Male homosexuality was punishable under section 175 of the German Penal Code. The section was not officially repealed until 1969 for those over 21. The number of those imprisioned with the "Pink Triangle" may have been as high as 60,000. Strangely, there was no specific regulations against gays in the Wehrmacht, but they could be prosecuted under Civilian law and sent to punishment battalions.

Skepticol - That's actually the first I've ever of that, and I'm reasonably familiar with the scholarship on the topic. The allegation requires closer examination before it can be taken at face value. What was the "full term of their sentence" in a death camp, I wonder? I strongly doubt those specifically wearing the pink triangle were kept in the camps or transferred to civilian prisons as a matter of Allied policy, although in some cases internees were kept in situ while receiving food and medical aid, simply because there was no place for them to go while hostilities were still ongoing. Most liberated internees simply wondered around the country side trying not to get shot and scavenging farmers fields in the initial weeks after liberation.

The above is a fair list, but a lot of these date-and-factoid lists are cut-&-paste jobs from other uncredited internet sources. I remember when the Ubyssey student paper unwittingly included Nazi brown shirt leader Erst Rohm on a cover list extolling historic gay VIPs, a canned list the Ubyssey had evidently simply pulled off an internet site (and Ernst Rohm was indeed homosexual, to be fair to the Ubyssey). The campus Hillel House quite properly politely but firmly objected, and the Ubyssey and Pride UBC prompltly responded with the correct noises to indicate contrition on their part.

Interestingly the first real "queer movement" began in Germany in the late 19th century under the leadership of pioneer sexologist and gay rights advocate Magnus Hirschfeld. It really got underway in the Weimar Republic (the liberal democratic regime established in Germany during the inter-war years). Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee (1897) and the Institute for Sexual Research (1919), which was suppressed by the Nazis when they came to power in 1933. Hirschfeld was lecturing abroad at the time, and chose not to return to Germany. He died in 1935.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld

Similar immitative movements sprang up in other cultural centres (Freud's Vienna, for example), so Sweden was a latecomer to the Germanic sexual liberation movement (which wouldn't hit the anal-retentive Anglosphere until the late 1960's). Sweden tends to be granted firstcomer status for no apparent reason other than that it is the darling of the North American liberal-Left.

I'm a little disappointed that The Tyee couldn't manage to mark the occasion with something a little more thoughtful or indicative of effort than a simple chronological compilation, but beggers can't be choosers I guess. I've noticed The Tyee steps very softly on queer issues, if it touches them at all.

Thanks, Nightbloom, for your thoughtful observations. As a Tyee contributing editor, I'll defend the effort, though, of the person who put the list together. It was a lot of work, and was undertaken for a couple of reasons. One is to put BC's history in an international context. Another is to put change in North America and Europe in perspective. A third is that creating such a list in a forum such as The Tyee creates an opportunity for elaboration and correction. We think it's a useful and, because of its BC content, unique Internet resource. It's also deliberately a little different than the usual Tyee essay. I'm curious to know what other readers think of this sort of content as part of the mix, and curious to see if it takes discussion away from the occasional comments habit of six people talking loudly to each other. As for more queer content on The Tyee, I'm all in favour of it. I hope the upcoming review of Fun Home is just one more step into an area where we could definitely offer more content.

Nachtblüte wrote:

Doubts? See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/paragraph_175,3.html

The above sources are appropriately credited.

See STRANGERS: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century by Graham Robb. The efforts of Edward Carpenter and Karl Heinrich Ulrichs pre-date those of Hirschfeld. In 1883 the government of Japan decriminalized consensual sex between men 16 or older.

In 1945, the Quaker Emergency Committee of New York City established a center where young people arrested on same-sex charges could go for assistance and counseling. It was the first social welfare agency for gay men and lesbians in North America.

I think the summary of events over the years that started this chain of comments was a good one. A lot of us forget the problems men and women who want to, expect to, and damn well should be treated equal as everyone else.

We all know some folks who happen to be gay. Most families will have gays in their families.

Let's get over the concern that some male or female person might come and hit on us. Never happened to me. Nor to most anyone else.

My wife and I used to enjoy going to the gay parade in Vancouver each year. The folks who dress up were always neat to watch and we would all clap to their antics. Even more interesting was the straight family folks who walked along in the parade or called out from the sidewalk to support the folks.

I do recall a woman I worked for, who happened to be a lesbian, asking me at one of the parades. "How is it thatyou and your wife come out to support us?" Our answer was pretty short. Why not?

Let's all grow up a bit.

Mr. Campbell - Thanks for the feedback, and Rob Peters did do good work with his compilation - it's one of the more comprehensive post-war chronologies I've seen.

Bluenose - Thanks for the new info - I learned something. The Quakers - who would'a thought? The point about the Japanese is fascinating, particularly in the current context, where much of the militant opposition to same sex rights here in Canada is originating from asian minority groups. Check out demographics at the anti-gay demonstrations - you can't miss it. Modernity is a work in progress I guess.

If The Tyee does venture more queer content, that would be great, although I hope it doesn't succumb to the bland cheerleading that now saturates the gay press to the virtual exclusion of all else. Sometimes its helpful to mix in a little constructive critique in with the "constituency consolidation" efforts in liberal-Left media and fora. This is especially important when it's not happening inside the community echo-chamber itself.

Thanks! =)

Right On!
Anything that keeps pounding home the point that this is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue is worthwhile and deserves support and encouragement.

Despite my own wish that I’d prefer the ‘love that dares not speak its name’ would occasionally shout a little less loudly, I’m all in favour of anything that opens people’s eyes and expands their horizons.

Given the regressive tendencies in the US and the 'character' of the current Canadian Government, I hope the Tyee will follow up with more thoughtful stuff.

Nightbloom wrote:

Most liberal (unprogrammed) Quaker communities have generally affirmed the value of same-sex relationships since the publication in 1963 of the book Towards a Quaker View of Sex (published by the British Quakers).

I think it is important not to blend, merge, and conflate Asian cultures. Japanese or Thai culture is not the same as Korean or Vietnamese culture. In fact the differences can be quite drastic. Southeast Asian culture is generally much more open toward same-sex relationships than (for example) the culture of mainland China. See for example:

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/qb/articleFile.php?searchterm=3-1-4

Japan is a different case altogether:

http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/issue3/mclelland2.html

http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/issue7/roberson_review.html

Neither my partner nor I have ever been to Asia but we have had many Asian friends and acquaintances over the years and their attitudes toward us have varied widely. Most Japanese have been very friendly and almost familial in many cases. On the other hand -- we have been met with barely concealed hostility from many in the Chinese community (although there have been some notable exceptions). Most of the hostility seems to have come from members of the Chinese evangelical Christian or Catholic communities. In these cases I suspect it may be less a hallmark of Chinese culture than a symptom of religious indoctrination. I don't think it is a matter of modernity in conflict with Asian culture -- I think it is a matter of modernity in conflict with patriarchal religious doctrine (which can in some cases include Buddhist interpretations of scripture as well).

I have one question... I thought the BC government allowed gays to adopt children in 1995 as well? I seem to remember that it wasn't an option when my son was born, but shortly after he was born, the laws changed....not too sure though, that was a hectic time- with a newborn and such. Neets

Nachtblüte
Interesting piece by Tina Rosenberg in today's New York Times Magazine entitled "When a pill is not enought".

Wouldn't want you to miss it.

And now ann coulter says both hill and bill are likely gay too - who'd 'a thunk it?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608030004

Just got back from the first OutGames in Montreal. I'd luv to right a lengthy commentary, but I'd come off as overly didactic on this thread.

Quite a diverse spectatorship at the games, I must say. I was impressed by the number of str8 people - particuarly young str8 families pushing their baby carriages - that turned out for the events and the shows. I also must note the multiplicity of muslim families to be seen at the events and at the street fairs (or more precisely: groups of head-scarved muslim women walking together with their children & baby carriages, totally at ease in the free-4-all "queer" environment). Gotta luv Montreal for that. No other city in Canada could pull that off.

nightbloom
Woulda been nice tho' if steve had showed up, just for a moment, don't you think? Amen to kudos for Montreal, only city in the world could pull it off, I'd say.

Fascinating article, Alcibiades. Perhaps they should make it standard treatment, the same way anti-V.D. eyedrops was applied at birth to every child as a matter of hospital procedure here in the West. What's good for the goose...

btw, here's the direct link to the article in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/magazine/06aids.html

I must confess, however, that I'm wary of attempts by ideologues to use the "AIDS crisis" to spearhead a form of cultural imperialism to upturn sexual norms and culturally-based valuation of the sex act. It's a fine line. Our own sexual liberation has a lot of flaws...Namely that it has opened sexuality up to unbridled commercialization in popular culture. And it's good that we've virtually freed human sexuality from institutional control, but we need to more effectively re-forge the link between healthy sexuality and a healthy mental & emotional state. Sexual liberation doesn't have to mean total emotional (or spiritual) devaluation of the sex act. Sometimes the liberation movement ventures into this kind of dehumanized view of sexuality, and that's to be resisted.

Gwest - agreed on Montreal. They were doing a lot of things that would never get approved in Vancouver or T.O...for example, shutting down one of the busiest business districts in the downtown core for pedestrian traffic only for an entire week....allowing alcohol to be served on temporary streetside patios at all hours....licensing an all-night outdoor high-decibel techno-rave on one of the main thoroughfares downtown (on a Sunday night, no less)...etc. Of course, the businesses and hospitality industry was totally pushing for this, so that probably got the occasion through whatever red tape was req'd. Large gay events like Pride Week, gay games and week-long circuit party "festivals" (like Montreal's Black & Blue) are now the biggest annual money-makers for cities like Montreal. Combining the events (as Montreal has done in this case - i.e. Gay Pride festival plus the Outgames back-to-back) has helped to offset the declining turnout at Pride festivals recorded by Montreal and other cities over the past few years.

World Pride was on TV tonight on CH News Victoria, all excited that they had a ambassador in Israel actively promoting yet again another gay event to be held in the Jewish country.
I guess Iran and Syria were not interested in hosting this event.
Perhaps the attendees would have been stoned to death.

Dunno about Iran and Syria, but I can post evidence that gays are being stoned in Iraq where your friends the Americans are nominally in charge. Great work President Bush, you are making the world safe for democracy and diversity.

I've noticed that Judaism tends to take a fairly enlightened everyday approach to gay people - even the ultra-Orthodox Jews who condemn the phenomenon of homosexuality lack the highly personalized vitriol of the hard-core Christians and Islamists. There's an unspoken appreciation for the Outsider there - they remember who was rounded up along with them. When the populist-militarist state spins out of contol, the queers and the Jews are almost always the first targets for "purging" by the hysterical masses.

I'm busy today, but I think there have been more than ‘unwelcoming’ noises towards gays from certain segments of the Jewish community as well...still, your point is well taken even though I think the current insanity in the ME could well be described as spinning out of control both inside and outside Israel.

Who knows where this will stop.

nightbloom:
Just in case you missed this - it's up on the sideboard - it is worth a chuckle:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1155161413858&call_pageid=970599119419

Cute, although I find most criticism of the PM's decision not to attend to be opportunistic. Heads of Government have nothing meaningful to contribute beyond the photo op. And the AIDS lobby should be down-graded from its overblown status as the liberal moral cause of the century.

It was much the same when (former) Health Minister Dosanjh attended the World AIDS Day conference in Vancouver last December. He arrived at the beginning to utter his 2-minute official greeting, and then sat uncomfortably through the first presentation....which happened to be a tedious re-cap of the dynamics of male-on-male anal sex. They just had to pick that topic as their season opener while they had a full media complement as well as a federal cabinet minister and parliamentary secretary present. They couldn't have found a more impressive topic to kick the event off than the efficacy of anal pap smears.

After becoming acquainted with the least edifying aspect of male sexual health, the Minister seemed relieved to beat a retreat, his duty done.

I can't blame a conservative PM for demurring from the event. It's an important issue, don't get me wrong, but it's hardly his issue, and definitely not his constituency. They would only have used the opportunity to heckle him because he doesn't indulge their bullshit, much as they heckled the federal rep at the OutGames in Montreal last week.

The truth of this statement, and the notable absence of Steve at any event dealing with the issues in question merely underlines the blindness in his camp a well as his own evident 'personal'
discomfort when asked any questions on this file. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that his absence was engineered at least partly to generate the kind of reaction that it did - so the intolerant people in the party could continue to point fingers at the community in question: in other words, a clear provocation.

A photo doesn't mean much, but the literal (and I mean literal) abhorrence of this Prime Minister for anything normalizing to do with this issue is like the dog that doesn't bark in the night - it speaks volumes. steve doesn't really have much affection for universal human rights and his public statements on the current disaster in Lebanon just underline this truth. You know better than to make excuses for him nightbloom, in my view

Perhaps, but you'd find fault with him regardless of that he did.

Stephen Lewis was on the cover of the Globe & Mail again. Someone should write a paper on the canonization of a secular saint by the modern liberal media through saturation publicity, using Lewis as the template. There's something so ubiquitous about that guy. He's made Africa his issue. Not saying that's a bad thing. But he's certainly made the most of his appointment, as an unelected UN official.

I think the era when the AIDS lobby could automatically expect super-stars like Nelson Mandela to be at their beck-&-call is over. Perhaps it's a good thing that the movement is devoting its resources to upturning sexual mores and breaking down social barriers around the world. It's certainly about a lot more that just the virus - it's become a potent spearhead in a new global culture war. Time will tell if AIDS is truly about the next level of global modernity or a new low in mass exploitation. Fundamentally, the AIDS "sector" (for lack of a better word) is about the organization of global society itself. As a progressive myself, I accept the fact that not everyone can sign onto everything that the AIDS movement has come to represent, or everything it has been advocating. The global AIDS sector is unlike anything we've ever seen - it has a dogma, doctrine, scientific priesthood and fanatic core that make it unlike any other cause now on the radar.

Nightbloom:

Hardly.

Just let him do something positive and I'll prove it too.

So I take it the fact that Harper has decided to give the World Aids - (Why do people insist of capitalizing every letter of that word? It has obviously entered the lexicon and can’t just be considered an acronym anymore.) - Conference in Toronto a pass is okay with you too. He's a piece with Thabo Mbeki I guess!

As for Stephen Lewis and Africa, your statement is disingenuous at best. Lewis was a volunteer in Africa before he took his first paid job with the CCF (in Saskatchewan as a matter of fact). He'd gone there as a volunteer after he failed to thrive at U of T and dropped out.

Don't disagree that all mass movements tend to attract and take on some of the characteristics you ascribe to the 'global' Aids sector - so what?

Harper is out of touch on so many issues that affect ordinary struggling suffering human beings. He's turning out to be exactly what many people said he was - quelle surprise!

On issues that suit his fancy he certainly doesn't eschew public appearances.

We're all ordinary struggling suffering human beings, Alcibiades. I disagree that a conservative is "out of the touch" with the issues simply because they advocate different policy solutions than liberal-Left ideologues. I'm not endorsing his approach(es) necessarily, but the constant opportunistic flak from day one of his term is getting tedious. Chretien enjoyed a "honeymoon" with the press for his entire length of office, and they're still afraid to touch even now that he's out of office.

I think you're misreading Harper's support within the Canadian public. A lot of people are quietly responding to his approach to a broad range of issues, including this one. A solid base of support is crystalizing, and I predict Harper will make further gains in Quebec in the next election (the biggest surprise of all). I think you're going to have to reconcile yourself to a conservative majority next time around.

A Harper majority it may well be. I've been exercized about that possibility ever since Jan 23, and before, truth to tell.

A conservative majority?

I don't think so. Harper is no traditional conservative - he's a radical of the christianist stripe and that's what scares me.

You of all people ought to be more aware of what's going on. This is not leadership, it's cater to your base and demean anyone who disagrees with the party line.

Far more than the traditional Canadian liberal/left ever was; Harper is an ideologue who really is no better than one of Michael Walker's puppets at the Fraser Institute.

If we end up with a Harper majority in this country, ever, it will be a sad day.

Just as Americans are slowly and painfully coming to the realization that their government has lied and cheated them for the past 6 years some in Canada seem to have decided that we need the same bitter and divisive medicine in this country.

Appalling.

Precisely by critique of liberal-Left tactics ;-)

How has Harper lied and cheated the Canadian public--? He hasn't even had time to do so, even if that were his inclination.

I don't see how he can be characterized as a "radical Christianist", unless you're one of those secular fundamentalists who thinks anyone who subscribes to anything remotely resembling the Western faith tradition is automatically a religious fundamentalist.

Anyway, can you believe Calgary is hosting yet another gay games in 2007? Didn't we have no less than two gay olympics this summer (Montreal and Chicago)? What happened to the four-year rule?

My goodness, it seems to be the newest fad in improvised revenue-raising for cities. Do you think Surrey should hold there own OutGames too--? It would be way more profitable than slots or casinos.

Lied and cheated?

Where would you like me to start?

Hardly. You've read enough of what I've posted here to know exactly what I think - Harper is firmly in the ‘christianist’ camp of not limiting religion and religious dogma to areas outside the political sphere. He wants, and so does his base, to recreate an era that either is long gone, or, in my opinion never was. .

Gay games are just the latest fad; like reality TV they will soon jump the shark and the culture will move on to something new and equally transitory.

I'm open to being convinced, but I can't think of a single example in which Harper has acted as you describe. He may be a Christian, he may even be an evangelical (is he? - can't remember what denomination he is), but I don't see signs of him being a "Christianist" (in Andrew Sullivan's sense of the word - Andrew's attempt to create a Western analogy to the "Islamist" tag). It's a little silly.

Harper's been pretty clear about sticking to his priorities. Hysterical liberal-Left claims that he would outlaw abortion, among other campaign-time fulminations, have proven absurd. Even his promise of a free vote on same sex marriage is only giving what many MPs on all sides of the floor called for in the first place. Is Parliament not sovereign anymore? Is Harper not giving Canadians what they want, what they knew they were voting for? I don't think Harper has sprung any surprises on the Canadian public and I don't think he will between now and the next election ... he just needs to avoid any major public opinion upsets on the foreign policy and Kyoto fronts.

Lets start with lied and cheated.

(1) Emerson. Harper made a federal case of Liberal treachery and the first thing he does is try and co-opt a former Liberal minister to bring home the bacon on softwood lumber; This means he lied when he grandstanded about this kind of Liberal behavior and he cheated when he stooped to the same level; and he’s continuing to lie about the “deal” – one which will thoroughly screw a lot of small companies trying to develop new forest resources outside of the areas dominated by the big companies;

(2) He's implied strongly that the mission in Afghanistan is nothing more than a continuation of the Liberal program; it's not. This is a blatant lie - as you know, with your background - the current mission and the reason for same is entirely different;

(3) He's clearly unwilling to see same sex marriage as a civil rights issue - there is a lot more evidence around - most of which I've already posted - which describes his christianist fundamentalist leanings and, notwithstanding, he represents that constituency and panders to their support - more dishonesty as a man who's supposed to be representing all Canadians and not just the ones (especially on issues like this) whom he agrees with;

(4) He pretends, and lies about it, that his 100$/mo bribe is a child care program - it isn't and this particular chicanery is as fundamental to the well-being of all Canadian young families as it's possible to be. This is every bit as bad as any of the crap that's been hung on the Liberals especially when one is aware that he's playing the other side of the card with Quebec.

(5) On what people voted for - don't be silly - the huge majority of Canadians did not vote for this and Harper's plunging numbers over the military disaster in Afghanistan are just another proof of this.

(6) His attitude toward the press - compromised and ineffectual though it is - is appalling and unworthy of anyone but someone who wants to be a dictator at heart;

(7) His disingenuous attitude toward a whole range of things from crime to the way he deals with drug and enforcement issues is apparent to anyone who'll take the time to look at what he's doing;

(8) His surrender to George Bush and Peter the prostrate swooning over Condi Rice are sick making for me - not that that's important but I’ll wager a lot of Canadians are appalled too.

(9) His absence at the gay games is one thing - his pointed refusal to speak to the Aids conference in Toronto is quite another and his grandstand flight of mercy from Lebanon was far more cynical - given what he turned around to say about the genesis of the actual war and his appalling decision to echo GW as an Israeli sycophant - than anything Jean Chretien ever did.

(10) He has pretended that the deaths in Afghanistan are serving a useful purpose; you and I both know they are a complete waste of human life and that the mission there now, as presently constituted has no chance of success – in fact, in whatever way it does succeed it actually creates more problems and difficulties for the Afghan population it is meant to serve;

(11) In military procurements and spending on new infrastructure and equipment this government has been far more secretive and less open than the Liberals, bless their black little hearts, ever were. That too is bad.

I could go on. The man is an embarrassment and a disaster. He panders to his base at every opportunity – plays up the splits and divisions between provinces and special interest and, probably worst of all, I think he’s still taking direction from John Reynolds – God help us!

And I haven't even touched the environment or abortion or succumbed to fulminations of any kind.

Alcibiades, those are all objections to his policy, his style, and his personal preferences. I think you just can`t stand the fact that Canada elected a Conservative government. You may disagree with everything they stand for, but that hardly makes Harper a liar and cheater. The liberal-Left is so utterly juvenile when it pulls this kind of schtick.

...Interesting how the "Safe" injection site activists have hijacked media publicity at the Toronto AIDS conference. The drug activists are all the Global & Mail's photo montage of the event features. It's another example of how the AIDS issue is being used to spearhead a full range causes that are highly debatable. It also demonstrates how enterprising grant-funded social welfare agencies are politicized entities who act in their corporate interests irrespective of alternative or dissenting policy viewpoints.

nightbloom - I'd almost given up on you - Obviously, I disagree. The observations, and Harper's actions, are fundamental - especially in respect of someone who, as Harper did ad nauseum prior to his elevation to the office he now holds, was clearly lying when he said he'd do things differently.

I didn't believe him then and events have only reinforced what I said and wrote at that time.

If anyone is being juvenile it's you. Rather than contending with Harper's actions you call people like me - who have been totally consistent with respect to this Prime Minister - names.

As to Aids policy ( I see you too are hijacked by capitals) as I've said before, I know little or nothing of the ins and outs of the matter. Other than a short dialogue with Truman several months ago I am hardly more informed than the average member of the general public.

I did write a letter to the minister of health and several other politicians when certain treatments were being withheld from critically-ill patients in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada last fall - an issue which has subsequently been resolved I understand. An action I’d have taken in furtherance of the objectives of any similar group however inflicted.

However, if the point you're trying to make is that the PM is somehow holding himself pristine from the sordid controversy by not making a symbolic appearance at a major international conference, I don't buy it.

After his strange little staged midnight trip with a half full plane from Lebanon and his sordid treatment of one of the employees on his plane with respect to his stupid cell phone and the application of transport Canada regulations - I'm not prepared to cut him any slack.

As I've said before, he is a disaster for this country. Again, I repeat, God help us if he ever leads a majority government. Minorities of all kinds – should that ever happen - will find their appreciation of what this country is all about sorely disabused.

As to the safe injection site, I know someone who used to (until late last year) work with the Vancouver Foundation and I've looked at the data from the site and its successes and failures. You may not know that the Vancouver Foundation has been a major funding source for the 4 pillars. In other words, I’m not relying on the media hype you’re so finely attuned to decrying – I’m looking at the raw data from the effort.

In any case, while the safe injection site is not a panacea, obviously, the situation on the ground has clearly improved since the site started operating...to close it down would be criminal.