Date: Wed, 03 Feb 93 17:14:01 EST Subject: MIM on Peru and sexual orientation PCP smeared on homosexuality and women A gay rights activist doing work to support an international human rights group for gays and lesbians has admitted to MIM that there are no documented cases of violence against gays or lesbians by the Sendero Luminoso, the revolutionary Maoists controlling large portions of Peru. A MIM investigation into Sendero Luminoso's side of the question also found that Sendero Luminoso (the PCP) officially has no line on sexual orientation. In its investigations, MIM has discovered a pattern of loose but passionate accusations against the Sendero Luminoso designed to set the oppressed masses against Sendero Luminoso--women, workers and gays and lesbians in particular. For example, MIM had read heated but undetailed accusations in bourgeois news media about the Sendero Luminoso when an anarchist bookstore in Montreal cited the supposed discrimination against gays and lesbians by Sendero Luminoso as a reason that it stopped carrying our newspaper MIM Notes. MIM asked the anarchist bookstore for details or even a reference for this, and none was ever provided despite lengthy polemics between the anarchist bookstore and MIM. (MIM takes this opportunity to make once again a public call for information relating to such charges.) Another organization that MIM works with and that calls itself "revolutionary" has also accused Sendero Luminoso of "sexual intolerance." Again, despite this public written statement, there is no evidence. MIM also looked into bourgeois academic sources. There MIM found one or two witnesses claiming Sendero Luminoso oppresses gays and lesbians as part of a long list of general actions the Sendero Luminoso supposedly takes against a long list of criminals, prostitutes and drug-dealers--what the witness saw as "scum" or saw the local population as viewing as "scum." In these scattered academic references, there is no way to determine if the witness was imposing his or her moral interpretation of an event along with many others. There were no details of particular anti-gay/lesbian incidents by Sendero Luminoso. In a small investigation conducted since September, 1992, MIM has found a pattern in false or misleading accusations against the Sendero Luminoso. A press release from a gay rights activist group in San Francisco contains the following: "In 1987, in the jungle town of Pucallpa, the MRTA [the pro-Cuban armed organization-- MIM] executed 7 gay men in one of the streets, as part of their "cleaning of undesirables" actions. MHOL, which was formed in 1982, is the only openly gay group in Peru.' The group has been outspoken on gay rights and has condemned the violence imposed on the population of the country for more than 12 years by the MRTA and Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). "This is just another reminder that gays, according to these groups, have no right to exist. It is an attempt to discourage our work and stop our struggle," says another MHOL member." MIM followed up on this important matter because MIM does not consider anyone communist who advocates oppression of gays or lesbians for their sexual orientation. In speaking with an activist, MIM found that the attack on Sendero Luminoso was unfounded, as the activist distributing the above press release admitted: "The press release . . . did not specifically mention abuses against gays by Sendero Luminoso. It simply said that MOHL condemned the violence imposed on the population of the country by the MRTA and Sendero Luminoso. According to our Peruvian contact here there are no documented cases against Sendero Luminoso." MIM criticized this individual activist for opportunism and he agreed to look into this matter further and agreed that an examination of Sendero Luminoso from many perspectives was necessary. We think it is especially misleading that a gay rights group criticized the Sendero Luminoso for human-rights abuses generally in the midst of its press release on gays/lesbians and then went on to say that "according to these groups" (unspecified, but right after mentioning Sendero Luminoso) gays have no right to exist. However, at least our gay rights activist was honest enough to make a clear statement on the details. MIM does not name the above activist or the important gay rights organization involved because MIM has no particular reason to criticize any particular gay/lesbian organization or activist, as long as issues of principle are clear. In another case, a human-rights watchdog organization called Americas Watch recently criticized Sendero Luminoso for "violence against female non-combatants." Describing Maria Elena Moyano only with judgmental terms such as "popular" and "feminist," Americas Watch no where mentioned in its January 8th press release that she was also a government official and an organizer of armed patrols against the Sendero Luminoso, if not an actual combatant herself. In January, another widely distributed complaint against the Sendero Luminoso was for killing a union leader. Yet this union leader assassinated by the Sendero Luminoso was also a government official. The rash of reports on Sendero Luminoso by various "human-rights" groups and bourgeois mouthpieces raises the issue of the standards of "human-rights" and how to describe the oppression of women, gays and workers. MIM would not consider the assassination of Peruvian dictator Fujimori as "anti-Asian racism." Nor would it sanction any opportunist who would say a revolution targetting Margaret Thatcher (when she was prime minister in England) was "an attack on women." MIM invites its readers to dig into real oppression for which there is no need to make up exaggerated stories. MIM opposes all attacks on women, gays or workers, but only if those attacks are caused by gender, sexual orientation or class status. MIM does not defend those government officials in a fascist anti- gay/lesbian regime if those officials happen to be gay. Nor does it defend imperialist puppet officials just because they happen to belong to oppressed nationality groups. With so many loose and undetailed smears about Sendero Luminoso floating around, MIM could not help asking why? It is of course standard fare for the imperialists and mainstream media to be attacking Sendero Luminoso. This turns out to be the source of most smears, but why does an anarchist bookstore, revolutionary organization and human-rights group repeat them? MIM can only conclude that this is an expression of the patriarchy in the case of gays/lesbians and women. The regime and the MRTA (Revolucionario Tupac Amaru) are explicitly anti-gay/lesbian, but the critics of Sendero Luminoso (SL) throw the SL in as well. We at MIM believe such an attack on a group that is estimated to be 40 to 50 percent armed women is in fact the time-honored tradition of defending the patriarchy. It represents the conscious and unconscious horror of having a government come to power that is actually 40 to 50 percent women. In the imperialist countries, there is even a pseudo-feminist theory that says that men and heterosexuals should be accused without evidence of patriarchal practices because it is good for them to think about it. However, MIM does not agree that revolutionary movements and established patriarchies are the same thing. Such smears against the Sendero Luminoso only act to hold back the shoots of a new and arising society that would mean great strides for women. Women and gays/lesbians should not be pulled away from the Sendero Luminoso, since it is the SL within Peru and Maoism internationally which has the best record in advancing the cause of revolutionary feminism in practice. Incorrectly dividing the struggle against patriarchy only strengthens the patriarchy. MIM can only conclude that the attacks on the Sendero Luminoso extend from traditional class and national privileges that mother country residents have over oppressed peoples like those in Peru. It can also only conclude that the premature criticisms of the Sendero Luminoso along lines of gender and sexual orientation reek of the defense of sexual privilege by the gender aristocracy. What matters to the gender aristocracy is not what actually happened in Peru, but its right to accuse any and all of violating its sexual privileges. This gender aristocracy does not care to remove those institutions in Peru that hold back women and gays. It only seeks to defend those people who have already achieved sexual privilege. There will undoubtedly come a day in Peru that one of SL's liberated zones will experience an anti-gay/lesbian incident and not doubt such incidents have already occurred. The SL is not a magic wand that waives away ages of tradition and superstition. The ability of SL to move forward on the agenda for women and gays/lesbians will depend on the degree to which it continues to unite anti-patriarchal forces. Consequently, we at MIM have no intention of letting the gender aristocracy of the imperialist countries intervene to hold back that development of Peru's anti-patriarchal unity.