성대 (瞻星臺) is one of the oldest surviving structures in Korea. Built in 647 during the reign of Queen Seondeok of the Silla kingdom, Cheomseongdae  was used as an astronomical observatory.

Gyeongju (Kyongju)경주 was the capital of the ancient Silla kingdom during the Three Kingdoms period and it was fascinating to visit.

Mosaic participants took a group shot at Cheomseongdae Observatory.

Dongung Palace 동궁과 & Anapji Pond 안압지.

Hanhwa Resort in Gyeongju was a nice place to stay overnight, but surprisingly lacked wi-fi in the rooms and non-Korean TV stations.

Wednesday, June 24

National Museum

The Mosaic tour wended its way to Pohang 포항 in North Gyeongsang 경상북도 where we dipped our feet into the waters of the East Sea (Dong Hae) — Koreans don’t call it the ‘Sea of Japan’~!

The waters off Pohang are so clear you can see the sea floor and all of the flora and fauna in the ocean.

I dipped my feet in the Donhae.

The pier at Pohang

Jukdo market in Pohang was huge and fascinating.

Jukdo market in Pohang had live octopus and fish of every kind.

Live octopus on display in Judo market made for a visual feast.

Thursday, June 25

In the morning, Mosaic tour participants visited the Gyeongju National Museum, which has an enormous collection of Korean art and artifacts.

The most impressive artifact was a crown from the Silla kingdom.

We then lunched at Choi’s Bobsang before visiting the Gyochon Traditional Village (경주 교촌마을) on the southern edge of Gyeongju.

Three ‘ajumma’ taught us traditional Korean tea service

The biggest challenge was actually sitting on the floor cross legged.

Mosaic tour participants were instructed in traditional tea service and taught how to sing “Arirang,” the most famous of all Korean folk songs — though I had already learned the song before going to Korea.

We had Korean archery lessons as well.

On the way back to Seoul, we stopped at a rest stop for dinner and I had ttangcho ramyeon, a wonderfully hot and spicy noodle dish.

Friday, June 26

On the morning of the last full day of the Mosaic tour, participants scaled Naksan fortress wall.

In the afternoon, I took the Seoul subway with Sina Lee and Jacob Bowman to Insadong, a popular shopping area that is known for offering more traditional items than Myeongdong.

Insadong is a popular shopping district in Seoul.

Mosaic tour dinner

Sunday, June 28

I had a small but perfectly serviceable room at the Itaewon Inn for 10 days and nights.

The Queer Korea Festival drew a crowd estimated at 35,000, making it the largest event in the history of the LGBT community of Korea.

Christian fundamentalists tried to block the event from going forward and then tried to drown it out with loud noise but abjectly failed in that goal.

This was the first Queer Korea festival in Seoul City Hall Plaza  in the heart of the city.

At the festival, a young man confronted a Christian fundamentalist — though they were speaking in Korean, so I couldn’t understand what they were saying; but I guessed that the young man was gay and was challenging the minister’s homophobia.

Christian fundamentalists had tried to stop the Queer Korea Festival, but organizers were successful in challenging them in court.

I was surprised and delighted to see a big banner declaring “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid — Free Palestine.” 

I was invited to keynote the Queer Korea Festival (퀴어문화축제 & 퍼레이드).

Chogakbo is a new transgender advocacy project and had a float in the Seoul Pride Parade.

Seoul Pride 2015 was the most exciting pride parade I’ve ever been in; there were no pandering politicians and no corporate sponsorship, just ordinary LGBT people marching for their rights.

The mayor of Seoul put 3,000 police officers on the ground to guard participants in the Queer Korea Festival and Seoul Pride Parade.

Seoul Pride drew thousands of LGBT Koreans and allies to march for LGBT rights.

Monday, June 29

On Monday, June 29, Larry Tung and I met with Bong Youngshik and Kim Jiyoon at the Asan Institute to discuss their report, “Over the Rainbow: Public Attitude Toward LGBT in South Korea,” on LGBT rights and discrimination in Korea. In the afternoon, we met with a Korean transgender activist.

I saw Pororo the Little Penguin 뽀롱뽀롱 뽀로로 & his friends in the Seoul 서울 subway; my favorite is Eddy 에디 the fox 여우

Tuesday, June 30

Larry Tung and I explored the popular shopping district of Myeongdong on June 30 and I commented on how very ‘metrosexual’ young Korean men were, especially in the promotional posters in Myeongdong, in which the young men are very boyish, some even quite girlish to an American eye.

Larry and I were amused by the cute products on the shelves in stores in  Myeongdong.

Myeongdong cut-outs of a Korean boy band with a K-Pop look, which seems to be a dominant influence among young Koreans in Seoul.

At Daeksugong palace, Larry and I watched the changing of the guard; I was absolutely enchanted by the bright yellow garb of some of the guardsmen, with the feathers on their Joseon (Choson) dynasty era style hats and their traditional Korean flute playing.

In the evening, we passed by Gwanghwamun, the great entrance gate to Gyeongbokkung, the main royal palace and the largest of the five royal palaces in Seoul.

King Sejong commissioned the creation of the Korean alphabet and is the most revered of all Korea’s kings.

July 1

I was invited to speak at a press conference at the Turkish consulate in Seoul protesting the Istanbul police violence against participants in the Istanbul Pride Parade.

July 3

In the morning, Larry Tung and I went to the Social Welfare Services office to film in front of the rock outside the SWS office. 입양인 입양인의 입양인이 입양정보 입양기록 입양기록을

In the afternoon, I went with Minyoung Kim to a local police precinct to register as an adoptee; though nothing came of it, I appreciated her going out of her way to make me accessible to any birth family who could be searching for me.

I had some noodles before my speaking engagement in the evening.

In the evening, I was invited to speak at a meeting of  Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea (Haeng Seong In) (행동하는성소수자인권연대) about my LGBT activism.

I talked about what might be helpful for queer activists in Korea as they advocate for equality for LGBT Koreans. I was delighted to speak to a full room of community members and I was told that a turnout of more than 50 people was a large turnout for the 행동하는성소수자인권연대는.

The organization had created a poster to announce my speaking engagement:

July 4

I spent the Fourth of July in the land of my birth, traveling from the city of my birth to Busan, the second largest city in Korea, with Larry Tung 부산

On the way, we passed through Namdaemun, the Great South Gate, which has always been for me the iconic image of the city of my birth.

In the arch of the great gate there’s a wonderful dragon painted on the wood frame of the inside of the arch (7.4.15) 남대문

Larry and I bought tickets for Busan at Seoul Station.

We visited Daegaksa 대각사 Temple (Nampo-dong) near Busan Tower.

The reclining Buddha was striking.

Larry and I went up Busan Tower and took in the spectacular view of the harbor and the city.

Afterwards, we went to Lotte Mall, where we saw everything on sale from pianos to Japanese-style toilet seats.

July 5

We visited the Haedong Yonggungsa Temple 해동 용궁사 outside of Busan 부산, one of the most famous Buddhist temples in Korea.

I found some lucky pigs on the grounds of the temple.

I love pigs and the fact that they are considered symbols of good fortune in traditional Korean mythology.

After touring the temple site, Larry and I visited Haeundae 해운대해수욕장 

Haeundae 해운대해수욕장 outside of Busan 부산, one of South Korea’s most famous beaches One of South Korea’s most famous beaches

After getting back into Busan, we visited Shinsegae, which claims to be the largest department store in the world.

Zooraji is a children’s playground on the top floor complete with a carousel and dinosaurs.

July 6

I joined friends in strolling through Naru Park in Songpa-gu 송파구 in Seoul 서울 on a hot and humid day.

And we

I walked through the neighborhood of Mapo-gu, parts of which looked like what Seoul was before Park Chung-hee’s crash industrialization.

July 7

I gave a presentation on the first US LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine (Jan. 2012) at a meeting of Palestine Peace & Solidarity in South Korea 팔레스타인평화연대

After which they wrote:

오늘 폴린 박 토크 굉장했습니다. 팔레스타인연대운동과 성소수자 운동의 접점을 찾은 이 기분…! 앞으로 만들어나갈 연대가 기대됩니다. 오늘 후기와 녹화 영상도 곧 공유하겠습니다. 온오프로 함께 해 주신 분들 정말 고맙습니다! (7.6.15)The

The

The

The

July 7

I had breakfast with Sina in Itaewon.

It was wonderful to see Sina and to reflect on the Mosaic Tour that we’d participated in together.

July 8

I was delighted to have Marie’s companionship as we took the train to the end of the #1 line where we crossed a busy intersection in downtown Uijeongbu 의정부시 to get to the 무당 house 巫堂

Uijeongbu 의정부시 — like the rest of Gyeonggi Province 경기도 — is now part of the Seoul metropolitan area.

Uijeongbu 의정부시: the 신 altar in the 무당 house 巫堂

Uijeongbu 의정부시: inside the 무당 house 巫堂

Uijeongbu 의정부시: Marie and me outside the 무당 house 巫堂

Uijeongbu 의정부시

Uijeongbu 의정부시

July 9

I I had lunch with Hyong-Jin, Myunghwa & 나 양 in Itaewon #이태원 #서울

July 10

I visited Changdeokgung 창덕궁 with my friend Kris.

One of the five royal palaces in Seoul, Changdeokgung is a UNESCO World Heritage site and famous for its celebrated Biwon 비원 — the ‘Secret Garden’ that was intended for sole use of the king and the royal family.

Seoul: a small gate in the Piwon — the Secret Garden of the Changdeokgung (7.10.15)

July 11

Korean celadon 청자 in the National Museum of Korea 한국 조선 in Seoul 서울.

I came across this boddhisattva.

July 5

July 6

I met up with two Korean friends in Seoul and we strolled around Seokchon Lake Park 석촌호수공원 coming across a World Wildlife Fund promo with plastic pandas.

Strolling around Seokchon Lake Park 석촌호수공원 we came across this Korean flag made out of chrysanthemum flowers.

In the evening, I went to Mapo-gu Café for a meeting of Palestine Peace & Solidarity in South Korea Palestine Peace & Solidarity in South Korea 팔레스타인평화연대 where I gave a presentation on my participation in the first US LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine in Jan. 2012 to members of the group.

Afterwards, I went out to dinner with members of Palestine Peace & Solidarity in South Korea 팔레스타인평화연대.

The poster for my presentation to members of Palestine Peace & Solidarity in South Korea 팔레스타인평화연대 on my participation in the first US LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine at their July 7 meeting (7.9.15)

July 8

I met up with Hyong-jin, Myunghwa & Kim Na-young in Itaewon for lunch.

I had had haemul pajeon (seafood scallion pancake) for dinner in Seoul.

I was amused by the fact that the Seoul Metro calls its subway currency ‘T money.’

I took 6,686 photos during 30 days in Korea — 2,658 with my iPad & 4,028 with my digital camera —  including 625 on the first memory card, 2,430 on the second card & 973 on the third. That compares with 1,996 photos that I took in 7 days in Paris in May, which averaged 287 photos per day, vs. 222.9 photos per day on average in Korea. So the Paris trip exceeded Korea for the most photos taken per day on average in any given trip, but the Korea trip topped the charts for the total number of photos taken on any trip until my five weeks in Europe in 2017, during which I took over 30,000 photos.

I arrived safely home after an uneventful three-hour flight from Dallas, following a more than 12-hour flight from Incheon, less than 12 hours short of 30 full days since leaving home on the biggest trip of my life (so far, at least). My month in Korea was the longest, most exhausting but most productive & most fun trip of my life and the most important since the trip that brought me to the land of my youth from the land of my birth so many years ago.

바울인 박
박 바울인

The post Korea 2015: return to the motherland appeared first on Pauline Park.

TRANSGENDER
Tragic Trans? Nope!

The American series “Transparent” makes the subject gender identity now also popular in Germany. In America, the debate is far more. A visit to the transgender center in Queens, New York.
By Claudia Steinberg
Die Zeit
9 April 2015

A rainbow flag between Isabel’s Hair Salon and the mini supermarket shows the way to Pride House: the center for queers and transsexuals on 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens. There sits on voluminous sofas and office chairs a group of transsexuals, lesbians and bisexuals. The atmosphere is relaxed. Until a woman of indeterminate age dressed in black with a glamorous Chinese shawl draped around her shoulders, takes her place. Pauline Park is the founder and director of Pride House. The group discussion includes dramatic tales of family disputes and unease with their assigned gender identity that feels wrong.

Everyone has known for a long time about Laura’s attempted suicide. Gene reported on the visit of his beloved grandmother from China and how she did not understand the transformation of her granddaughter into a boy and the difficulty she was having accepting his new gender identity. Dylan is computer programmer and longs for acceptance from his ex-wife and his children as he contemplates his transition. June wants to find a new job as a woman, but her doctorate and all her excellent work experience is under her male name.

Since the debates of the 1970s, gays have been able to integrate into the mainstream, leaving transgendered  individuals as an exotic community of outsiders. Their stories of redemption still have entertainment value in a way that the story of a gay couple with a dog and a house in the suburbs has lost. Meanwhile transgender has become the new hot topic, even among the general public, as a civil rights issue, as glamor factor, as a television series. In universities, transgender is challenging gender boundaries under the flag of queer studies. In October of last year, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio called for the ability to change one’s gender on birth certificates without sex reassignment surgery. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has demanded that health insurance companies pay for sex change operations. The New York City jail, Rikers Island, one of the largest prisons in the world, set up a special department for transsexual inmates because prisons are dangerous places where they often have to endure violence and sexual attacks. Ten years ago a film like “TransAmerica” – in which heroine Bree transitions from man to woman – was still exceptional. Beginning this week, you can go to Amazon.com to find a German-language version of the series “Transparent” (as in, a parent who is transsexual); it has already won a Golden Globe award and has a good chance of attaining cult status.

The writer and director of “Transparent,” Jill Soloway, was inspired by the gender metamorphosis of her own father to create a funny and empathetic call for gender freedom: As Mort’s three daughters are grown up, he risks his coming-out and suddenly comes through the door as a woman with a long hair, in high heels and in a pretty dress. The astonishment is great, especially since Papa Mort surprises his daughter in an intimate embrace with her girlfriend. The series celebrates not just “the birth of a new mother from the female I of the Father,” but also “boygirl, girlboy, macho princess and officer slutty sweet bear,” encouraging them to affirm the identity of their choice. With this anti-dualistic conception, Soloway has wiped away the stereotype of the tragic tranny, the audience of millions demonstrating the possibilities of bold self-determination.

Pauline Park has situated her Pride House in one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world: In the school kitty corner, 84 languages are spoken. At Pride House, there are clients from Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Each year, the site provides approximately 6,000 interactions with residents from throughout Queens, New York’s second largest borough in population. Pride House has a database of lawyers and doctors accumulated over the course of two decades from whom transsexuals can hope for respectful behavior, working with psychotherapists or psychiatrists together. Immigration and health care are the most important issues. Pride House provides HIV tests, distributes 50,000 condoms a month, and helps homeless clients to find accommodation. “Transsexual teens often end up on the street,” says Park.

Pauline Park’s compassion for people like Laura or Gene is based on her own complicated biography. In 1960, American adoptive parents took two malnourished twins from Seoul. The boys were only eight months old and were the only non-white children in their elementary school. They found themselves in a Christian fundamentalist Republican family. In the first semester of her philosophy degree at the University of Wisconsin, to Park came out as gay. But that was only half the story. The other half came to light when Park took a scholarship to London and there increasingly appeared as a woman. She calls it the most liberating experience of her lives: “For the first time, I presented myself as I saw myself.” Finally, there was her reading of Michel Foucault, through which Park freed herself from the burden of supposedly inauthentic Korean identity and the sex/gender binary, unmasked as a social construct. “I started to accept me as” a male-bodied woman “and as Korean adoptee.”

At home in the sexual and cultural ambiguity, Pauline Park makes a radical theorist and activist who is at loggerheads with the “transgender establishment” in America and the “classic transsexual transition narrative.”

Page 2/2: The gender identity disorder still has the status of a mental illness

After conducting hundreds of training sessions and workshops at universities, hospitals, government agencies and companies Pauline Park is very familiar with all the prejudices that circulate about transsexuals. “Most participants expect me to tell them something about hormones and surgery. But while I begin by talking about that, I focus on trying to explain how many barriers a transsexual must overcome in a hospital visit.” Since 9/11, almost every public building has required showing an identity card. If one’s ID is in a male name, but the person appears as a woman, she will not be able to get beyond the guards. The next hurdle is the form on which you have to check ‘male’ or ‘female.’ If the patient Joanna is sitting in the waiting room, but the name John is called, it can expose her to astonished glances.

The linear transformation from male to female and vice versa is presented to the public on countless talk shows, from Oprah Winfrey to Barbara Walters – with guests who talk about being trapped in the wrong body and want to corrected that state of affairs through hormones and surgery. A change in legal sex designation can actually reinforce the sex/gender binary if it is based on the disease model of transsexuality. In 1974, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic manual of mental disorders, which instantly ‘cured’ millions of gays. At the same time, the American Psychiatric Association introduced the diagnosis of gender identity disorder, which was recently changed to gender dysphoria, but which retains its status as a mental illness. Consequently, all transgendered individuals are still considered mentally ill.

Park conceded that the dissonance between the assigned gender identity and internal feeling, especially coupled with transgenderphobia, can lead to depression. But that would implicate a diseased society rather than the individual. She wants more than a few crumbs from the table at the Department of Health and isn’t willing to accept them at the cost of pathologizing the community. She regards transgender identity rather like left-handedness, with transsexualism as a natural variant of the dominant gender identity, not a form of deviance. Whoever would like sex reassignment surgery should have the opportunity to get it, says Park. But in contrast to the traditional transgender discourse only a tiny minority would undergo these serious interventions. The majority is situated on some point in the wide spectrum between masculine and feminine. A subversive concept that can result in open conflict in the choice of a public toilet in New York as elsewhere.

NB: This article appeared in the 9 April 2015 issue of Die Zeit under the title, “Tragische Transe? Nö!.” The original German text is below. The above English translation is mine. ~Pauline Park

TRANSGENDER
Tragische Transe? Nö!

Die amerikanische Serie “Transparent” macht das Thema Geschlechtsidentität jetzt auch in Deutschland populär. In Amerika ist die Diskussion längst weiter. Ein Besuch im Transgender-Zentrum in Queens, New York.

Von Claudia Steinberg
Die Zeit
9 April 2015

Eine Regenbogenflagge zwischen Isabels Haarsalon und dem Minisupermarkt zeigt den Weg nach Pride House: ins Zentrum für Queers und Transsexuelle auf der 37th Avenue in Jackson Heights, Queens. Dort sitzt auf voluminösen Sofas und Bürostühlen eine Gruppe von Transsexuellen, Lesben und Bisexuellen. Die Atmosphäre ist ausgelassen. Bis eine schwarz gekleidete Dame unbestimmten Alters, glamourös einen chinesischen Schal um die Schultern drapiert, Platz nimmt. Pauline Park ist die Gründerin und Direktorin von Pride House. Sie weiß, gleich wird die Stimmung abstürzen, mit dramatischen Erzählungen von Familienstreit, dem Aufflammen von Unbehagen an der zugewiesenen Geschlechtsidentität, die sich falsch anfühlt.

Alle wissen längst um Lauras Selbstmordabsichten. Gene berichtet vom Besuch seiner geliebten Oma aus China, die über die Verwandlung ihrer Enkelin in einen Jungen so verzweifelt war wie er über ihre Unfähigkeit, seine neue Identität zu akzeptieren. Dylan ist Computerprogrammiererin und sehnt sich nach einer “Rückwärtskompatibilität” mit der Ehefrau und den Kindern aus ihrem früheren Leben als Mann. Ihre Kollegin June sollte sich bei der Suche nach einem neuen Job einfach als Frau vorstellen, findet Dylan – doch Junes Doktortitel und ihre ganze exzellente Berufserfahrung laufen unter ihrem Männernamen.

Seit sich die Schwulen nach den Debatten der siebziger Jahre in den Mainstream eingliedern konnten, sind Transgender-Individuen als exotischer Rest der Außenseitergemeinde übrig geblieben. Ihre Erlösungsgeschichten besitzen noch immer jenen Unterhaltungsfaktor, den ein schwules Paar mit Hund und Haus in der Vorstadt längst verloren hat. Inzwischen ist Transgender das neue heiße Thema, es ist sogar in der breiten Öffentlichkeit angekommen, als Bürgerrechtsproblematik, als Glamour-Faktor, als Fernsehserie. An den Universitäten rüttelt es unter der Flagge von Queer Studies an den Geschlechtergrenzen. Im Oktober des vergangenen Jahres plädierte der New Yorker Bürgermeister Bill de Blasio für die Möglichkeit, das Geschlecht auf Geburtsurkunden ohne operative Umwandlung ändern zu können. Der New Yorker Gouverneur Andrew Cuomo hat verlangt, dass Krankenversicherungen für Geschlechtsumwandlungen aufkommen. Das New Yorker Gefängnis Rikers Island, eine der größten Strafanstalten der Welt, richtet eine Sonderabteilung für transsexuelle Häftlinge ein, weil Gefängnisse für sie zu den gefährlichsten Orten zählen, wo sie oft Gewalttätigkeit und sexuelle Attacken erdulden müssen. Vor zehn Jahren war ein Film wie Transamerika mit seiner vom Mann zur Frau transformierten Heldin Bree noch eine Ausnahme. Von dieser Woche an kann man über Amazon auch auf Deutsch die Serie Transparent sehen (parent wie Eltern und trans wie transsexuell), sie ist schon ausgezeichnet mit dem Golden Globe und hat beste Aussichten auf einen Kultstatus.

Die Autorin und Regisseurin von Transparent, Jill Soloway, hat sich von der Gendermetamorphose ihres eigenen Vaters zu einem witzigen und empathischen Aufruf für die Geschlechterfreiheit inspirieren lassen: Als Morts drei Töchter erwachsen sind, wagt er sein Coming-out und kommt plötzlich als Frau mit langer Haarmähne, auf Stöckelschuhen und im hübschen Kleid durch die Tür. Das Erstaunen ist groß, zumal Papa Mort dabei seine Tochter in inniger Umarmung mit ihrer Freundin überrascht. Die Serie soll nicht nur “die Geburt einer neuen Mutter aus dem weiblichen Ich des Vaters” feiern, sondern auch “boygirl, girlboy, macho princess and officer sweet slutty bear” zur Identität ihrer Wahl ermutigen. Mit dieser antidualistischen Auffassung hat Soloway das Klischee der tragischen Transe mit Schwung hinweggewischt und einem Millionenpublikum die Möglichkeiten kühner Selbstbestimmung vorgeführt.

Dieser Artikel stammt aus der ZEIT Nr. 15 vom 9.4.2015.

Dieser Artikel stammt aus der ZEIT Nr. 15 vom 9.4.2015.  |  Die aktuelle ZEIT können Sie am Kiosk oder hier erwerben.

Pauline Park hat ihr Pride House an einem der ethnisch vielfältigsten Orte der Welt angesiedelt: In der Schule schräg gegenüber werden 84 Sprachen gesprochen. Im Pride House erscheinen Klienten aus Kolumbien, Ecuador, Mexiko, China, Indien, Pakistan, Bangladesch oder von den Philippinen. Die Einrichtung verzeichnet jedes Jahr rund 6000 Interaktionen mit Bewohnern aus ganz Queens, New Yorks zweitgrößtem Stadtteil. Pride House hat in zwei Jahrzehnten einen Katalog von Rechtsanwälten und Medizinern angesammelt, bei denen Transsexuelle auf respektvollen Umgang hoffen können, man arbeitet mit Psychotherapeuten oder Psychiatern zusammen. Immigration und medizinische Versorgung sind die wichtigsten Themen. Pride House vermittelt HIV-Tests, verteilt pro Monat 50.000 Kondome oder hilft obdachlosen Klienten, eine Unterkunft zu finden. “Gerade transsexuelle Teenager enden oft auf der Straße”, sagt Park.

Pauline Parks Mitgefühl für Menschen wie Laura oder Gene ist in ihrer eigenen komplizierten Biografie begründet. Im Jahr 1960 nahmen amerikanische Adoptiveltern zwei unterernährte Zwillingsbrüder aus Seoul in Empfang. Die Jungen waren erst acht Monate alt und wuchsen nun auf als die einzigen nicht weißen Kinder der Umgebung. Sie waren in einer christlich fundamentalistischen, republikanischen Familie gelandet. Im ersten Semester ihres Philosophiestudiums an der University of Wisconsin offenbarte sich Park als schwul. Doch das war nur die halbe Wahrheit. Die andere Hälfte kam zum Vorschein, als Park mit einem Stipendium nach London zog und dort immer häufiger als Frau auftrat. Sie nennt es die befreiendste Erfahrung ihres Lebens: “Zum ersten Mal präsentierte ich mich so, wie ich mich sah.” Schließlich war es die Lektüre von Michel Foucault, die Park von dem vermeintlichen Fluch einer inauthentischen koreanischen Identität befreite und die binäre Geschlechtsbestimmung als gesellschaftliches Konstrukt entlarvte. “Ich begann, mich als ›körperlich männliche Frau‹ und als koreanisches Adoptivkind zu akzeptieren.”

Dass sie sich in der geschlechtlichen und kulturellen Ambiguität so beheimatet fühlt, macht Pauline Park zu einer radikalen Theoretikerin und Aktivistin, die mit dem “Transgender-Establishment” Amerikas und seiner “klassischen Version der Geschlechtsumwandlung” auf Kriegsfuß steht.

Seite 2/2: Die Geschlechtsidentitätsstörung hat immer noch den Status einer Geisteskrankheit

Nach Hunderten von Schulungen und Workshops an Universitäten, in Kliniken, Regierungsstellen und Unternehmen ist Pauline Park bestens mit allen Vorurteilen vertraut, die über Transsexuelle kursieren. “Die meisten Teilnehmer erwarten, dass ich ihnen etwas über Hormone und Operationen erzähle. Aber das Thema berühre ich kaum. Ich versuche zu erklären, wie viele Barrieren ein Transsexueller etwa bei einem Krankenhausbesuch überwinden muss”. Seit dem 11. September verlangt nahezu jedes öffentliche Gebäude das Vorzeigen eines Ausweises. Wenn der auf einen männlichen Namen lautet, die Person jedoch als Frau erscheint, wird sie möglicherweise nicht über den Wachtposten hinauskommen. Die nächste Hürde ist das Formular, auf dem man “männlich” oder “weiblich” ankreuzen muss. Wenn die Patientin Joanna im Warteraum sitzt, aber als John aufgerufen wird, ist sie verwunderten Blicken ausgesetzt.

Die lineare Transformation vom Mann zur Frau und umgekehrt wurde der Öffentlichkeit in zahllosen Talkshows von Oprah Winfrey bis Barbara Walters nahegebracht – mit Gästen, die sich im falschen Körper eingesperrt fühlten und diesen Missstand mit Hormonen und Operationen behoben. Mit der Umkehrung der genitalen Vorzeichen bleibt aber nicht nur die Weltordnung der polaren Geschlechtsidentität erhalten, sondern die Transsexualität weiterhin dem Krankheitsmodell verhaftet. 1974 wurde die Homosexualität aus dem diagnostischen Handbuch psychischer Störungen gestrichen, das führte mit einem Streich zur “Heilung” von Millionen von Schwulen. Gleichzeitig definierte aber die American Psychiatric Association eine gender identity disorder, Geschlechtsidentitätsstörung, die zur gender dysphoria abgemildert wurde, ohne jedoch ihren Status als Geisteskrankheit zu verlieren. Demzufolge wären alle Transgender-Individuen geisteskrank.

Park konzediert, dass die Dissonanz zwischen der zugewiesenen Geschlechtsidentität und der eigenen Empfindung, vor allem aber Transgender-Phobie zu Depressionen führen kann. Das wäre allerdings eher eine Krankheit der Gesellschaft als eine des Individuums. Sie will mehr als ein paar Brotkrumen vom Bankett des Gesundheitsministeriums um den Preis der Pathologisierung eines Zustands, den sie als so natürlich betrachtet wie Linkshändigkeit. Transsexualität ist für sie eine Varianz der dominanten Geschlechtsidentität, keine Devianz. Wer eine operative Geschlechtsumwandlung wünsche, sollte die Gelegenheit dazu haben, meint Park. Doch im Unterschied zum klassischen Transgender-Diskurs wolle sich nur eine winzige Minorität diesen gravierenden Eingriffen unterziehen. Die Mehrheit siedele sich einfach an irgendeinem Punkt auf dem breiten Spektrum zwischen maskulin und feminin an. Ein subversives Konzept, das bekanntlich schon bei der Wahl einer öffentlichen Toilette Konflikte eröffnen kann, in New York wie überall.

In der Serie “Transparent” wählen “MaPa” (Jeffrey Tambor” und seine Töchter die Damentoilette.

The post Tragic Trans? Nope! (Die Zeit, 4.11.15) appeared first on Pauline Park.

Jackson Heights is the most diverse neighborhood in Queens, the most diverse county in the United States. But what precisely does ‘diversity’ really mean and how does it actually play out in this neighborhood that I’ve called home for nearly two decades now? In this photo essay, I hope to answer those questions.

I’d like to begin with this photo, which I took just outside the entrance to Queens Pride House on 37th Ave. during the World Cup finals this summer:

According to the last US Census, Jackson Heights is about half Latino, with immigrants coming from every country in Latin America; but the largest populations are from Ecuador and Colombia in South America. When the World Cup frenzy reached fever pitch, someone mounted these flags from various Latin American countries, which made a colorful addition to 37th Ave. This is the conventional notion of diversity: local color with a hint of the exotic; but the notion of a ‘melting pot’ is problematic because it is based on a discourse of assimilationism into a white US-born majority. Even ‘multiculturalism’ is a problematic model, with its advocates often using the metaphor of a salad bowl full of ingredients from different countries, because it is a relatively superficial and static notion that does not get at the dynamics of diversity and the difficult tensions that diversity can pose.

The next photos raise an important issue that needs to be addressed in any discussion of diversity in Jackson Heights, and that is class.

These are photos of two of my favorite buildings in Jackson Heights. Both are in the historic district, the Italian Renaissance building on the north side of 37th Ave. and the French Renaissance building with the Mansard roof on the south side of 37th Ave. While I don’t know what the price of an apartment in either of these buildings would be, it couldn’t be cheap, whether a studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom or larger. And so the issue of affordable housing is a crucial one for maintaining the diversity of the neighborhood, both racial and ethnic as well as in terms of class, income and wealth. These buildings, like so many in the historic district are a wonderful part of our architectural heritage, but we can’t refrain from engaging in a searching analysis of the problematic class issues that the cost of housing raises.

One particular aspect of Jackson Heights is worth mentioning: its role as the origin of the cooperative housing movement in the United States. Co-ops have a different ownership structure than condominium apartments, and in many ways, co-ops are ideal in that they are owned by their residents; but they also have the legal right to deny entry to anyone for any reason except those explicitly prohibited by the human rights law of the City of New York — including, e.g., race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation and gender, defined to include gender identity and gender expression. Given the closed-door nature of many of the deliberations of co-op boards, there is always the possibility that  something can be used as a proxy for prohibited discrimination to deny rental or ownership of a co-op apartment. And as noted above, the rising cost of apartments and houses — especially in the historic district — can act as a barrier to many who would otherwise like to live in the nicest areas of Jackson Heights.

Not far from the leafy gardens of the historic district are the main shopping streets of Jackson Heights, which together form a rectangle: 74th St. on the west, 82nd St. on the east, 37th Ave. on the north and Roosevelt Ave. on the south. Below is the store owned and operated by a Korean greengrocer on 37th Ave. Like so many Korean-owned shops in the city, this is a family-owned and family-run market, with the husband, wife and daughters working what appear to be long hours. Class, race and immigration come together in the peculiar economy of such operations, which are not without problematic aspects.

The cheerful neon sign at New Peking on 37th Ave. between 77th and 78th Streets beckons passersby to enjoy cheap Chinese, with most of its business being take-out. One problematic aspect of such take-out restaurants is the proliferation of their menus in apartment buildings in the neighborhood, causing litter and often even the danger of accidents caused by residents slipping on the menus that are often dumped in the lobbies and vestibules of buildings in Jackson Heights.

But a potentially far more serious problem is the way in which some immigrant families, in order to provide for future generations, often rely on family labor that can enormously stress parents as well as children. And the expectations of such parents, especially East Asian and South Asian parents, can sometimes push Asian immigrant youth to the breaking point.

Another aspect of ‘diversity’ that requires interrogation is the question of food sources and the treatment of those animals that we consume (at least those who aren’t vegetarian).

I love the diversity of offerings at the Pacific Supermarket on 75th St. between Roosevelt Ave. and Broadway, which is pan-Asian but seems to cater to a primarily Chinese immigrant customer base, but I’m somewhat troubled by the way the management keep the fish and the lobsters especially, crowded into overcrowded small tanks. I took an acquaintance into the supermarket not too long ago, and while she was delighted by the many choices and their Asian origins, she was shocked by the way in which the management kept frogs in an extremely overcrowded tank, lying one on top of the other. I’m happy to say that I haven’t seen any frogs in the store when I’ve gone in recently, so perhaps someone spoke to the management about that horrendous treatment of those poor amphibians.

Jackson Heights also has its choice of street food, and food trucks are now beginning to proliferate just as they are in Manhattan and the other boroughs.

This late-night taco stand is often parked on the northeast corner of 75th St. and Roosevelt Ave., kitty corner from the subway station. One serious concern that I have is about the hygiene of such operations, the lack of which has been reported on in the media in recent years.

Jackson Heights is a wonderful neighborhood, but like every neighborhood in this city, it has its share of problems, many related to crime, many of which in turn relate to substance abuse. And that leads me to the next photo, which may be the most shocking I’ve included here to illustrate life in the neighborhood. I suppose I should put up a ‘trigger alert’ here, because some will find disturbing; but the purpose of this photographic essay is to talk about diversity in the neighborhood, and there’s a dark underbelly to that diversity that I think needs to be discussed and addressed.

The year before last, I was on a #7 train coming back from Manhattan. Around midnight, the train stopped at the 69th St. station, and when the doors to the train cars opened, a young man came running through the train car I was in, acting very erratic, either chasing or being chased by another man. This young man appeared to be Latino and was speaking in Spanish in a very strange fashion. After a few minutes an announcement over the loudspeaker informed us that the train was being stopped temporarily because of police activity, and very shortly, a couple of police officers arrived on the scene, apparently in pursuit of this young man.

The incident ended bizarrely and tragically when the young man leapt to his death, and I saw his body on the ground when I descended to the street level to walk home down Roosevelt Ave. I had only recently read about the ‘bath salts’ craze sweeping the country and I had to wonder if either substance abuse and/or mental illness had anything to do with this young man’s erratic and ultimately fatal behavior. The point to be made here is that substance abuse, mental illness, poverty and crime are issues that have to be raised in a discussion of Jackson Heights or just about any neighborhood in this city; and those phenomena intersect with oppression based on race, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, class, income, wealth and disability as well as sexuality and gender. Even in a neighborhood as wonderful as Jackson Heights, there are many who live lives of quiet desperation.

And speaking of issues of class, income and wealth, in a slightly different context than the one raised above by the reference to the high cost of co-op apartments in the historic district, is the issue of the high cost of commercial real estate in the neighborhood. This is an issue that affects non-profit organizations such as Queens Pride House. While rents in Jackson Heights are nowhere near as high as those in Manhattan or in the most expensive parts of Brooklyn, they have nonetheless been rising here year after year, making it difficult for both commercial enterprises and non-profits located in the neighborhood.

There is also a shortage of non-residential rental space in Jackson Heights, with the Bruson Building on 37th Ave. between 74th and 75th Streets one of the few buildings offering commercial space in the neighborhood. But on April 20, a huge five-alarm fire destroyed much of the Bruson Building and it is not clear if the building will be rebuilt or not. Regardless, the incident points to the danger of fire that a densely populated neighborhood like Jackson Heights is vulnerable to.

When there’s a fire, the people to call are obviously the Fire Department (FDNY). But what if you’re the victim of a crime? One would hope that the New York Police Department would be the agency of city government that all New Yorkers could turn to, but unfortunately, the NYPD has a long and sordid history of police harassment and brutality, directed especially towards people of color and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people. And in fact, we held a forum on the NYPD’s notorious ‘stop-and-frisk’ policy on September 11 of last year, with representatives from various community-based organizations to discuss police-community relations.

Everyone on the panel agreed that people of color and LGBT/queer people had legitimate reasons to mistrust and even fear the police, especially transgendered women of color who have been subjected to a campaign of harassment and brutality for a very long time now. Transgendered Latinas in particular are assumed to be engaging in prostitution regardless of whether they’re actually sex workers. And of course, there have been a host of high-profile police brutality cases in other areas of the city over the years, involving Abner Louima, Anthony Baez, Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, and most recently, Eric Garner on Staten Island only in April.

New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio defeated New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and a number of other challengers in the Democratic mayoral primary in good part because he was able to make stop-and-frisk and police reform a signature issue of his campaign. We will now see whether Mayor de Blasio can bring about meaningful reform that will enhance the quality of life for residents of Jackson Heights, including its transgendered residents, Muslims, and others who are all too often victims of overly aggressive policing and even harassment and brutality.

It is important in any discussion of diversity in this neighborhood to raise the issue of the unconstitutional NYPD surveillance of Muslims in this city, given the burgeoning Muslim population in Jackson Heights.

On the corner of 74th St. and 37th Ave. at the head of ‘Little India’ (which stretches two blocks south to Roosevelt Ave.), you will find vendors selling religious items to fellow Muslims. In this neighborhood, the Muslim population is predominantly South Asian — mostly Pakistani and Bangladeshi. The NYPD’s unconstitutional surveillance of the city’s Muslim community directed by Commissioner Raymond Kelly at the behest of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of policing in this city, and there has yet to be any accountability for it. I have been informed by police watch groups that the NYPD have used traffic stops on Roosevelt Ave. to attempt to track down law-abiding Muslims and blackmail them into collaborating in illegal surveillance on other members of the Muslim community.

It is in such circumstances that the NYPD’s superficial appeals to ‘diversity’ make a mockery of the concept, and of all our city agencies, it is the NYPD whose use or misuse of the concept of diversity that is most ripe for interrogation.

Speaking of both religion and Little India, I have to mention my love of the delights of 74th St. On a hot summer afternoon, walking down 74th St. between 37th Ave. and Roosevelt Ave., one can imagine that one is walking down a street in Delhi, Bombay (Mumbai), Calcutta (Kolkata) or Madras (Chennai), with restaurants serving tandoori chicken and lamb vindaloo and shops full of glittering jewelry and saris.

Ganesha is the happiest of the Hindu gods, representing good luck, and sits contentedly here in a window on 74th St., surrounded by gold jewelry that is worn primarily at weddings. But there is a darker reality behind the colorful façade of sari shops on 74th St., and that is the persistence of poverty, labor abuses, domestic violence, and other ills that plague immigrant communities as well as mainstream society in Jackson Heights. Last year, we held a forum on the human trafficking of Asian women in Queens, which experts on our panel informed us in this borough was actually primarily labor trafficking rather than the more sensational but somewhat less common phenomenon of sex trafficking.

One particularly problematic aspect of the thriving Indian community in Queens is the persistence of caste distinctions, which becomes readily apparent when one reads any of the classifieds in any of the ethnic press in the South Asian community here, where such personal ads focus almost obsessively on caste origins in determining the suitability of marriage matches — this, despite the fact that the newly independent India abolished caste in 1947 after the end of the British Raj.

One aspect of ‘diversity’ that doesn’t get enough attention in the focus on race, ethnicity, religion and to a lesser extent, sexual orientation, is that of access for people with disabilities. The renovation of the Roosevelt Ave. subway station that was completed back in 2005 cost $87 million and was long overdue. As part of the renovation, elevators were installed in the station, but oddly, enough, the elevator from the #7 train platform of the 74th St./Broadway station descends to a mezzanine, and anyone then wishing to go down to the platform on the lower level to catch the E, F, M or R train must cross an often busy mezzanine to a separate elevator to make that leg of the trip. And of course, even if this station is (just barely) wheelchair-accessible many other stations in Queens are not, which limits the mobility of wheelchair-bound passengers and their ability to use the subway system in the borough.

And of course, wheelchair accessibility is only one issue when discussing access for people with disabilities, given that there are innumerable disabilities of various kinds. At Queens Pride House, we are limited by extreme budget constraints from addressing many issues that we would like to address, wheelchair access being one; it is simply beyond our current budget to consider elevator installation in this building.

But for the able-bodied at least, Jackson Heights is a convenient location for access to the New York City subway system, and those who live near the Roosevelt Ave. subway station enjoy perhaps the best location in Queens for access to public transit.

One aspect of diversity that is of particular importance for our discussion is the role that our educational system plays in accommodating diversity and ideally fostering an appreciation of it. There are a number of public as well as private schools in the neighborhood, with PS 69 being an elementary school on the southeast corner of 76th St. and 37th Ave.

PS 69 is said to have the most diverse student body of any public school in the city and possibly in the country, with one estimate counting 84 different native languages spoken at home by the students at the school. But while we ought to celebrate this diversity, we also need to address issues that it may raise. To what extent is bullying and bias-based harassment in our schools a problem? The New York City Department of Education won’t tell us and may not know themselves, given that they do not keep adequate statistics on bullying and bias-based harassment; nor do they have any real accountability system for holding those guilty of bullying and bias-based harassment accountable for the actions — whether students, faculty or non-teaching staff. Fortress Tweed will not tell us the extent of the problem, nor do the powers that be at NYC DoE have any systematic program for sensitivity training, with their current sensitivity training program ineffective at best and at worst, a mechanism for channeling tax dollars to fund problematic organizations which themselves are guilty of gross bias, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in particular.

One aspect of diversity that is of course central to the mission of Queens Pride House is the inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the neighborhood and the borough. We have hosted events for LGBT parents and their children, including Claudia Narvaez-Meza, Krystal Banzon and their son, Malaya.

Claudia and Krystal were hoping to join us, but Krystal’s pregnancy and impending delivery made that impossible. But they are one of a growing number of same-sex couples who are raising children such as Malaya in Jackson Heights, and like all LGBT people, they have legitimate concerns about discrimination and harassment, something that, as I have already noted, the NYC DoE was simply not interested in addressing under the Bloomberg administration; we shall see whether there is any change under Mayor de Blasio and his new chancellor, Carmen Fariña.

Public schools are actually polling sites in our elections, as this sign indicates. The sign is in Spanish, Chinese, Korean and Bengali as well as in English, but some advocacy organizations have deplored the lack of Asian-language speakers at polling places in the neighborhood and the borough. While Queens now has two openly gay Council members, a Latino Assembly member and a Latino member of the state Senate, as well as its third woman in a row serving as borough president, the mere inclusion of members of historically underrepresented communities does not necessarily result in the automatic empowerment of those communities, despite the symbolic victory of their election, and it is important not to be taken in by a superficial discourse of identity politics; it is the impact on the real lives of real people that must be the measure of the efficacy elected officials as well as of the political empowerment of the communities that they claim to represent.

We at Queens Pride House take seriously our mission to serve the LGBT community of Queens, not only through our participation in the Queens Pride Parade every first Sunday in June, but every day of the year.

Located on 37th Ave. in Jackson Heights, Queens Pride House is the only LGBT community center in the borough and we serve an exceptionally diverse group of members and clients. I might add parenthetically that I am the only openly transgendered executive director of an LGBT community center in the city or the state and one of the only two in the country; I am also the only Asian American executive director of an LGBT community center in the city or the state and one of the only two in the country; and perhaps not surprisingly, I’m the only openly transgendered Asian American executive director of an LGBT community center in the country.

* * * * *

This was the text of the presentation that Pauline Park gave at “Beyond ‘Diversity'” at Queens Pride House on 25 October 2014.

Pauline Park, Ph.D., is president and acting executive director of Queens Pride House as well as a long-time resident of Jackson Heights.

The post Jackson Heights: Beyond ‘Diversity’ appeared first on Pauline Park.

Howie Hawkins: why I’m endorsing him for governor over Andrew Cuomo
by Pauline Park

In November, New Yorkers across the state will go to the polls to vote for governor and lieutenant governor; never has the choice been clearer in 2014. The mainstream media will no doubt cast this as a contest between a well-known Democratic incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and an obscure right-wing Republican opponent, Rob Astorino. But Howie Hawkins is running for governor on the Green Party line, and by any reckoning, he’s the true progressive in the race.

Cuomo likes to portray himself as progressive, but he’s anything but. The son of Mario Cuomo is only governor because of the fame of his father and the dynastic politics that are an unfortunate aspect of New York’s political scene. If he didn’t have the name ‘Cuomo’ and weren’t the son of a two-term governor with a national reputation for liberal politics and compelling oratory, it’s hard to see how Andrew Cuomo would be governor now.

But beyond the extremely problematic dynastic politics that made this princeling of power and privilege into a candidate for state attorney general and then for governor, the simple fact is that Andrew Cuomo is at best a DINO — a Democrat in name only — and is arguably to the right of George Pataki, our last Republican governor. Cuomo has surrounded himself with corporate lobbyists and disbanded his own Moreland Commission when it actually began to do its job, looking into the governor’s shady campaign contributions as well as those of members of our notoriously corrupt state legislature.

As governor, Cuomo has pursued a right-wing corporate agenda, and his claim to fame as a ‘progressive’ seems to rest almost solely on his pushing the marriage equality bill through the state Senate, which any careful observer of the political scene would have to regard as nothing more than a cynical maneuver to enable him to position himself as a progressive champion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights; but in fact, other than same-sex marriage, Cuomo’s record on LGBT issues is actually pretty thin. Yes, his administration approved a change in birth certificate policy for transgendered people (a change in policy that does not in fact help people born in the five boroughs of New York City), but that only at the beginning of his re-election campaign. On the most important legislation pending in the state legislature, Cuomo has been missing in action. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and credit throughout the state; GENDA has been pending for twelve years now, and Cuomo has been governor for four, but he’s refused to lift a finger to push GENDA through the Senate.

In fact, I was part of a group of transgender activists who met with the governor’s chief counsel in Albany to discuss the GENDA bill, and his counsel all but told us that Cuomo would be willing to sign the bill into law but would do nothing to help us move it through the Senate. Cuomo recently sent the Empire State Pride Agenda a letter ostensibly confirming his commitment to GENDA, but with no specifics and no action to back it up; the cynical observer would see this as nothing more than another cynical ploy by the most cynical governor in state history, garnering a coveted endorsement by the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization by sending ESPA a letter that is all but meaningless in the absence of any action from his office. What is truly noteworthy here is that Cuomo has never once spoken out publicly in favor of GENDA or even mentioned transgender discrimination in any of his public utterances, including in his keynote speech at the ESPA annual fall dinner following enactment of the marriage equality law, where he had an audience supportive of the GENDA bill, which was and remains the Pride Agenda’s top legislative priority; and this in a state in which ESPA-commissioned public opinion polls show overwhelming support for GENDA, even among Republicans, conservatives and upstate New Yorkers. The political risks of supporting GENDA are close to zero, and it is in fact considerably less controversial than the marriage equality bill was when it was voted on in the Senate. But Cuomo’s political calculation must surely be that there are no wealthy gay white donors in Manhattan who will open their checkbooks to his re-election campaign for his support for GENDA in the way that they did because of his support for marriage equality. And yet, transgendered New Yorkers are among the most marginalized in the state, and lack basic legal protections from discrimination; ironically, transgendered New Yorkers can now marry members of the same legal sex but can still be fired from a job throughout most of the state because of the lack of inclusion of gender identity or expression in state human rights law. There is one person who holds primary responsibility for that lack of transgender inclusion in state non-discrimination law, and that is Andrew Cuomo.

Anyone looking at this race will also notice the striking difference between Brian Jones, a progressive African American, who is the Green Party candidate for lieutenant governor, and Andrew Cuomo’s running mate, the un-progressive and very white Kathy Hochul, who has made donations to ‘the Bible Teaching Ministry of Charles Swindoll,’ a homophobic anti-choice Christian fundamentalist. Hochul is also a darling of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and has a voting record that is consistent with that of many of her Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives. When looking at Hochul’s profile, it’s very hard to avoid the conclusion that this Democratic Party hack was chosen as Cuomo’s running mate almost entirely because of the supposed gender and geographic balance (being from western New York) that she would lend to the ticket; certainly, Hochul can claim no significant accomplishments as an elected official, and her record is the opposite of progressive.

There are a host of other reasons why anyone voting in the 2014 New York governor’s race should have serious concern about Andrew Cuomo’s re-election; perhaps the most important for our environment is the governor’s refusal to impose a permanent moratorium on hydrofracturing upstate. The sad reality is that ‘fracking’ in the vast shale belt of the ‘southern tier’ of New York could potentially poison a third of the state’s drinking water sources. Nowhere else is Cuomo’s horrendous record on environmental issues in such contrast with the Green Party platform, which calls for a complete permanent moratorium on fracking in the state.

Among so many issues of concern to progressives, there is yet one more that I feel compelled to mention in explaining my endorsement in this race, and that is Cuomo’s disturbing support for Israeli apartheid. In fact, the governor led a delegation of elected officials to Israel in August in the midst of the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip, which killed over 2,150 Palestinians, most civilians, and over 500 of them children; outrageously, Cuomo actually publicly stated his support for the Israeli genocide, despite the fact that many New Yorkers opposed the genocidal war on Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Unlike most US officials who go to Israel, Cuomo refused even the pro forma meeting with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, reinforcing the conclusion that his first and so far only trip abroad since being inaugurated in January 2011 was nothing more than a cynical ploy to play to the state’s Zionist voters in the run-up to the election. Of course, the less-than-subtle subtext of the visit was the attempt to make Cuomo look ‘presidential’ by becoming engaged in foreign policy, despite the fact that the governor has no statutory role to play in US foreign policy-making.

Andrew Cuomo’s corruption of our state’s already corrupt politics, his refusal to use the power of his office to move transgender rights legislation through the state Senate, his refusal to institute a permanent ban on fracking and his support for Israeli apartheid and genocide all make him unworthy to be re-elected governor of the great state of New York. It is for all of those reasons that I am endorsing Howie Hawkins for governor and Brian Jones for lieutenant governor. I should add that I do so in a purely personal and individual capacity and not as the representative of any organization with which I am associated.

Those interested in supporting Howie Hawkins can also ‘friend’ the Howie Hawkins for governor campaign on Facebook. I encourage everyone concerned with the future of this great state to consider voting Hawkins/Jones in November.

Pauline Park is a transgender activist living in Queens; this endorsement does not necessarily reflect the views of any organizations with which she is affiliated.

The post Howie Hawkins vs. Andrew Cuomo in the 2014 New York governor’s race appeared first on Pauline Park.

May 28 is ‘Jerusalem Day’ (Hebrew: יום ירושלים, Yom Yerushalayim), “an Israeli national holiday commemorating the reunification of Jerusalem and the establishment of Israeli control over the Old City in the aftermath of the June 1967 Six-Day War. The day is officially marked by state ceremonies and memorial services” (Wikipedia).

But for Palestinians, Jerusalem Day is a reminder of the illegal & brutal Israeli occupation that they live under as well as the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem, which no state on earth recognizes as being Israeli territory.

I spent two days in Jerusalem after participating in the first US LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine back in January 2012 & I’m struck by how the Temple Mount (‘Haram al-Sharif’ in Arabic) — the site of the Second Temple destroyed by the Romans in 70 ACE — is arguably the most contested site in the most contested city on earth. Only the end of the Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem will bring true peace to this troubled city…

The post Jerusalem Day 2014 appeared first on Pauline Park.

SYLLABUS Norwegian II General Course Information: Faculty: Marie-Therese Bjornerud, Adjunct Instructor Email: mtb8@nyu.edu Course: Norwegian II / SCAN1-CE9302 Credit: Noncredit Course Semester: Spring 2018 (February 6th – May 8th) Location: Scandinavia House – 58 Park Ave, New York, NY 10016 Day:Tuesday Time: 6:30 PM – 8:25 PM Format: In-person Office hours: By email No Class on: MARCH 6th & MARCH 13th Course Description: This course builds upon Norwegian I. Continue to expand your vocabulary and master grammatical structures. The instructor provides greater opportunities for enhancing the range of your conversational abilities. The course is conducted in Norwegian to the extent possible. Ideal for: ● students with basic knowledge of, or previous instruction in Norwegian. ● those who wish to strengthen their Norwegian language skills. Course Prerequisites: Norwegian I/SCAN1-CE9301 or the equivalent. Course Structure/Method: ● Students meet in-person every Tuesday at Scandinavia House from 6.30pm – 8.25pm. ● Weekly lesson plans in Norwegian (with English translations), including detailed descriptions of what will be covered that week, as well as assignments for the following week, are sent out to students via email in advance of class. This enables students who wish to prepare for class to do so. 2 ● Classes will involve discussions. Some topics, as well as grammar, will be presented to students, and they will be actively encouraged to participate in asking questions and discussing said topic or theme. Students will have a chance to read out loud in every class. Students will also work in groups discussing assignments, speaking, and reading Norwegian to each other. Discussions about Norwegian culture and trivia are encouraged, and are often a part of class. ● At the start of each class, students are able to ask questions about what they found to be the most challenging homework assignments, which will then be briefly reviewed. ● Students are encouraged to ask questions and participate in every class. ● There will be tests, dictations and written assignments that are collected and graded throughout the semester. ● The semester ends with an in-class oral presentation with supporting, written document. Course Learning Outcomes: By the end of this course, students will: ● demonstrate greater overall proficiency in Norwegian. ● have improved fluency and grammatical accuracy. ● have improved pronunciation of the sounds of Norwegian. ● be able to initiate and maintain basic conversations on familiar topics. ● be able to apply what they have learned about the Norwegian culture to their interactions. Communication Policy: Credit students must use their NYU email to communicate. NYU Classes course-mail supports student privacy and FERPA guidelines. All communication to the instructor will happen through the NYU email provided and all email inquiries will be answered within 24-36 hours. Course Expectations: Students will need to have passed at least 50% of tests, completed at least 50% of homework, been active in class so that there is a progress to be assessed, as well as taken part in the endof-semester presentation (or fulfilled a larger percent of course requirements in other categories). The due date for the oral presentation will be the last day of the semester. Should the class be at, or close to, full capacity, the presentations will be held during the last two sessions. In this case, May 1st and May 8th, 2018. The due date for the written part of the presentation will be five days before you are scheduled for the oral presentation. This is so that the presentation can be corrected before presenting. 3 Required and Recommended Material: – Textbook: PA VEI TEKSTBOK – Author MACDONALD – ISBN: 9788202340940 – Workbook: PA VEI ARBEIDSBOK – Author MACDONALD – ISBN: 9788202343163 (Can be purchased at the NYU Bookstore) – PA VEI Word List Norwegian-English is recommended. ISBN: 9788202372255 – PA VEI CD-set is recommended. – Vocabulary notebook – Notebook – Duolingo App Assessment Strategy: Grading Policy Percent of grade Participation in class activities – Oral and group exercises, asking questions and applying skills learned. 25% Homework – Bi-weekly or monthly written assignments, which will be corrected – Assessment relate to grammar, clarity of language and application of skills learned. Weekly workbook exercises. 25% Tests and dictations – The ability to listen and apply the skills learned and show their uses with no aids. 25% Speech/project/group project – Implementing what you have learned throughout the semester and communicating verbally. 25% Total 100% Formative Assessments: To assess progress, several tests, dictations, and take-home short written assignments will be done during the semester, based on what has been covered. Summative Assessments: There will be one final, and formal written assignment and oral presentation at the end of semester, in which students get to practice speaking and presenting in Norwegian. Students will have the whole semester to prepare for this. Oral exercises will be conducted in class throughout semester to prepare for this. Evaluation: Every aspect of the class counts. Students will be graded on content, grammar and clarity. Students will have the chance to receive feedback in the last session if they wish. Students are also encouraged to ask questions throughout the semester if anything is unclear and to also express any particular wishes they have, specific to the course outline and class activities. Missed or late assignments will affect your final grade and your learning progress. Regular attendance is required to not miss tests, presentations, or assignments, and to make steady progress. It is also necessary in order for students to be given a fair and accurate assessment. 4 “NYUSPS policies regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Academic Integrity and Plagiarism, Students with Disabilities Statement, and Standards of Classroom Behavior among others can be found on the NYU Classes Academic Policies tab for all course sites as well as on the University and NYUSPS websites. Every student is responsible for reading, understanding, and complying with all of these policies.” The full list of policies can be found at the web links below: University: http://www.nyu.edu/about/policiesguidelines-compliance.html NYUSPS: http://sps.nyu.edu/academics/academicpolicies-and-procedures.html NYUSPS Policies: School Grading Policies: NYUSPS Career Advancement (non-degree) http://sps.nyu.edu/content/scps/academics/noncredit-offerings/academic-noncreditpolicies-and-procedures.html Course Outline: Session I, 02/06/18, Getting to Know Each Other Introductions, information and review Quick review of the alphabet Pronunciation review: short and long vowels; consonants. The ç-sound. Grammar review Introduction of semester project Session 2, 02/13/18, At the Store Trying and buying food and clothes Grammar review Interrogative pronouns: which, which, and which Demonstrative pronouns: this, this, and these Session 3, 02/20/18, At the Store (Cont’d) Talking about clothes: color, prices and sizes Inflection (conjunction) of adjectives: indefinite form Pronunciation: the u-sound. Session 4, 02/27/18, Weather and Seasons Talking about clothes and what to wear in relation to weather Conjunctions: therefore, because, that and if 5 Session 5, 03/20/18, Weather and Seasons (Cont’d) Talking about weather, climate and temperatures (Celsius) “Answer words” and modifying adverbs Verbs: regular and irregular Pronunciation: the æ-sound, the ƒ-sound Session 6, 03/27/18, Holidays and Ceremonies Ceremonial traditions in Norway: learning about, and comparing, Norwegian traditions Possessive and Reflexive forms: my, your, her, his, our, your and their Session 7, 04/03/18, A New Life Love, loss and longing: cultural expectations in Norway Talking about one’s background and experiences; expressing feelings of longing and joy Possessive and Reflexive forms: my, your, her, his, our, your and their (Cont’d) Session 8, 04/10/18, A New Life (Cont’d) Students will be able to talk about what they do in their free time. Genitive and prepositions: Inflection/Conjunctions time: (for – falls off in English), ago, for, in Ordinals and years Session 9, 04/17/18, Health Talking about health and illness Getting a doctor’s appointment; parts of the body Adverbs and reflexive verbs Quantifiers: A lot, many Session 10, 04/24/18, A Little Bit About Norway Facts about Norway as a multicultural society Creating dialogues and practicing conversations about what you have done Discussing Norwegian news; watching news at home on NRK online, or listening to radio online Compound words Session 11, 05/01/18, This Is How We Live Explaining how you live, and wish to live in the future Asking for directions and explain where a place is. Determinatives. Words that describe the noun further. Adjectives & Preposition expressions Presentations – Handouts of target vocabulary are strongly recommended. Session 12, 05/08/18, End-of-Semester – Oral Presentation and Celebration Presentations. Handouts of target vocabulary are strongly recommended. Students are invited to stay after class and socialize and practice what they have learnt.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Niende leksjon | Session Nine

Hei hei og velkommen til uke ni! Hey and welcome to week 9!

• Spørsmål om leksa: oppgave 9-13 side 50-51 og 15, 17-19 side 52-53 i arbeidsboka. Vi går gjennom det som er vanskelig!

Questions about the homework: assignments 9-13 p. 50-51 and 15,17-19 p. 52-53 in the workbook. We’ll go through what was hard!

• Seks viktige ord/uttrykk fra fjerde kapittel.

Diskuter oppgave 19, side 53 i arbeidsboka i grupper.

Six important words/expressions from the fourth chapter

Discuss assignment 19, page 53 in the workbook in groups.

• Tekst: Kapittel 5 – Vi øver på ”Klokka” side 55 i tekstboka.

Vi leser og oversetter ”Jeg står opp klokka seks” side 58 i tekstboka. Høytlesning! Hva forstår du? Spørsmål?

Text: Chapter 5 – Let’s practice “The Watch“, page 55 in the textbook. Let’s read and translate: “I Get Up At 6am” page 58 in the textbook.

Read out loud! What do you understand? Questions?

• Forklar til klassen, så godt du klarer, hva som skjer på bildene: ”Fra Morgen til kveld” side 56 -57 i tekstboka.

Explain to the class, to the best of your ability, what happens in the pictures: “From Morning To Night” page 56-57 in the textbook.

• Grammatikk | Grammar

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

MODALE HJELPEVERB | MODAL AUXILIARY VERBS s. 64, 194 og 199.

Modalverb bruker vi mest i presens og preteritum.

We use modal auxiliary verbs mostly in present and past tense.

Presens: skal

Present: going to/shall/will

Preteritum: skulle ville

Past tense: was going to wanted to had to could have should have

Etter disse bruker vi infinitiv av verbet. Skrives som i presens, men minus –r. After these we use the infinitive of the verb. Written like present tense minus the –r.

Eksempel: å løpe – jeg løper – Jeg skal løpe – Jeg skulle løpe. Example: to run – I’m running – I am going to run – I was going to run.

Vi kan ha navnet på språk etter kan: Jeg kan arabisk. De kan ikke engelsk. We can have the name of languages after “can”: Here it translates to:

I know Arabic. They don’t know English.

Når vi nevner sted, kan vi droppe gå, dra, reise.

When we mention place, we can drop leave, go/walk, travel.

vil må

want to have to/must

kan bør

can should

måtte kunne

burde

Vi kan si:

Han skal dra i butikken. Han må gå til tannlegen. Han vil reise til Australia.

eller: eller: eller:

Han skal i butikken. Han må til tannlegen. Han vil til Australia.

REFLEKSIVT PRONOMEN / REFLEXIVE PRONOUN s. 65, 189-190 i tekstboka.

Jeg vasker meg – I wash (me) myself Jeg sminker meg – I put make-up on Du vasker deg – You wash (you) yourself

Hun vasker seg – She washes (self) herself

Han vasker seg – He washes (self) himself

Vi vasker oss – We wash (us) ourselves

Dere vasker dere – You wash (You) yourselves (Plural) De vasker seg – They wash (self) themselves

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

HUSK å levere innlevering 2! REMEMBER to hand in submission 2!

LEKSE

– Løs oppgave 1 side 59 og oppgave 5-12 s. 60-63 i arbeidsboka.

– Svar på spørsmålene på s.59 i tekstboka. Vi går gjennom de neste gang!

– Repeter og øv videre på grammatikken fra i dag på side 64-66, s.189-190, 194 og 199 i tekstboka

– Studer adverb side 200-201 i tekstboka.

– Studer uttale og uttrykk side 66-67 i tekstboka.

– Tekst: Studer side 60-61, ”Monica kommer for sent”, side 62 og ”På kafé”, side 63 nøye i tekstboken. Hva forstår du? Prøv å oversett.

HOMEWORK

– Solve assignment 1, p. 59 and assignments 5-12 p.60-63 in the workbook.

– Answer questions on p.59 in the textbook. We’ll go through them next time!

– Review and practice on with the grammar from today page 64-66, p.189-190, 194 and 199 in the textbook.

– Study Adverbs page 200 in the textbook.

– Study Pronunciation and Expression pages 66-67 in the textbook.

– Text: Study pages 60-61, “Monica is late“, page 62 and “At a Café”, page 63 closely in the textbook. What do you understand? Try to translate.

Presentasjoner

17.april – Beth, Nadine og Elizabeth
8. mai – Jacob, Pauline, Tianrun, Shamshad, Jet og Susan

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Fjerde leksjon | Session Four

God kveld og velkommen til uke fire! Good evening and welcome to week 4!

Husk! Snakk med naboen din i begynnelsen av timen! Spør han eller henne ”Hvordan går det? ” eller ”Hva har du gjort denne uka?”.

Remember! Talk to your neighbor at the start of class! Ask him or her “How’s it going?” or “What have you done this week?”.

• Vi tar en rask gjennomgang av leksa/prøva: oppgave 1-9, side 21-23 i arbeidsbok. Hvilke var vanskelige? Vi går gjennom de! Spørsmål?

Let’s do a quick review of the homework/test: assignment 1-9, page 21-23 in the workbook. Which were hard? We’ll go through those! Questions?

• Tekst: ‘’Hvordan går det?” på side 28-29 og ”Hvor jobber de?” på side 31 i tekstboka. Høytlesning. Hva forstår du?

Text: “How’s it going?” on p. 28-29 and “Where Are They Working?” on page 31 in the textbook. Read out loud! What do you understand?

• Uttrykk / Sinnsstemning. Expressions / Mood. (side 33 i tekstboka) Samtale i grupper. Conversation in groups.

Hei! Hyggelig å se deg/dere. Hi. Nice to see you/you (dere is Plural). – Takk i like måte! Thank you, the same/likewise!

(The K is pronounced as a hard G and the T is pronounced as a D)

Hvordan går det? How’s it going?

– Det går (ganske)(veldig)(utrolig)(kjempe)bra/dårlig. Hvordan har du det?

– It’s going/I’m(pretty)(very)(extremely) good-great-well/bad. How are you?

Jeg har det (bare) (kjempe-) bra. Jeg er (veldig) trøtt/sliten/lykkelig.

Jeg er litt trist. Jeg er stressa! Jeg er frustrert! Jeg er sur! Jeg er forbanna! Everyone: I’m (all) (very) good. I’m (very) tired/beat or exhausted/happy. I’m a little sad. I’m stressed! I’m frustrated! I’m angry! I’m pissed off!

– Så bra/fint/godt/leit/trist (å høre). Good/nice/shame/sad (to hear).

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

• VERB: side 77 og 194-197 i tekstboka. VERBS: page 77 & 194-197 in the textbook.

INFINITIV: (å) spise, (å) vaske, (å) gå

– Infinitiv med å etter andre verb, preposisjoner og mengdeord: Vi pleier å spise klokka fem. Hun liker å lese. De begynner å forstå. De har mye å gjøre. – Infinitiv uten å etter modalverb: Du må vente. Vi skal spise

INFINITIVE: (to) eat, (to) wash, (to) walk

– Infinitive with to after other verbs, prepositions and quantifying words: We usually eat at five o’clock. She likes to read. They are starting to understand. They have a lot to do.

– Infinitive without to after auxiliaries: You must wait. We shall eat.

IMPERATIV: Spis! Vask! Gå!

Er lik infinitiv minus e.

Vi bruker imperativ når vi vil/ønsker at noen skal gjøre noe. Spis mer frukt! Vask bilen! Gå hjem nå!

IMPERATIVE: Eat! Wash! Walk/Go!

Equals infinitive minus e.

We use imperative when we want/wish that someone will do something. Eat more fruits! Wash the car! Go home now!

PRESENS: spiser, vasker, går

Vi bruker presens om nåtid, om noe som skjer vanligvis, og om framtid. Vi bor i byen. Vi spiser klokka fem. Vi drar på lørdag.

PRESENT TENSE: eating, washing, walking/going

We use the present tense about the present, about something that normally/usually happens, and about future.

We live in the city. We eat at five o’clock. We leave on Saturday.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

PRETERITUM: spiste, vasket, gikk

Vi bruker preteritum om fortid og noe som er slutt, ofte på bestemte tider.

PAST TENSE: ate, washed, walked/went

We use past tense about the past and something that has ended, often at specific times.

PRESENS PERFEKTUM: har spist, har vasket, har gått

Vi bruker presens perfektum om fortid og når vi ikke forteller når noe skjedde, og er mer opptatt av konsekvensene hendelsen/handlingen har. Brukes også om noe som har begynt i fortida, men som ikke er slutt ennå.

PRESENT PERFECT TENSE: have eaten, have washed, have walked

We use the present perfect tense about the past and when we are not telling when something happened, and are more concerned by the consequences the event/action has. Also used about something that has begun in the past, but that is not over yet.

——————————

PRETERITUM

Vi spiste klokka fem. De gikk.

Hun studerte norsk. De bodde her før.

PAST TENSE

We ate at five o’clock They went/walked/left. She studied Norwegian. They lived here before.

PRESENS PERFEKTUM

Vi har spist. (Vi er ikke sultne nå.)

De har gått. (De er ikke her.)

Hun har studert norsk. (Hun kan det.)

De har bodd her i et år nå. (Fortsatt der.)

PRESENT PERFECT TENSE

We have eaten. (We are not hungry now.)

They have gone/left. (They are not here.)

She has studied Norwegian. (She knows it.)

They have lived here for a year now. (Still there.)

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

SVAKE VERB (side 77 og 196) REGULAR VERBS (pages 77 and 196)

Dette er verb med endelse i preteritum.

These are verbs with an ending in past tense.

GRUPPER INFINITIV PRESENS PRETERITUM PRESENS PERFEKTUM

INFINITIVE PRESENT PAST PRESENT PERFECT TENSE

1. –et/-a

(å) vaske

to wash

(å) hente

to get/fetch

(å) fiske

to fish

vasker washing henter getting fisker fishing

vasket/vaska washed hentet/henta got fisket/fiska fished

har vasket/har vaska have washed

har hentet/har henta have gotten

har fisket/har fiska have fished

2. -te

(å) reise

to travel

(å) spise

to eat

(å) bake

to bake

(å) kjøpe

to buy

reiser travelling spiser eating baker baking kjøper buying

reiste travelled spiste ate bakte baked kjøpte bought

har reist

have travelled har spist

have eaten har bakt

have baked har kjøpt have bought

3. -de

(å) veie

to weigh

(å) leve

to live

(å) pleie

to tend

veier weighing lever living pleier tend

veide weighed levde lived pleide tended

har veid

have weighed har levd

have lived har pleid have tended

4. dde (å) bo to live (å) tro

to believe

bor bodde living lived tror trodde believing believed

har bodd have lived har trodd have believed

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Gruppe 1. Slik bøyer vi mange verb som har to konsonanter foran –e i infinitiv. *Disse verbene kan ha –a i stedet for –et (vaska – har vaska)

This is how we conjugate many verbs, which have two consonants in front of –e in infinitive.

Gruppe 2. Slik bøyer vi mange verb som har én konsonant foran –e.

This is how we conjugate many verbs, which have one consonant in front of –e.

Gruppe 3. Slik bøyer vi noen verb som har –v eller –ei foran –e.

This is how we conjugate some verbs, which have –v or –ei in front of –e.

Gruppe 4. Slik bøyer vi noen korte verb som ender på andre vokaler enn –e.

This is how we conjugate some short verbs, which end with other vowels than –e.

——————————

Noen svake verb endrer vokal eller har andre uregelmessigheter:

Some regular verbs change vowels or have other irregularities:

INFINITIV PRESENS PRETERITUM PRESENS PERFEKTUM

(å) fortelle

to tell

(å) fortsette

to continue

(å) gjøre

to do

(å) ha

to have

(å) selge

to sell

(å) sette

to walk/ go

(å) spørre

to ask

(å) velge

to choose

(å) vite

to know

forteller telling fortsetter continuing gjør

doing

har

have selger selling setter walking spør asking velger choosing vet knowing

fortalte told fortsatte continued gjorde did hadde had solgte sold

satt went spurte asked valgte chose visste knew

har fortalt have told

har fortsatt have continued har gjort

have done

har hatt have had har solgt have sold har satt have gone har spurt have asked har valgt have chosen har visste have known

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

STERKE VERB (flere på side 197-198) IRREGULAR VERBS (more on page 197-198) Disse har IKKE endelse i preteritum. These do NOT have an ending in past tense.

INFINITIV PRESENS PRETERITUM PRESENS PERFEKTUM

(å) være

to be

(å) dra

to leave

(å) bli

to become/stay

(å) få

to get

(å) gå

to walk/ go

(å) komme

to walk/ go

(å) le

to laugh

(å) legge

to lay

(å) ligge

to lie

er var

am was

drar dro leaving went blir ble becoming became får fikk getting got

går gikk walking went kommer kom walking went ler lo laughing went legger la laying laid ligger lå lying lay

har vært have been har dratt have gone har blitt have become har fått

have gotten

har gått have gone har kommet have gone har ledd have gone har legget have laid har ligget have lain

Presens futurum: skal spise, skal vaske, skal gå

Skal + infinitiv

Vi bruker presens futurum om framtid, om intensjoner og planer. Når skal vi spise? I dag skal jeg vaske håret. Nå skal jeg gå hjem.

Future Tense: shall/will eat, shall/will wash, shall/will walk/go

Shall/Will + Infinitive

We use the future tense about the future, about intentions and plans. When shall we eat? Today I will wash my hair. Now I will go home.

Uttrykk for en framtid uten plan/med usikkerhet: kommer til å.

Det kommer til å gå bra. De kommer til å klare seg fint.

Expressing the future without a plan/with uncertainty: going to.

It’s going to be okay. They are going to make it/pull through all right.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

LEKSE

– Løs oppgave 11, 13, 14, 17- 21 på side 23-27 i arbeidsboka. – Vi går gjennom oppgave 21 i grupper neste gang.

– Repeter grammatikk; verb og infinitiv på side 194-197 i tekstboka. – Øv grammatikk og uttale: side 42-44, 189 og 200 i tekstboken.

– Tekst: Studer ”På fest” side 34-35 og ”Blir du med på kino?” side 36 i tekstboka. Hva forstår du? Prøv å oversett.

– INNLEVERINGER (1) til neste time:

1. Lag tre utfyllende spørsmål og svar (samtale), som inkluderer det du har lært hittil fra kapittel 1 og 2. Hvis du trenger inspirasjon bruk oppgave 12 på side 24 i arbeidsboka

2. Svar på oppgave 22 på side 28 i arbeidsboka.

Før jeg tar disse inn, kommer vi også til å bruke de til samtale i neste time.

HOMEWORK

– Solve assignments 11, 13, 14, 17-21 on page 23-27 in the workbook. – We will go over assignment 21 in groups next time.

– Review grammar; verbs and infinitive page 194-197 in the textbook.

– Practice grammar and pronunciation: page 42-44, 189 and 200 in the textbook.

– Text: Study “At A Party” page 34-35 and “Do You Want To Come To The Movies?” page 36 in the textbook. What do you understand? Try to translate.

– SUBMISSIONS (1) for next class:

1. Make three detailed questions and full answers (conversation) including what you have learnt so far in Chapter 1 and 2 – if you need inspiration use assignments 12 on page 24 in the workbook.

2. Answer assignments 22 on page 28 in the workbook.

Before I collect these, we will also use them for conversations next time.

Tusen takk for i kveld. Vi sees i neste uke!

A thousand thanks for this eve. We’ll see each other next week!

Fjerde leksjon | Session Four

God kveld og velkommen til uke fire! Good evening and welcome to week 4!

Husk! Snakk med naboen din i begynnelsen av timen! Spør han eller henne ”Hvordan går det? ” eller ”Hva har du gjort denne uka?”.

Remember! Talk to your neighbor at the start of class! Ask him or her “How’s it going?” or “What have you done this week?”.

• Vi tar en rask gjennomgang av leksa/prøva: oppgave 1-9, side 21-23 i arbeidsbok. Hvilke var vanskelige? Vi går gjennom de! Spørsmål?

Let’s do a quick review of the homework/test: assignment 1-9, page 21-23 in the workbook. Which were hard? We’ll go through those! Questions?

• Tekst: ‘’Hvordan går det?” på side 28-29 og ”Hvor jobber de?” på side 31 i tekstboka. Høytlesning. Hva forstår du?

Text: “How’s it going?” on p. 28-29 and “Where Are They Working?” on page 31 in the textbook. Read out loud! What do you understand?

• Uttrykk / Sinnsstemning. Expressions / Mood. (side 33 i tekstboka)

Lærer: Hei! Hyggelig å se dere. Hi. Nice to see you (dere is Plural). – Takk i like måte! Thank you, the same/likewise!

(The K is pronounced as a hard G and the T is pronounced as a D)

Lærer: Hvordan går det? How’s it going?

– Det går (ganske)(veldig)(utrolig)(kjempe)bra/dårlig. Hvordan har du det?

– It’s going/I’m(pretty)(very)(extremely) good-great-well/bad. How are you?

Alle: Jeg har det (bare) (kjempe-) bra. Jeg er trøtt/sliten. Jeg er lykkelig. Jeg er litt trist. Jeg er stressa! Jeg er frustrert! Jeg er sur! Jeg er forbanna!

Everyone: I’m (all) (very) good. I’m tired/beat. I’m happy.

I’m a little sad. I’m stressed! I’m frustrated! I’m angry! I’m pissed off!

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

• VERB side 194-197 i tekstboka. VERBS page 194-197 in the textbook.

Infinitiv: (å) spise, (å) vaske, (å) gå

– Infinitiv med å etter andre verb, preposisjoner og mengdeord: Vi pleier å spise klokka fem. Hun liker å lese. De begynner å forstå. De har mye å gjøre. – Infinitiv uten å etter modalverb: Du må vente. Vi skal spise

Infinitive: (to) eat, (to) wash, (to) walk

– Infinitive with to after other verbs, prepositions and quantifying words: We usually eat at five o’clock. She likes to read. They are starting to understand. They have a lot to do.

– Infinitive without to after auxiliaries: You must wait. We shall eat.

Imperativ: Spis! Vask! Gå!

Vi bruker imperativ når vi ønsker at noen skal gjøre noe. Vask bilen!

Imperative: Eat! Wash! Walk/Go!

We use imperative when we wish someone to do something. Wash the car!

Presens: spiser, vasker, går

Vi bruker presens om nåtid, om noe som skjer vanligvis, og om framtid. Vi bor i byen. Vi spiser klokka fem. Vi drar på lørdag.

Present Tense: eating, washing, walking/going

We use the present tense about the present, about something that normally/usually happens, and about future.

We live in the city. We eat at five o’clock. We leave on Sunday.

Preteritum: spiste, vasket, gikk

Vi bruker preteritum om fortid og noe som er slutt, ofte på bestemte tider.

Subjunctive: ate, washed, walked/went

We use subjunctive about the past and something that has ended, often at specific hours.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Presens perfektum: har spist, har vasket, har gått

Vi bruker presens perfektum om fortid og når vi ikke forteller når noe skjedde, og er mer opptatt av konsekvensene hendelsen/handlingen har. Brukes også om noe som har begynt i fortida, men som ikke er slutt ennå.

Present Perfect Tense: have eaten, have washed, have walked

We use the present perfect tense about the past and when we are not telling when something happened, and are more concerned by the consequences the event/action has. Also used about something that has begun in the past, but that is not over yet.

Preteritum

Vi spiste klokka fem. De gikk.

Hun studerte norsk. De bodde her før.

Presens perfektum

Vi har spist. (Vi er ikke sultne nå.)

De har gått. (De er ikke her.)

Hun har studert norsk. (Hun kan det.)

De har bodd her i et år nå. (Fortsatt der.)

Subjunctive

We ate at five o’clock They went/walked/left. She studied Norwegian. They lived here before.

Present Perfect Tense

We have eaten. (We are not hungry now.)

They have gone/left. (They are not here.)

She has studied Norwegian. (She knows it.)

They have lived here for a year now. (Still there.)

Presens futurum: skal spise, skal vaske, skal gå

Vi bruker presens futurum om framtid, om intensjoner og planer. Når skal vi spise? I dag skal jeg vaske håret. Nå skal jeg gå hjem.

Future Tense: shall/will eat, shall/will wash, shall/will walk/go

We use the future tense about the future, about intentions and plans. When shall we eat? Today I will wash my hair. Now I will go home.

Uttrykk for framtid uten plan: kommer til å

Det kommer til å gå bra. De kommer til å klare seg fint.

Expressing the future without a plan: going to

It is going to be okay. They are going to make it/pull through all right.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

LEKSE

– Løs oppgave 11, 13, 14, 17- 21 på side 23-27 i arbeidsboka. – Vi går gjennom oppgave 21 i grupper neste gang.

– Repeter grammatikk; verb og infinitiv på side 194-197 i tekstboka. – Øv grammatikk og uttale: side 42-44 i tekstboken.

– Tekst: Studer ”På fest” side 34-35 og ”Blir du med på kino?” side 36 i tekstboka. Hva forstår du? Prøv å oversett.

– INNLEVERINGER (1) til neste time: 1. Lag tre utfyllende spørsmål og svar (samtale), som inkluderer det du har lært hittil fra kapittel 1 og 2. Hvis du trenger inspirasjon bruk oppgave 12 på side 24 i arbeidsboka

2. Svar på oppgave 22 på side 28 i arbeidsboka.

Før jeg tar disse inn, kommer vi også til å bruke de til samtale i neste time.

HOMEWORK

– Solve assignments 11, 13, 14, 17-21 on page 23-27 in the workbook. – We will go over assignment 21 in groups next time.

– Review grammar; verbs and infinitive page 194-197 in the textbook. – Practice grammar and pronunciation: p.42-44 in the textbook

– Text: Study “At A Party” page 34-35 and “Do You Want To Come To The Movies?” page 36 in the textbook. What do you understand? Try to translate.

– SUBMISSIONS (1) for next class: 1. Make three detailed questions and full answers (conversation) including what you have learnt so far in Chapter 1 and 2 – if you need inspiration use assignments 12 on page 24 in the workbook. 2. Answer assignments 22 on page 28 in the workbook.

Before I collect these, we will also use them for conversations next time.

_________________________________

Tusen takk for i kveld. Vi sees i neste uke!

A thousand thanks for this eve. We’ll see each other next week!

Andre Leksjon
Session Two
Velkommen tilbake!
Welcome back!

• Spørsmål om leksa: oppgave 1-5, side 7-9 + oppgave 8, side 10 + oppgave 10, side 11 i arbeidsboka. Vi går over det som var vanskelig!
Questions about the homework: assignment 1-5, page 7-9 + assignment 8, page 10 + assignment 10, page 11 in the workbook.
Let’s go over what was hard!
• Gjennomgang av uttrykk , side 23 i tekstboka. Go over expressions: page 23 in the textbook.
• Da går vi videre med en liten samtale basert på hjemmeleksen og side 14- 15 og 17-18 i tekstbok. Jeg begynner! Dere fortsetter i grupper.
Next we’ll go on with a little conversation based on the homework and page 14-15 and 17-18 in the textbook. I’ll start! You’ll continue in groups.

Andre Leksjon | Session Two Velkommen tilbake! Welcome back!
• Spørsmål om leksa: oppgave 1-5, side 7-9 + oppgave 8, side 10 + oppgave 10, side 11 i arbeidsboka. Vi går over det som var vanskelig!
Questions about the homework: assignment 1-5, page 7-9 + assignment 8, page 10 + assignment 10, page 11 in the workbook.
Let’s go over what was hard!
• Gjennomgang av uttrykk , side 23 i tekstboka. Go over expressions: page 23 in the textbook.
• Da går vi videre med en liten samtale basert på hjemmeleksen og side 14- 15 og 17-18 i tekstbok. Jeg begynner! Dere fortsetter i grupper.
Next we’ll go on with a little conversation based on the homework and page 14-15 and 17-18 in the textbook. I’ll start! You’ll continue in groups.

Andre Leksjon | Session Two Velkommen tilbake! Welcome back!
• Spørsmål om leksa: oppgave 1-5, side 7-9 + oppgave 8, side 10 + oppgave 10, side 11 i arbeidsboka. Vi går over det som var vanskelig!
Questions about the homework: assignment 1-5, page 7-9 + assignment 8, page 10 + assignment 10, page 11 in the workbook.
Let’s go over what was hard!
• Gjennomgang av uttrykk , side 23 i tekstboka. Go over expressions: page 23 in the textbook.
• Da går vi videre med en liten samtale basert på hjemmeleksen og side 14- 15 og 17-18 i tekstbok. Jeg begynner! Dere fortsetter i grupper.
Next we’ll go on with a little conversation based on the homework and page 14-15 and 17-18 in the textbook. I’ll start! You’ll continue in groups.

orsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)
Verbet kommer på plass 2 istedenfor plass 3 på engelsk.
The verb comes second instead of third in English.

1 2 (VERB) Hun kommer
Nå bor
1 2
She doesn’t Now he
ikke fra han
3 (VERB)
come lives
Norge.
i Norge.
from Norway. in Norway.
OBS! OG & MEN knytter sammen setninger. NOTE! AND & BUT connect sentences.
• Tekst: ”Sammendrag”, side 18, ”Hvordan staver du det?” side 19 og ”På norskkurs”, side 20 i tekstboka.
Alle leser høyt. Hva forstår du? Spørsmål?
Text: “Summary”, page 18, “How Do You Spell That”, page 19 and “At the Norwegian language course”, p. 20 in the textbook. Everyone reads out loud. What do you understand? Questions?

ALFABETET, VOKALENE, KONSONANTENE OG SPESIELLE KOMBINASJONER!
Side 10-11 i tekstboka.
ALPHABET, VOWELS, CONSONANTS & SPECIAL COMBINATIONS (DIPHTHONGS)!
Page 10-12 in the textbook.
Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)
KORTE og LANGE VOKALER! Side 10 i tekstboka.
En kort vokal har vanligvis to konsonanter etter. I tekstbok ordlista er denne forklart med en •. Katt, legge, inne, rom, Unni, fylle, færre, øst, åtte.
En lang vokal er som regel til slutt i ordet, og når det er bare en konsonant etter. I tekstbok ordlista er denne forklart med en _.
Tak, lege, mine, Polen, hus, by, fæl, øve, Åse.
I noen ord uttaler vi O som Å og U som O. O > Å: komme, sommer, Tom
U > O: ung, tung, dum
SHORT and LONG VOWELS! Page 10 in the textbook.
A short vowel normally has two consonants after.
In the textbook dictionary a short vowel is explained with •. Cat, lay, inside, room, Unni, fill, less, east, eight.
A long vowel is normally at the end of a word and when there is only one consonant after. In the textbook dictionary a long vowel is explained with _. Roof, doctor, mine, Poland, house, city, nasty, practice, Åse.
In some words we pronounce an O as an Å and a U as an O. O > Å: come, summer, Tom
U > O: young, heavy, dumb
KONSONANTER – ANNEN UTTALE Side 10 i tekstboka. Foran e, i og y uttaler vi ofte g som j: geit, gi, gift, begynne. I noen fremmedord uttaler vi g som ƒ: giro, generell.
CONSONANTS – DIFFERENT PRONUNCIATION! Page 10 in the textbook.
In front of e, i and y, we often enunciate g as j: goat, give, married/poison, start. In some foreign words we enunciate g as ƒ: invoice, general.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)
LEKSE
– Løs oppgave 13-18 side 12-15 i arbeidsboka.
– Vi går gjennom oppgave 18 i grupper neste gang.
– Repeter uttale, grammatikk og uttrykk , side 10-11 og 22 -23 i tekstboka.
– Tekst: Studer ”Hva gjør du?”, side 25 og ”Haifa snakker med Magnus” side 27 i tekstboka. Hva forstår du? Prøv å oversett.
– FORBERED til neste time: Forklar meg, så godt du klarer, hva som skjer fra bilde til bilde på side 26 i tekstboka.
+ Finn trivia/en “rar” eller morsom ting / informasjon om Norge som du vil dele med klassen.
HOMEWORK
– Solve assignment 13-18, page 12-15 in the workbook. – We will go over assignment 18 in groups next time.
– Review pronunciation, grammar and expressions: p.10-11 and 22-23 in the textbook.
– Text: Study “What are you doing?” page 25 and “Haifa Speaks With Magnus?” page 27 in the textbook. What do you understand? Try to translate.
– PREPARE for next time: Explain to me, to the best of your ability, what happens from picture to picture on page 26 in the textbook.
+ Find some trivia / a “weird” or funny thing / info about Norway you want to share with the class.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Hver uke skal dere lære dere ett nytt spørsmål og svar hjemme, som vi kan ha med oss inn i klassen til starten av timen. Det kan handle om mat, hva dere har gjort, aktiviteter, hobbyer, jobb etc. HUSK å skrive den ned i notatboken deres.
Every week we are going to learn one new question and answer at home, which we will bring with us to class. It could be about food, what you have done, activities, hobbies, work etc. REMEMBER to write the sentence down in your notebook.

HUSK! DUOLINGO og GLOSEBOK for alle nye ord dere kommer over! REMEMBER! DUOLINGO & GLOSSARY to write all the new words you come over!

HUSK å bruke: ORDLISTE for kapitlene side 204à214 i tekstboka.
Alfabetisk ORDLISTE side 215à222 i tekstboka. Inkluderer substantivbøyning.
DICTIONARY chapter by chapter page 204à214 in the textbook. Alphabetical DICTIONARY page 215à222 in the textbook. Includes gender conjugation of nouns.
Lydopptak av samtaler hvis ønskelig. Recording of conversations if desirable. Takk for i dag. Sees i neste uke! Thank you for today. See you next week!

KORTE og LANGE VOKALER! Side 10 i tekstboka.
En kort vokal har vanligvis to konsonanter etter. I tekstbok ordlista er denne forklart med en •. Katt, legge, inne, rom, Unni, fylle, færre, øst, åtte.
En lang vokal er som regel til slutt i ordet, og når det er bare en konsonant etter. I tekstbok ordlista er denne forklart med en _.
Tak, lege, mine, Polen, hus, by, fæl, øve, Åse.
I noen ord uttaler vi O som Å og U som O. O > Å: komme, sommer, Tom
U > O: ung, tung, dum
SHORT and LONG VOWELS! Page 10 in the textbook.
A short vowel normally has two consonants after.
In the textbook dictionary a short vowel is explained with •. Cat, lay, inside, room, Unni, fill, less, east, eight.
A long vowel is normally at the end of a word and when there is only one consonant after. In the textbook dictionary a long vowel is explained with _. Roof, doctor, mine, Poland, house, city, nasty, practice, Åse.
In some words we pronounce an O as an Å and a U as an O. O > Å: come, summer, Tom
U > O: young, heavy, dumb

KONSONANTER – ANNEN UTTALE Side 10 i tekstboka. Foran e, i og y uttaler vi ofte g som j: geit, gi, gift, begynne. I noen fremmedord uttaler vi g som ƒ: giro, generell.
CONSONANTS – DIFFERENT PRONUNCIATION! Page 10 in the textbook.
In front of e, i and y, we often enunciate g as j: goat, give, married/poison, start. In some foreign words we enunciate g as ƒ: invoice, general.
Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)
LEKSE
– Løs oppgave 13-18 side 12-15 i arbeidsboka.
– Vi går gjennom oppgave 18 i grupper neste gang.
– Repeter uttale, grammatikk og uttrykk , side 10-11 og 22 -23 i tekstboka.
– Tekst: Studer ”Hva gjør du?”, side 25 og ”Haifa snakker med Magnus” side 27 i tekstboka. Hva forstår du? Prøv å oversett.
– FORBERED til neste time: Forklar meg, så godt du klarer, hva som skjer fra bilde til bilde på side 26 i tekstboka.
+ Finn trivia/en “rar” eller morsom ting / informasjon om Norge som du vil dele med klassen.
HOMEWORK
– Solve assignment 13-18, page 12-15 in the workbook. – We will go over assignment 18 in groups next time.
– Review pronunciation, grammar and expressions: p.10-11 and 22-23 in the textbook.
– Text: Study “What are you doing?” page 25 and “Haifa Speaks With Magnus?” page 27 in the textbook. What do you understand? Try to translate.
– PREPARE for next time: Explain to me, to the best of your ability, what happens from picture to picture on page 26 in the textbook.
+ Find some trivia / a “weird” or funny thing / info about Norway you want to share with the class.

Norsk I (Norwegian I) – Våren 2017 (Spring 2017)

Hver uke skal dere lære dere ett nytt spørsmål og svar hjemme, som vi kan ha med oss inn i klassen til starten av timen. Det kan handle om mat, hva dere har gjort, aktiviteter, hobbyer, jobb etc. HUSK å skrive den ned i notatboken deres.
Every week we are going to learn one new question and answer at home, which we will bring with us to class. It could be about food, what you have done, activities, hobbies, work etc. REMEMBER to write the sentence down in your notebook.

HUSK! DUOLINGO og GLOSEBOK for alle nye ord dere kommer over! REMEMBER! DUOLINGO & GLOSSARY to write all the new words you come over!

HUSK å bruke: ORDLISTE for kapitlene side 204à214 i tekstboka.
Alfabetisk ORDLISTE side 215à222 i tekstboka. Inkluderer substantivbøyning.
DICTIONARY chapter by chapter page 204à214 in the textbook. Alphabetical DICTIONARY page 215à222 in the textbook. Includes gender conjugation of nouns.
Lydopptak av samtaler hvis ønskelig. Recording of conversations if desirable. Takk for i dag. Sees i neste uke! Thank you for today. See you next week!

4

Osmund H (1822-1912)
b. 1822 Skåre parish, Haugesund, Rogaland
d. 1912 Stavanger

Elen Pauline Erensdatter (1830-1915)
d. Stavanger, Rogaland

Johannes Rasmussen
b. circa 1845

Luise Mathilda Nilsatter
b. 1850 Eid i Fjellberg, Stord, Hordaland fylke

5

Knut Gautsen Hagland
b. 1779 Nordre Våge, Sveio, Hordaland
d. 1863 Hagland Store, Skåre, Haugesund

Sara Osmundsdatter Sørvåg (1782-1859)
b. 1782 Sørvåg, Rogaland
d. Hagland Store, Skåre, Haugesund, Rogaland

6

Gaut Olsen Kalland
b. 1750 Kalland, Sogn og Fjordane
d. 1803 Hagland Store, Skåre, Haugesund

Osmund Olsen Sørvåg
b. 1744 Sørvåg, Avaldsnes
d. 1802 Sørvåg, Avaldsnes

Johannes Helgesson
b. 1781 Litlebø, Hordaland
d. 1879

7

Ola Ommundsson Kvala
b. 1718 Kvalavåg, Rogaland
d. 1799 Hagland Store, Skåre, Rogaland

Kari Jonsdotter Røvaer
b. 1708 Røvaer, Skåre, Rogaland
d. 1763 Kalland, Skåre, Haugesund, Rogaland

Helge Jensson
b. 1747 Stord, Hordaland
d. 1797 Nedre Litlebø, Stord, Hordaland

Knud Helgesen
b. 1722 Stavanger, Rogaland
d. 1807

Berthe Roaldsdatter
d. 1750

8

Ommund Rasmussen Vikse
b. circa 1683 Søre Vikse, Skåre, Rogaland
d. circa 1722 Kvala, Skåre, Rogaland

Pernille Olsdotter
d. circa 1763 Kvala, Skåre, Rogaland

Jon Endresen Røvaer
b. 1668 Røvaer, Skåre, Rogaland
d. 1740 Røvaer, Skåre, Rogaland

Jens Olsson
b. 1715 Opsanger, Kvinnherad, Hordaland
d. 1797 Horneland, Stord, Hordaland

Mari Reinertsdatter
b. 1710 Agdestein, Stord, Hordaland
d. 1780 Horneland, Stord, Hordaland

9

Rasmus Knutsen Vikse
b. circa 1650 Søre Vikse, Skåre, Rogaland
d. before 1717 Søre Vikse, Skåre, Rogaland

Malena Ommundsdotter Storasund
b. 1650 Storesund, Skåre, Rogaland
d. before 1695 Søre Vikse, Skåre, Rogaland

Endre Jonsen Røvaer
b. 1625 Røvaer, Skåre, Rogaland
d. 1705 Røvaer, Skåre, Rogaland

Tyri Larsdatter
b. 1660 Avaldsnes, Rogaland
d. 1728 Skåre, Rogaland

Ole Damsson
b. obsanger, Kvinnherad, Hordaland

Reinert Andersen Agdestein
b. 1665 Agdestein, Stord, Hordaland
d. 1745 Agdestein, Stord, Hordaland

10

Knut Olsen Søre Vikse
b. 1608
d. circa 1650 Søre Vikse, Skåre, Rogaland

Ommund Olsen
b. 1625 Storasund, Torvastad, Rogaland
d. 1650 Storesund, Skåre, Haugesund, Rogaland

Bergitta Kristoffersdatter
b. 1625 Rossabø, Skåre, Rogaland
d. 1665 Storesund, Skåre, Haugesund, Rogaland

Jon Torgesen Røvaer
b. 1595
d. 1706

Lars Knutson
b. 1626 Nesheim, Rogaland
d. 1668 Nesheim, Rogaland

Dam  Andersson Damsson
b. Danmark, Uppsala, Sweden

Anders Reinertsen Romsø
b. 1630 Romsø, Olen, Rogaland
d. 1711 Agdestein, Hordaland

Anna Jeronymusdatter
b. 1635 Agdestein, Hordaland
d. 1662 Agdestein, Hordaland

Ingemår Olson Valhammar
b. 1654 Valhammar, Austevoll, Hordaland
d. 1711 Helland, Fitjar, Hordaland

11

Kristoffer Hanssen
b. 1594 Austrheim, Avaldsnes, Rogaland
d. 1655 Rossabø, Skåre, Rogaland

NN Rasmusdatter
b. 1590

Reinert Sveinsson Vogt Romsø
b. 1600 Romsø, Olen, Rogaland
d. 1662 Ølen, Hordaland

Susanne Rasmusdotter Hogganvik
b. 1609 Tysvær, Rogaland
d. 1670

Torger Røvær
b. 1570
d. 1603 Røvær, Skåre, Haugesund, Rogaland

12

Hans Simonsen Avaldnsnes
b. 1560 Avaldsnes, Rogaland
d. 1621 Austrei, Stangaland, Karmøy, Rogaland

Magdalene Andersdatter Avaldsnes
b. 1560 Avaldsnes, Rogaland
d. 1629 Austrei, Stangaland, Karmøy, Rogaland

Svend Hansson Vogt
b. Germany
d. 1634 Stavanger, Rogaland

Kristine Østensdatter Egenes
b. 1578

Rasmus Olsson Hauskje
b. Ukjent Opphav
d. 1615 Rennesøy, Rogaland

Katrine Johannesdatter
d. 1661 Rennesøy, Rogaland

13

Simon Skolemester
b. 1540 Stavanger
d. 1608

Østen Jonsson Egenes
b. 1530 Stavanger, Rogaland
d. Stokka, Rogaland

Magdalena Stokke
b. 1534 Stavanger, Rogaland
d. 1607 Stavanger, Rogaland

14

Jostein Haug

Old Norse vocabulary

from Dr. Jackson Crawford (“Drengr: The Ultimate Viking Compliment”)

gangleri = wanderer, seeker
grímr = grim
fjǫlsviðr  = wise man
ófnir = gelding
sviðurr  =wise
saðr = truth
gǫndlir = wand bearer
ómi = speaker
drengr = warrior, soldier, ‘badass’; from Proto-Germanic drangijaz (staff, stake, man, servant)
goðr drengr = good drengr
inn bezti drengr = the best drengr
drengskapr = state of being a drengr, a man’s honor
skǫrungr = drengr (woman) with extra or exceptional talent

The post Norsk appeared first on Pauline Park.

“What is definitely off-target is the notion, which the New York Times repeated Saturday but certainly didn’t invent, that ‘more managerial’ appointees are somehow ideologically neutral. This misconception underlay a lot of the skewed analysis of the Bloomberg administration, which was seen as apolitical, as merely interested in unimpeachable goals like efficiency and transparency,” writes Jarrett Murphy (“De Blasio’s Cabinet Is Dominated by Lefties. Wait. Really?,” the Nation, 3 March 2014). Murphy was responding to Nikita Stewart, who wrote, incredibly enough, “In Bill de Blasio’s City Hall, it seems more and more, there is only a left wing. The mayor, who advanced in politics by grass-roots organizing, has built a team filled with former activists” (“De Blasio Picks More Liberal Activists Than Managers for City Posts,” New York Times, 1 March 2014).

Stewart’s entire article seems to be a generalization based on just one appointment — that of Steven Banks as commissioner of the city’s Human Resources Administration — who strikes me as the exception that proves the rule; he’s the only activist I’ve heard that de Blasio has appointed to his administration, which is filled with City Hall insiders and Bloomberg administration re-treads. Carmen Fariña, his schools chancellor, is the only other interesting appointee in the entire administration, which is chock-full of establishment types. What I see is a new mayor setting a slightly different tone but apparently determined to continue to pursue Bloomberg administration policies in most areas with Bloomberg’s people in charge in many.

The New York Times got it doubly wrong, both in pegging the de Blasio administration as being a bunch of leftist activists and also in characterizing the Bloomberg administration as a group of politically neutral technocrats. Bloomberg articulated and enforced an ideology of authoritarian plutocracy, using the resources of the City of New York to enrich the already rich and the super-rich at the expense of everyone else; and except for the presence of two or three activist types, de Blasio’s new administration is not much different from Bloomberg’s in terms of actual policy output. But why should anyone be surprised by the Times getting it wrong this time around? The Times has never been all that interested in the city in which it’s based, except as a source of revenue; no one turns to the Times for coverage of local politics & policy issues, because it just isn’t there and when it is, it’s almost always wrong. The Old Gray Lady is too comfortable being part of the 1% elite to condescend to consider the real world the rest of us New Yorkers live in~!

The post Bloomberg, de Blasio & the New York Times appeared first on Pauline Park.

“Would a BBC interviewer be willing to hand over half of Britain to people who made a habit of killing Britons? That was the question Habayit Hayehudi chairman Naftali Bennett posed on BBC’s ‘Hard Talk’ on Tuesday, when interviewer Stephen Sackur asked about Bennett’s objection to granting Palestinians sovereignty,” Ha’aretz is reporting (“Bennett to BBC: Would  you hand over half of Britain?,” Ha’aretz, 25 February 2014).

Bennett’s question makes clear that he’s either entirely ignorant of British history or willfully unable to see the irony of his ridiculous query. (I won’t even get into the whole history of British Mandate Palestine here and the Balfour Declaration and the irony of an Israeli government minister challenging a BBC reporter on whether he’d give up half the United Kingdom, given that it was British imperialism that indirectly led to the creation of the state of Israel.)

There is in fact an active movement aiming at Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, which was formalized a century after James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from Elizabeth Tudor based on arcane rules of dynastic succession — and only after the execution of his mother (Mary, Queen of Scots) after 19 years of imprisonment in various English castles. Wales, on the other hand, was a Celtic country conquered by force of arms by the English in the 13th century and therefore much closer to an analogy with the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem, which were seized by force of arms by Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967.

Actually, the most interesting parallel between Israel/Palestine and the UK is with Northern Ireland, which was settled by Protestants under James I of England (James VI of Scotland); the Ulster Plantation led to a long and tragic history for the province; but unlike in Palestine, there seems to be a tentative peace settlement that might actually hold. If Israel’s leaders only showed the foresight and the courage to reach a comprehensive peace settlement, Palestinians could live in peace and freedom side by side with Israelis, whose security can only be secured through the liberation of the Palestinian people~!

The post Israel/Palestine & the not-so-United Kingdom appeared first on Pauline Park.

The author, Pauline Park, at the gap in the separation wall at Al-Wallaja east of the Israeli frontier. (Photo courtesy Park)

Pinkwashing & Israeli occupation – not so complicated
By Pauline Park
Washington Blade
January 6, 2014

“The concept of ‘pinkwashing’ emerged as a hot topic throughout the week,” Kevin Naff wrote of his participation as part of “a delegation of nine LGBT leaders from the United States” to Israel in November (“Israel as ‘gay heaven’? It’s complicated,” Times of Israel, Nov. 10). The delegation tour was sponsored by Project Interchange, a program of the American Jewish Committee, which is aggressive in its defense of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Naff quotes a speaker who addressed the group, Gal Uchovsky, as telling the delegates “that we had arrived in ‘gay heaven’” and that Israel is “the best LGBT country in the world” whose “LGBT residents face no serious problems that he could identify.” My Israeli friends would certainly contest Uchovsky’s absurd claim that LGBT Israelis “face no serious problems.” Fortuntely, Naff was able to recognize Uchovsky’s propaganda for what it was.

One would get a very different impression speaking primarily or exclusively with wealthy gay Jewish Israeli men in North Tel Aviv — as Naff and his fellow delegates seem to have done — than if one spoke with LGBT Israelis from more marginalized communities, including lesbians and bisexuals, who often feel marginalized by gay men in Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel; transgendered women, who face police harassment and brutality in Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel just as they do in New York and other U.S. cities; Israelis who face discrimination because of their of Mizrahi (Sephardic) Jewish ethnic origins; or refugees from Africa and elsewhere who may be LGBT (though not necessarily openly so) but who have no right to remain in Israel, because the state of Israel does not recognize non-Jewish economic refugees or those fleeing political persecution — regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

And that’s not even to mention the pervasive discrimination that Palestinians with Israeli citizenship face. As Prof. David Lloyd argued persuasively in a December 2013 analysis for the Electronic Intifada, the crucial distinction between “citizenship” (ezrahut) and “nationality” (le’um) in Israeli law privileges Jewish Israelis over Palestinians living in Israel because “citizenship” is in effect a second-class citizenship without nationality status.

“Some critics claim the country’s embrace of LGBT rights is merely a propaganda effort to claim the mantle of modernity and establish a stark contrast to homophobic regimes in the West Bank, Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East,” Naff writes. In doing so, Naff is in fact rearticulating the very discourse in which Uchovsky was engaging in when describing Israel as a gay paradise — the attempt to use Israel’s record on gay rights (supposedly better than that of its Arab and Muslim neighbors) as a justification for an Israeli occupation that is illegal under international law, or at the very least as a means to distract attention from it.

Naff’s delegation appears to have met with only one Palestinian — “a scholar and Fatah and PLO adviser,” Abu Zayyad. But meeting with a single official with the Palestinian Authority — widely viewed by many West Bank Palestinians as little more than a tool of the Israeli occupation — hardly constitutes balance when the rest of the tour was devoted to meeting with LGBT Israelis and Israeli officials.

“The focus of the visit — LGBT issues — was often overshadowed by the frustrating stalemate of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why can’t the two sides come to an agreement on a two-state solution? It’s complicated,” Naff writes. And yet, is the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine really that complicated? For all of the complications and complexities of the situation, it is at root quite simple: the indigenous people who have lived in Palestine for centuries are being systematically dispossessed of their land and their rights by a foreign military occupation that is illegal under international law and that even the United States does not recognize as legitimate. And that occupation makes no exception for Palestinians who might be LGBT/queer, who face the same restrictions and daily humiliations living under Israeli occupation as non-LGBT Palestinians. And contrary to propaganda in circulation, Israel is not and cannot be a haven or a refuge for LGBT Palestinians because there is no such thing as refugee status for non-Jews in Israel, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Rather than hearing pinkwashing propaganda from the likes of Gal Uchovsky, Naff and his colleagues would have learned far more if they had met with Palestinian villagers and farmers under siege from Israeli settlers and the Israeli military in the West Bank, as I have. I participated in the first U.S. LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine in January 2012 and met with many Palestinians — both LGBT and non-LGBT — throughout the West Bank, from Nablus in the north to Hebron in the south and Ramallah in between. Staying two nights with a Palestinian family in Dheishe in Bethelem, one of the largest refugee camps in the West Bank, I had the opportunity to speak at length with Palestinians about conditions in the occupied territories.

Naff expresses his disappointment with the decision of alQaws and Aswat to decline the invitation to meet with his delegation. AlQaws and Aswat, two of the leading Palestinian LGBT groups, are doing vital work on behalf of queer Palestinians under extremely difficult circumstances that no U.S.-based LGBT organization has to face. The 16 members of my delegation met with members of both alQaws and Aswat for extensive discussions about the impact of the occupation on LGBT Palestinians, and those discussions were productive and enlightening. It seems to me that Naff’s group of relatively privileged LGBT Americans should have recognized how problematic it was to demand that LGBT/queer Palestinians either facing pervasive discrimination within Israel or living under a crushing foreign military occupation in the West Bank engage them in dialogue, which is the privilege of the powerful. True dialogue is simply not possible when one party is holding a gun to the other’s head, which is what “dialogue” with a people living under a brutal and illegal military occupation represents.

I might add that members of Naff’s delegation could have found opportunities to engage with LGBT/queer Palestinians even before leaving the U.S. and could do so now that they are back from their tour; they can also feel free to engage members of New York City Queers Against Israeli Apartheid if they wish to hear our views on Palestinians and the Israeli occupation.

The conclusion I have come to is that pinkwashing does nothing for queer Palestinians and arguably makes things worse by generating more support for Israel and the occupation in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. The liberation of queer Palestinians is inseparable from that of Palestinian society as a whole; whatever privileges wealthy gay Jewish Israeli men may enjoy in the affluent districts of North Tel Aviv do nothing for queer Palestinians being crushed by a brutal and illegal foreign military occupation that is daily dispossessing more and more Palestinians of their lands and their homes.

Given the intransigence of the government of Binyamin Netanyahu — the most right-wing prime minister in Israeli history — and his determination to move forward with the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem and the de facto annexation of the West Bank, it seems to me that only boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against apartheid Israel will advance the cause of the peaceful resolution of the impasse that the Israeli government itself has created with its endless occupation of Palestine and construction of an apartheid regime.

Pauline Park is a member of New York City Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, founded in 2011. She was a member of the first U.S. LGBTQ delegation to Palestine in January 2012.

(Kevin Naff responds: After members of our LGBT delegation expressed concerns that we were not given access to more of the Palestinian perspective, Project Interchange arranged a follow-up conference call in November with Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research. I shared Pauline Park’s concerns over pinkwashing, but Project Interchange worked hard to present a balanced itinerary, which included visits to the West Bank, Ramallah and the edge of the Gaza Strip. I welcome Park’s invitation to learn more about NYCQAIA and will follow up with her.)

This op-ed was published by the Washington Blade and appeared in the 6 January 2014 issue of the paper.

The post Pinkwashing & Israeli Occupation (Washington Blade op-ed, 1.6.14) appeared first on Pauline Park.