Opinions
Johnny Depp, Amber Heard and the deeply unsatisfying matter of re-litigating their trial
The series was panned by critics
On Aug. 16, Netflix released a three-part docuseries revisiting last summer’s televised civil litigation over allegations that Amber Heard had defamed ex-husband Johnny Depp by claiming to have survived sexual violence and domestic abuse during their four-year relationship.
Rather than offering anything new by way of insight or analysis from anyone with relevant qualifications or experience, each episode features clips from some of the online “creators” who turned their hot takes on the trial into a veritable cottage industry of amateur legal commentary and courtroom conspiracy theories, feeding the rapacious demand for anti-Heard and pro-Depp content. (As if to underscore the project’s unseriousness, these included a men’s rights YouTuber who wore a Deadpool mask and was surrounded by Spider-Man costumes.)
Worse still, “Depp v. Heard” director Emma Cooper fails not only to answer but also to even ask the obvious questions that have lingered since a verdict was returned more than 14 months ago by seven jurors in northern Virginia who were not sequestered as the case became, by far, the most popular topic on social media and online platforms.
At the same time, however, the episodes include footage of courtroom testimony that offer a glimpse, though incomplete, into some of the trial’s more salient and dispositive moments that I otherwise would never have seen (with neither the time nor the inclination, either last year or now, to follow 120+ hours of argument by the parties presented over the course of a seven-week trial.)
Do these scenes redeem the series? Hardly. But that does not mean they offer nothing of value, especially considering that while this was not the retelling of last summer’s events that we deserve, it remains the only one we’ve got. At least, for now.
Susan Sontag, in her 1977 collection of essays “On Photography,” proclaimed “The camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own.”
In “Depp v. Heard,” the cameras facilitate a very specific kind of tourism that feels both exploitative and voyeuristic, because the reality in which we find ourselves trespassing is dark: the unraveling of a relationship between movie stars through patterns of dysfunction and abuse both familiar and alien, knowable and unknowable, like a city you have visited but never called home.
Especially when coupled with the more outrageous moments from trial that made headlines at the time – such as the debate over whether Heard defecated on Depp’s bed and blamed his teacup Yorkshire Terrier – there is a temptation to treat footage of testimony concerning the smashing of liquor bottles and hurling of wine glasses, the shoving and taunting and threats, even the physical and sexual violence, as though it were pure spectacle.
However, this would suggest, wrongly, that the painful realities of the actors’ relationship are so far removed from our lived experiences that we do not, cannot, or should not relate to them. As if a seven-week trial adjudicating the conflicts in our own intimate relationships or those involving the people we love would not turn up evidence of trouble and dysfunction, or worse.
Considering that we are primed to pick winners and losers and heroes and villains, perhaps it was unsurprising that incomplete and selectively edited footage from the case provided ample fodder for Instagram reels and TikTok videos that were created in the service of narratives that, most often, favored Depp and vilified Heard.
For me, witnessing these scenes in their proper context revealed a picture so much more complicated and, frankly, ugly that the prospect of framing the case in this manner seemed as preposterous as the idea that audiences leaving a production of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” should find themselves allied with either Martha or George.
To take just one example: From the witness stand, Heard recounted how she would often return home to their shared Los Angeles penthouse to find Depp nodding off in a chair because he had washed Roxicodone down with whiskey, or lying supine on the sofa fully unconscious with melted ice cream pooled in his lap. Worried about her husband’s apparent substance use disorder and unsure how best to help, the actress admitted she would sometimes take photos of him and share the pictures with a trusted friend.
Or, Depp’s attorney asked, was she just trying to humiliate him? Or, online commentators asked (often rhetorically), was this a calculated and premeditated move to collect evidence she would use against Depp in litigation or for purposes of extorting him?
As if these motives are mutually exclusive.
Having experienced the pain of watching loved ones spiraling in the throes of drug and alcohol addiction, I can tell you why I suspect Heard took the photos, but of course the reality is neither I nor anyone else – perhaps not even she – has any clue.
Last year, so much of the online noise about the trial came from content creators who made specious arguments to poke holes in the credibility of Heard’s testimony or alleged ulterior, sinister hidden motives based on the actress’s countenance, demeanor, speech, and other behavior.
For example, in clips that were often selectively edited or presented outside of their proper context, Heard might have seemed to cry more hysterically upon realizing the cameras were trained on her, which were used as supposed proof that her claims of suffering abuse at the hands of her ex-husband must therefore be fabricated.
Watching the footage in the manner presented on screen in “Depp v. Heard,” it becomes even more obvious how silly these interpretations were. In reality, of course, no one – not even police officers, trial court judges, F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents, trial lawyers or forensic psychiatrists – can reliably spot when someone is lying to them.
However convincing some YouTuber may have been, and however comforting the idea that we are able to see through the lies of others, I’m sorry to tell you the research on this is overwhelming and uncontested.
As Malcolm Gladwell observes in “Talking to Strangers,” Amanda Knox was falsely convicted for a murder she did not commit because “much of the prosecution’s case…rested on the allegedly strange, guilty behavior she exhibited,” which “the public deemed not in line with typical responses to grief and trauma.”
The cameras did not tell the complete story.
Well before 2022, private details about Depp and Heard’s troubled relationship had spilled onto the pages of tabloids like The Sun, which called Depp a “wife beater” in a 2018 story alleging that “overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife.” After he sued the paper for defamation, London’s High Court of Justice ruled against the actor in 2020, concluding the claims at issue were “substantially true.”
Still, last summer’s litigation between the actors earned far more public attention and unearthed far more (and far more titillating) private information, causing, therefore, far more damage than the supermarket rags and gossip blogs – as well as, ironically, the financial and reputational damage resulting from the very defamation claims that were adjudicated at trial.
As a reminder, Depp sued his ex-wife for a 2018 opinion article in the Washington Post in which she had written, “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.” Heard was referencing the backlash against, essentially, identical claims she made in a statement after securing a restraining order against Depp following their divorce in 2016. (“During the entirety of our relationship, Johnny has been verbally and physically abusive to me,” she wrote.)
In so many cases including this one, intimate partner abuse is messy. An audio recording of one of the couple’s arguments shows Heard acknowledging she had struck her ex-husband but denying that she punched him. Her testimony, meanwhile, detailed serious violent crimes, including that Depp had thrown her into a ping pong table and repeatedly hit her in the face before sexually assaulting her with a liquor bottle that may have been broken.
Of course, assuming their sworn testimony to be true, it must also be said, domestic violence is a gendered crime. And the imbalanced power dynamics within their relationship put Heard at a disadvantage, including in this respect. While both are famous actors, the wealth, power, and fame wielded by Depp was then (and remains, now) much greater.
The disparity was evident from the outset. In the Netflix series, throngs of fans are shown cheering the Pirates of the Caribbean star and booing Heard on the first day they were sighted arriving separately to the Fairfax County Circuit Court. Meanwhile, online, evidence of a sustained and coordinated character assassination of Heard had just begun to emerge.
The smear campaign would persist through the trial and beyond. The actress was called a manipulative liar, a gold digger, an abuser, a violent psychopath, a drug addict, and worse. Some of the most outrageous claims were among the most widely circulated: She snorted cocaine on the witness stand, killed her own mother to conceal testimony that would have exonerated Depp, plagiarized lines from the film The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Creators mocked Heard by lip-synching over audio of her testimony about suffering violent abuse in videos that went viral on TikTok along with hashtags like #JusticeForJohnnyDepp, which was seen nearly 3 billion times on the platform. (#justiceforamberheard earned just 25 million views.) One-sided articles and videos, many containing false and misleading claims, were promoted by Ben Shapiro’s conservative media outlet The Daily Wire through its estimated $35,000 and $47,000 purchase of Facebook and Instagram ads.
“Depp v. Heard” was panned by critics.
“If ever a true-crime documentary needed the usual collection of talking-head interviews with esteemed journalists, law enforcement veterans and legal experts to put things in perspective,” Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times wrote, “this is it — but that never happens.”
Others, like CNN’s Brian Lowry, agreed: “How much is gained from listening to a guy in a Deadpool mask offering extensive trial takes is a question ‘Depp v. Heard’ should have contemplated and apparently didn’t,” he wrote.
Several reviews added that part of the problem was that not nearly enough time had elapsed between the events and their retelling. Bustle’s Scaachi Koul pointed to other recent projects involving the private lives of public figures (especially women) that, with sufficient space and distance, found new and interesting things to say about their subjects and opportunities to tell their stories anew.
Ryan White’s excellent documentary “Pamela: A Love Story,” which was released by Netflix in January, manages to find plenty of material about actress and model Pamela Anderson along with the broader sociocultural forces of the 90s and early aughts that helped shape – and were shaped by – the era’s most enduring sex symbol.
The film would have been nothing, however, without Anderson. Listening to her tell her own story, one realizes how poorly suited everyone else was to the task – particularly the leering talk show hosts and journalists who treated her as nothing more than a sex object.
And maybe that, above all else, is the lesson to be gleaned from “Depp v. Heard”: Let’s come back to this story, sure, when we’re ready to cut through the bullshit, reframe the conversation away from the “him vs. her” framing, stop relying on provably unreliable evidence, and consider the broader context of their relationship and the impact of the trial that happened on TikTok and YouTube. And let’s definitely listen to Heard if and when she’s ready to talk about this again.
Until we get that docuseries (or documentary, scripted series, film, book, whatever), I fear everything else will be deeply unsatisfactory and unsatisfying.
Opinions
BLADE ENDORSEMENT: Susan Stewart for mayor of Rehoboth Beach
Voters should reject Suzanne Goode’s crass bullying and elect city’s first out mayor
Voters in Rehoboth Beach head to the polls on Aug. 8 to elect a new mayor and the choice couldn’t be more obvious.
Susan Stewart is a smart, effective Commissioner with a background in finance who happens to identify as part of the LGBTQ community, which would make her the first openly gay Rehoboth mayor if elected. Stewart has worked as an attorney and later a financial services adviser at major banks and brokerage firms. In 1996, she founded her own financial advisory firm. She currently works as a financial adviser and senior vice president with The StewartGroup, RBC Wealth Management. She also serves on the Rehoboth Beach Commission and has served on the Planning Commission and the Mixed-Use and Stormwater Utility Task Forces. She has a deep knowledge of the inner workings of the city, including budgeting and development along with an appreciation for what makes Rehoboth special — its natural beauty, walkability, and charming character.
“Rehoboth Beach has important opportunities ahead,” Stewart says on her campaign website. “From infrastructure improvements and stormwater solutions to commercial revitalization and responsible growth, the decisions we make today will shape our city for decades. I am committed to helping Rehoboth Beach move forward.”
Stewart is our choice for mayor. She would represent the city well as it looks to the future with the retirement of Mayor Stan Mills, who has served for six years in that role after 12 years as a Commissioner.
There is a special urgency to the election this year with the mayoral candidacy of fellow Commissioner Suzanne Goode, a divisive figure whose emails have raised serious questions about her judgement and legitimate concerns about where she stands on LGBTQ issues.
Controversy erupted in March when Stewart outlined allegations that Goode used derogatory language in emails, particularly toward City Manager Taylour Tedder.
“All of our emails are public information under FOIA,” Stewart told the Blade in a recent interview. “I simply asked the city to link them on the website, and then the city published a transcript of [Goode’s emails].”
Stewart said that she did this on behalf of the city’s employees such as Tedder: “We have a moral and legal obligation to support our employees,” Stewart told the Blade. Goode denied all of the allegations and said that they were based on falsehoods.
Tedder has accused Goode of creating a “hostile work environment” for city employees and publicly rebuked Goode for insulting him in an email as “the mayor’s whore.”
“Calling me a derogatory term, the ‘mayor’s whore,’ which I don’t think is a professional way to put something, talking badly about an employee’s religion,” Tedder said.
Tedder was referring to an email in which Goode wrote to Rehoboth Beach City Solicitor Lisa Borin Ogden: “I am sorry that I learned from Google when you were first interviewed [in the] spring [of] 2025 that you are Jewish. My opinion of my fellow Jews declined significantly thanks to you since last summer. Actually would have thought you would have more compassion than the average person, based on your late brother. Except you don’t. I am sick of your haughty attitude toward me.”
Goode, who’s Jewish, denied the remark was racist.
“I don’t think a Jewish person can discriminate against another Jewish person,” Goode said, according to a March report by Coast TV News.
But Mayor Mills issued a statement calling the remarks “reprehensible and unbecoming of an elected official in our community.”
That’s putting it diplomatically. Referencing a city official’s religion and then invoking her dead brother should be disqualifying for a mayoral candidate. But it gets worse. The Blade reviewed Goode’s emails that were made public following local media FOIA requests. They are disturbing.
In a January email, Goode wrote to Mills demanding to know who encouraged CAMP Rehoboth and Clear Space Theatre to apply for city grant funds. She then unfairly disparages CAMP as a “questionable non-profit.” She wrote:
“Gays and theatre aficionados can donate as much as they like to these pet causes. Some taxpayers think the theatre is second-rate as community theatres go, and many dislike the RB emphasis on LGBTQ when heterosexuals don’t demand equivalent display of their sex lives in public view.”
I’ve been coming to Rehoboth since the ‘90s. We don’t “display our sex lives in public view.” But Rehoboth is that rare place in America where LGBTQ people can comfortably and safely come together in community. Where partners and same-sex spouses can hold hands in public. Where gender non-conforming visitors can express themselves. None of that has anything to do with our “sex lives” and Goode’s disgusting comment is a common slur used against our community. She should retract that statement and apologize for it. Rehoboth’s vibrancy is due in very large part to its LGBTQ residents, tourists, and business owners and we all deserve better than homophobic slurs from elected officials.
Additionally, CAMP and Clear Space are vital, affirming spaces as worthy of grant funds as any other organization. Her repeated attacks on those important Rehoboth institutions raise more concerns given they are both run by openly gay and lesbian officials.
In a November 2025 email passage about Clear Space Theatre, Goode wrote, “But there are some folks in town, who ironically have to remain in the closet (conservatives now have to do what gays had to do in the 20th century — ah, the irony) who object to the woke, drag queen bent of Clear Space at times. They have confided this in me, and thanked me for fighting for their tax dollars. Maybe I will regret speaking up, as some LGBTQ activist will attack me physically, even though I am a complete supporter of gay rights, and have as many gay male friends as female friends now that I live in RB with a large gay population.”
So Goode fears physical violence from the local LGBTQ community? I’ve been around a long time and cannot recall a Blade story about a gay person beating up a straight person in Rehoboth, though we have covered scores of gay bashings and other violent attacks targeting LGBTQ people and businesses over the decades. Equating the plight of modern conservatives to 20th century violence that killed countless LGBTQ people is the height of ignorance.
Further, her use of “woke” as a derogatory term raises alarms as it echoes President Trump’s racist and transphobic rhetoric.
In an email from just last month, Goode wrote, “Just because the LGBTQ community feels oppressed and discriminated against, that doesn’t mean that those who identify as LGBTQ are better able to recognize racial discrimination than someone like myself. It might surprise some of you to learn that I briefly dated an African American fellow college student.”
So we should trust Goode’s instincts on racial issues because she dated a Black guy in college? You can’t make this stuff up.
During a March Commissioners meeting, Goode criticized Rehoboth’s rainbow crosswalks as a “non-essential item” and questioned why they weren’t painted yellow and white, which she said would be more “effectual” for safety purposes than rainbow colors. This attack on rainbow crosswalks represents another MAGA/Trump nod. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy last year launched a nationwide campaign to remove rainbow crosswalks. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, ordered the removal of rainbow crosswalks, even targeting the crosswalk at the Pulse nightclub.
For these and many other reasons, Goode is unfit to serve as mayor (or Commissioner) and voters must reject her toxic brand of bullying and ignorance.
Susan Stewart, meanwhile, represents the opposite of Goode’s crass foolishness. Stewart is a competent, calm presence on the board. She works collaboratively and respectfully. Her deep knowledge of the city and its processes will serve her well as mayor. And her commitment to maintaining Rehoboth as one of the country’s most visible, supportive, LGBTQ-affirming cities in the country make her an obvious choice for mayor.
The election takes place on Aug. 8, from 10 a.m.-6 p.m. at the Rehoboth Beach Convention Center.
Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].
Opinions
Matthew Rosenstein in ‘Make Me French’ a hit at Clear Space Theatre
‘A bagel who dreamed of being a croissant’
Clear Space Theatre Company was founded in 2004 and has become a huge success in Rehoboth Beach, Del. They present performances all year long, and always have a great summer season when the town grows by the thousands. Not only do they have some great main productions this year, “The Cher Show,” “Pretty Woman,” and “Mean Girls,” but they also have a strong series of cabaret performances.
Matthew Rosenstein’s show, “Make Me French!” was part of that series. While I haven’t seen them all, it will be hard to beat his show. He is a superb storyteller and singer. He blends his real-life experiences, with music from different genres, including showtunes and French disco. Some of the songs he uses to tell his story include: “Belle / Go the Distance” (Menken/Ashman; Menken/Zippel), “Ahh, Paree/Les prénoms de Paris” (Sondheim; Brel); and “Hymne à L’Amour” (Marguerite Monnot/Edith Piaf/Hiroyuki Takei/Fumiaki Uemura).
He has a way of making you feel part of his life story. The show is directed and co-authored by cabaret icon Robbie Rozelle, and it features music direction and arrangements by the incredibly talented Michael Cuschieri, who also plays the piano. The backup band included, Jim McGiffin on bass; Joshua Getka on drums; and Jessica Brams-Miller who sings backup and banters with Matthew, in a wonderful French accent. They are all immensely talented.
The blurb I received from Clear Space said about the show: “A bagel who dreamed of being a croissant, young Matt Rosenstein longed for a life that was far more sophisticated, and interesting, than his own as a suburban New Jersey teenager in the 1990s. His one prayer? “Make Me French!” Matt was determined to not just learn French but to be as French as possible.” Matt went so far as to call Air France from pay phones as a youngster, just to practice speaking with a real French person.
He eventually got the chance to move to Paris to fulfill his dream, and learned some hilarious lessons along the way. Matt shares what he’s learned about what he calls our most ‘misunderstood’ ally. The stories and songs are about: Why do French people not get fat? Are they rude? And do they hate Americans? He talks, and sings about these things in a wonderfully humorous way. You get caught up in the stories and then realize not only is Matt a great story teller, but he has a really strong voice. He generally stays away from politics in the show but does suggest he left the United States when George W. Bush became president, and returned when Obama was elected. He didn’t actually say what he wants to do today, but the audience did get the idea.
After living in Paris, he came back to the U.S. and had what he calls, ‘a second awakening.’ He worked with a vocal coach, met and became friends with many in the theater world and did his first show, “A Pleasure to Have in Class,” which is stories and songs about his life as a people-pleaser, from childhood to his gay divorce. This second show he shared with the public for the first time in 2023 at The Green Room 42.
Matt told Broadway World, “to do a one-man show, you first have to have the confidence you have a story to tell, that you have something to share with people. Not just something that you want to say, but something relatable that will connect with the audience. And then you have to work with a good team. You need a director that can help you shape an arc out of the story and make sure that it’s not just therapy on stage. So having a good team, making the right musical choices, making sure that you’re not coming from too self-centered of a place, has been key for me.” Matt followed all that advice well, and the result is the wonderful “Make Me French.”
This is the first show Matt has done outside of New York. I hope for audiences it won’t be the last. The world awaits this talented performer. You can follow Matt on Instagram and on his website, showtunesmatt.com. The Clear Space cabaret series continues all summer; visit clearspacetheatre.org for tickets.
Now the disclaimer: I am not related to Matthew Rosenstein, and this is an unbiased review. It would be nice to be related to such a talented guy, but we have found no indication we share any relatives at all. I first met Matthew after his show at Clear Space Theatre in Rehoboth Beach.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Germany
We must not scapegoat refugees after Berlin Pride terrorist attack
‘LGBTI people must not be instrumentalized to spread hatred against others.’
On Saturday, during Berlin’s Christopher Street Day, one of Europe’s biggest LGBTQ Pride events, a 21-year-old religious extremist drove a van into the crowd and then used a knife to stab multiple people. One person died and 29 others were injured.
When I saw this news on social media, I sincerely felt scared, and not because one more bigot used his religion to justify violence against people like me. It has, unfortunately, happened too often. Despite being happy to see the overwhelming support for the queer community and the condemnation of terrorism, I was terrified by the wave of Islamophobic and anti-immigrant statements that came even from “left” and “progressive” people who should know better, who generally support refugees, who know that all people are equal, and that you shouldn’t treat others as less human because of their religion.
In 2020, a Russian MP threatened to start a criminal case against me after I interviewed Muslim women about why they called themselves feminists and wrote about my own relationship with feminism and Islam, mentioning that I was following events in Syria and had read some academic books on the Islamic State. Surprisingly, the MP claimed that I was recruiting women to ISIS by using feminist ideas, which, of course, was absolutely ridiculous for many reasons, including the fact that I was an openly nonbinary transgender person. But some media outlets and queer people online, including those who called themselves progressive, refused to support me or believed the lie. This is what an anti-extremist witchhunt looks like. If I had been in Russia, and not in the UK, I probably would have been in prison.
It is extremely important to oppose extremism by knowing the actual facts about terrorist groups and not starting a moral panic.
Here are four examples of what media coverage and queer people online often misunderstand about the events in Berlin, and why it’s important.
1. Islam is not the problem
Despite a common misunderstanding, this terrorist act wasn’t even about Islam.
Islam, just like Christianity and Judaism, has a variety of views on LGBTQ rights, from affirmative to condemning. I think everyone in the American Bible Belt has met Christian fundamentalists who praised violence against LGBTQ people or used violence against their own queer children, so it is a universal problem. But the thing is Abdul Ballout was not an ordinary conservative Muslim. He was known for wanting to join ISIS. It is an apocalyptic cult that teaches that we are living in the last era, so they are trying to re-create the caliphate that they believe should be restored before Doomsday.
Most of the Muslim people I know, including conservative Salafi Muslims, see the group as dangerous criminals, or don’t see the group as a Muslim group at all. The vast majority of ISIS victims are not Western people or queer people, but cisgender heterosexual Muslims in the Middle East and Africa who the group considers to be infidels. ISIS is widely condemned by Muslim communities and scholars, and blaming Islam for the actions of cult members is like blaming Christianity and all Christians — or even all Christian fundamentalists — for the actions of Branch Davidians members or for the mass murder-suicide committed by members of the People’s Temple.
2. Refugees are not the problem — and Germany is not a safe haven for refugees
First, the attacker was a German citizen. But the media continue to blame migration. Germany is seen as a safe haven for refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S., the UK and beyond. But the time when Germany was safe is long gone. For refugees from Russia between 2022 and 2025 alone, around 90 percent of refugee claims have been refused by Germany, including the claims of political prisoners. The situation for non-White Muslim refugees is even worse, especially in regions such as Bavaria.
I have personal experience working with some refugees in Germany who are also Muslim. The way the migration service mistreated them is beyond anything I saw while working with refugees and being a refugee in the UK. I saw cases in Germany where an asylum seeker’s family was threatened back home because of social media posts the asylum seeker had made, or where a person was detained and sent back to their homeland despite having a history of persecution and torture by the government. Very often, when a person is taken by the immigration service, their loved ones don’t know where they are. Queer refugees also report homophobic and transphobic attitudes in the system.
The narrative that Germany is too generous to refugees was created by the far right and has little to do with reality, and it harms actual refugees, including queer refugees, by silencing their voices.
3. There is no collective responsibility
It is an extremely old and dangerous idea.
Just as all gay men shouldn’t be blamed for what the American serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer did just because he was gay; we shouldn’t blame all Muslims, all people of Middle Eastern origin, or any other large demographic group for the crime of one terrorist. Even if the terrorist had been a refugee and a Muslim, it shouldn’t actually matter, because under the law in any modern non-authoritarian country, an individual shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of their social group.
After all, when a white, Christian, cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical person commits a crime, it is almost always seen as an individual’s fault. Why is it different for marginalized groups? The idea of collective responsibility harmed the gay community for decades and is harming the trans community right now, for example after Charlie Kirk’s murder. The best thing we can do is stop this narrative, because it will be used against us.
The only reason I explained about ISIS and the refugee experience in Germany is to show how far from reality the popular accusations are.
4. Witch-hunts and scapegoating serve the far-right agenda and are extremely anti-queer
From my own experience, as an openly trans person speaking against Islamophobia, sexism and queerphobia who was accused of supporting the cult that kills queer people, promotes the sexual exploitation of women and sees the majority of Muslims as legitimate targets, I can say for sure that moral panic can go wild.
People who remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, or even the attacks on Muslim communities after Sept. 11, should know this.
Now even queer people are attacking refugees and Muslim communities online while the German government is introducing more draconian measures against those groups.
ILGA-Europe, the biggest LGBTQ organization in Europe, made a statement warning against any attempt to weaponize the attack.
“This tragedy must not be used to fuel hatred against migrants, foreigners or Muslim communities. We reject any attempt by anti-democratic actors to exploit what happened to divide communities, scapegoat minorities or turn one group against another,” Chaber, the group’s executive director, said. “LGBTI people must not be instrumentalized to spread hatred against others, nor should the existence of racism, Islamophobia or anti-migrant hatred be used to minimize the threats faced by LGBTI people. The rights, safety, and dignity of all people must be defended.”
People who live at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities — LGBTQ Muslims, LGBTQ people of color and LGBTQ refugees — will probably suffer the most from this moral panic. Moreover, these are the same political groups that target refugees, Muslim communities and queer people. If this hatred isn’t stopped now, everyone is potentially at risk.
Condemning terrorism is important, but it is no less important to stop creating more victims.
-
Theater5 days agoD.C. summer theater offers something for every taste
-
a&e features5 days agoSummer in the City: Free exhibits, movies, more fill D.C.’s calendar
-
Real Estate5 days agoWith gas prices soaring again, a staycation is a good plan
-
Obituary4 days agoGary Sutton, known for ‘warmth and laughter,’ dies at 62
