Thread: Sochi Olympics and the Law against Gays in Russia +

I don't think there is an actual "smear" campaign, but I do think there is a lot of concern and confusion in the West over whether the "propaganda" laws will be enforced during the Olympics in Sochi. And the confusion arises not just from whether nor not the laws will be enforced, but from the ambiguity of the laws themselves. How do you define "propaganda"? Does it relate only to literature or rainbow flags? From my understanding of the law, it also applies to any pro-gay speech. So what if someone has a few drinks in a pub and says something pro-gay? Is he going to be carted off to jail and fined the $30,000 and expelled from the country? What if a couple of gay American figure skaters are jubilant after winning some gold medals and they KISS in public (heaven forbid!)? Will they be arrested because some Russian child saw them kiss? Where does it end?

These are the kinds if questions I want to know the answers to. Sure, the games are about sports. But the fact of the matter is that America, and many other Western countries, have openly gay athletes, especially in events like figure skating. They are used to being open and honest about who they are and they do not live in shame or hide in a closet. I am not sure they can just "pretend the gay away" while they are in Sochi. I'm not even gay myself, and I worry that if I return to Russia I could accidentally speak my mind and find myself jailed, fined and expelled.

Yes, most Russians are not "raging" homophobes. I would describe the majority of Russians as "mildly" homophobic in that gay people make them uncomfortable and they prefer not to think about it or be confronted with it. But there is an element of rage in Russia, as you can see in the photos Lampada shared, as well as in numerous videos of the gay parades held in St. Petersburg and Moscow. At the 2013 parade in St. Petersburg, there were young dudes wearing black t-shirts that say "by the word of GOD" on them, they were carrying whips and they freely and openly beat the gay protesters with no resistance from police. This isn't a "smear campaign" this was a Russian video which you can see for yourself.



I commented on that video and was attacked by several angry Russian guys who called me names a Russian would have been ashamed to call a woman 20 years ago. They told me that if I ever return to Russia, they would "beat me until I cry tears of blood." There was no misunderstanding that. Quite frankly, I find it appalling. But as some of my close friends in Russia tell me, normal heterosexual guys do not spend their time chasing gay men to beat them, because they are too busy chasing girls. So I think these angry, abusive, hateful young men are actually gay themselves, but because of all the shame in their culture about being openly gay - and all the things "manly men" do together, like the баня and drinking vodka - they can not admit they are gay, not even to themselves. And when they see someone else who dares to be openly gay it enrages them! They want to quickly shut that person down, even kill that person.

There are also skinheads in Russia who are kidnapping gay teenagers and torturing them on video. The videos are posted on youtube and then the kids are further harassed and beaten when they show up in public.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3658636.html

So, it isn't that the West is engaging in a "smear campaign" - it's that people in the west are seeing shocking brutality in Russia following the advent of these new "propaganda" laws, and it is outraging people. I've tried to calm them down - you all know I love Russia despite this stuff - but people turn their rage on me if I say anything positive about Russia right now.

I think Russian officials are going to need to be much more clear about what rules will be enforced in Sochi, as well as to what degree, because a growing number of people are supporting boycotts. I do not, and the athletes do not. In fact, the athletes - some of whom are gay - have stated they want to come even if it means they will be arrested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...ssia-so-be-it/

Russia and the IOC agree: Athletes and spectators shouldn’t be openly gay at the Olympics. Comments!!!

Ага, "ж..а есть, а слова нет".

Просто нарываются на неприятности. Там же полиции не хватит.

Originally Posted by Lampada

I wish you were right Hanna. In reality sadly it's not the case. 36 Photos From Russia That Everyone Needs To See

I agree that the pictures are disturbing and I certainly hope that the man who punched a gay person in the face is caught and punished.

But I don't think this looks any worse than the pictures of the anti-banking demonstrations in London, or the violence against British students who wanted to protest against tuition fees at university. People participating in those demonstrations were even worse beaten up, and two people died during that time, as a result of police violence.

Everyone's free to have a choice of their own about anything, but if someone's choice is to make or "adjust" other people's choices as to how they live their lives, their choice MUST be altered; and it's not even close to the gay rights issue being the ONLY example here, the ex-USSR area has tons of others, except for maybe a few countries (the Baltic countries and such); there are some "morality and behavior templates" established by "the society", which many agree to, which is just frightening...

Originally Posted by Deborski

I don't think there is an actual "smear" campaign, but I do think there is a lot of concern and confusion in the West over whether the "propaganda" laws will be enforced during the Olympics in Sochi.

So they should use common sense just like when travelling anywhere a bit different, take the approach of "better safe than sorry".

I.e. cover up a bit in moslem countries, rather than running around in a tank top and shorts and complaining about being harassed. Don't "jaywalk" or drink alcohol in the street in the USA, don't bring up politics or religion in Northern Ireland and don't chew gum in Singapore.... Etc!

They should respect the sentiment of the majority in the country they visit, or else don't go. It's not even hard in Russia, since it's quite a diverse country with a near Western culture. All that the gay visitor needs to do is refrain from making a homosexual manifestation or coming on to kids, for two weeks while visiting the Olympic in Russia. How hard is that?

If a clean slate and flawlessness in the present, in terms of politics is required from all countries that host the Olympics is needed, then hardly no country would be worthy! Certainly not the ones that have hosted it recently, like China, the UK, the United States, Australia etc. Judge not, lest ye be judged! I'm sure the rest of the world could have dug up lots of good reasons to boycott each one of the previous and future Olympic hosts.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I agree that the pictures are disturbing and I certainly hope that the man who punched a gay person in the face is caught and punished.

But I don't think this looks any worse than the pictures of the anti-banking demonstrations in London, or the violence against British students who wanted to protest against tuition fees at university. People participating in those demonstrations were even worse beaten up, and two people died during that time, as a result of police violence.

There is a slight difference between the anti-banking demonstrators/students and gay people: those demonstrators and students can make their own choice who or what to be.

Quote from posting of excerpt of interview of Jane Goodall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV6NYh83k5g

"Jane Goodall makes some interesting points about homosexuality in nature.

In chimpanzees, her clear forte, homosexuality is NEVER observed unless
extremely artificial circumstances are forced upon the chimps.

She states the same is true for cattle and dogs.

One wonders why this isn't grasped on to by the media...

...well not really. Who'd want to invoke that kind of outrage?

How interesting that in fishing for approbation for homosexuality from the
most iconic figure of the application of science to the animal to the
environmentalist world we find a bluntly honest woman who knows her stuff
laying down the facts."

(another little wrinkle is that not all domesticated groups of those animals she talks about, display non-wild type behaviour.)

And so people can view an expert opinion for themselves, without speculation, rationalization, or anything else.
The evidence doesn't support the reductionist view. It isn't biochemistry.
Scroll down to question 8. full interview.
Jane Goodall: Blessing the Animals - FORA.tv

Originally Posted by Hanna

So they should use common sense just like when travelling anywhere a bit different, take the approach of "better safe than sorry".

I.e. cover up a bit in moslem countries, rather than running around in a tank top and shorts and complaining about being harassed. Don't "jaywalk" or drink alcohol in the street in the USA, don't bring up politics or religion in Northern Ireland and don't chew gum in Singapore.... Etc!

They should respect the sentiment of the majority in the country they visit, or else don't go. It's not even hard in Russia, since it's quite a diverse country with a near Western culture. All that the gay visitor needs to do is refrain from making a homosexual manifestation or coming on to kids, for two weeks while visiting the Olympic in Russia. How hard is that?

If a clean slate and flawlessness in the present, in terms of politics is required from all countries that host the Olympics is needed, then hardly no country would be worthy! Certainly not the ones that have hosted it recently, like China, the UK, the United States, Australia etc. Judge not, lest ye be judged! I'm sure the rest of the world could have dug up lots of good reasons to boycott each one of the previous and future Olympic hosts.

The difference between chewing gum in Singapore, or talking about politics in Northern Ireland, or not wearing a burkha in a Muslim country versus not "making a homosexual manifestation in Russia" - is that the first three examples are behaviors which one can choose to refrain from. Being gay is not a behavior, it is an identity. Yes, I understand that people on this forum will disagree. But since Throbert has already covered the behavior versus genetic aspects of gay life, I suggest rereading his post again. They can certainly try to live in a closet, but it's almost impossible. Could you pretend to be a man while visiting another country? That would be a more exact comparison than the other ones.

Additionally, the comment about "not coming on to children" reveals that you are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. I already covered this point, above. Gay people do not have any interest in "coming on to children."

I have traveled to many countries and I have always respected the laws there. I worked on an archeological dig in Syria, in 48-C heat and covered my neck, wrists and arms so as not to offend the sensibilities of my Muslim co-workers. I was not even allowed to mention Israel while I was there, so we referred to it as "Disneyland" lest we offend the religious sensibilities of Muslim people. But they did not force me to change what I am. That is a big difference.

To be honest, traveling to Russia frightens even me right now, and I love Russia. But even I cannot promise that I might not mention the fact that I have close friends who are gay, or say something equally factual and even though it is not intended as a provocation, it could be taken that way. It isn't only the laws I am worried about, it's the angry skinheads and neonazis like the ones who attacked me after I commented on the video. I did not say anything that deserved the level of hatred and hostility and threats directed at me. I have encountered this same hostility right here at MR, on other threads. It is very sad to me. The Russia I remember was never this brutal and people were not so cruel.

I still do not have a clear answer as to how the rules will be applied in Sochi during the Olympics. I suspect that there is not a clear answer, that Russian officials are saying contradictory things, and that is why media coverage on this is so confusing right now.

As regards homosexual behavior in nature, there is a plethora of examples of it.

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../nyreview.html

Did you listen to what she said?

Did you read the links I posted?

Originally Posted by Seraph

Did you listen to what she said?

I did. If I understood correctly something changes in species' biology with the loss of natural environment. So it appears that civilization advances also impact humans' biology. And dear Jane is much in favor of slowing population growth.

The biology is not changed, the genetics not changed. Behaviour and biology are not the same things. The interviewer actually was mistaken when he mentioned evolution, as that involves genetic change. People are confusing behavioural and biological things. Essentially Jane Goodall is saying something very important about some control groups. People are drawing incorrect conclusions about what are essentially experimental groups, as they are not paying attention, or don't understand what is being said about the control groups.

Originally Posted by Deborski

The difference between chewing gum in Singapore, or talking about politics in Northern Ireland, or not wearing a burkha in a Muslim country versus not "making a homosexual manifestation in Russia" - is that the first three examples are behaviors which one can choose to refrain from. Being gay is not a behavior, it is an identity. Yes, I understand that people on this forum will disagree. But since Throbert has already covered the behavior versus genetic aspects of gay life, I suggest rereading his post again. They can certainly try to live in a closet, but it's almost impossible. Could you pretend to be a man while visiting another country? That would be a more exact comparison than the other ones.

Additionally, the comment about "not coming on to children" reveals that you are confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. I already covered this point, above. Gay people do not have any interest in "coming on to children."

I have traveled to many countries and I have always respected the laws there. I worked on an archeological dig in Syria, in 48-C heat and covered my neck, wrists and arms so as not to offend the sensibilities of my Muslim co-workers. I was not even allowed to mention Israel while I was there, so we referred to it as "Disneyland" lest we offend the religious sensibilities of Muslim people. But they did not force me to change what I am. That is a big difference.

To be honest, traveling to Russia frightens even me right now, and I love Russia. But even I cannot promise that I might not mention the fact that I have close friends who are gay, or say something equally factual and even though it is not intended as a provocation, it could be taken that way. It isn't only the laws I am worried about, it's the angry skinheads and neonazis like the ones who attacked me after I commented on the video. I did not say anything that deserved the level of hatred and hostility and threats directed at me. I have encountered this same hostility right here at MR, on other threads. It is very sad to me. The Russia I remember was never this brutal and people were not so cruel.

I'd say it's still even more than that; no one should have any possible right to tell others whether or not to chew gum, or what clothes to wear (or do anything else of that kind, that is trying to affect someone else's way of life); places where the majority doesn't realize this have serious problems, and one of the world community's priority tasks is to do anything possible to reduce the numbers of such places.

Is anybody tired of the fact that we don't hear each other? Гласы вопиющих в пустыне...

Originally Posted by Seraph

The biology is not changed, the genetics not changed. Behaviour and biology are not the same things. The interviewer actually was mistaken when he mentioned evolution, as that involves genetic change. People are confusing behavioural and biological things. Essentially Jane Goodall is saying something very important about some control groups. People are drawing incorrect conclusions about what are essentially experimental groups, as they are not paying attention, or don't understand what is being said about the control groups.

Не знаю, я не антрополог, но в Гугле есть что-то о биологических изменениях:

How City Living Is Changing Human Biology | IdeaFeed | Big Think

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs...nalCode=anthro

"Culture causes behavior by causing changes in our biology. ... is as much part of human biology as bipedal locomotion, and cultural and genetic influences on ... http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/R...eIsBiology.pdf

Originally Posted by Deborski

insists that gay rights will not be "interfered with" - if I am translating this correctly - except in the case of foreigners openly "propagandizing" minors.

Which means what, exactly? (I'm not asking you, Deborski!) The question is, what does "propagandizing homosexuality to minors" mean to the Russians responsible for enforcing the law? And does the burden of proof fall on the government prosecutor, to show that someone's speech or behavior "promotes homosexuality to minors"? Or does the burden fall on the defendant, to show that his/her speech does NOT "promote homosexuality to minors"?

Shhhh.... no one tell the Russian government that THIS is pro-homosexual propaganda:



0:14-0:20 - "You know, people like YOU were the reason I was afraid to go to school as a child..." [*wham* *bam* *whack-kick-smack*]

Apparently the clip is also of interest to heterosexual men who like to see women's feet in slow-motion... sorry I couldn't find a shorter version! But, trust me, the X-Men franchise is nothing but pro-homosexual propaganda from start to finish, even though it doesn't have rainbow flags all over it...

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Which means what, exactly? (I'm not asking you, Deborski!) The question is, what does "propagandizing homosexuality to minors" mean to the Russians responsible for enforcing the law? And does the burden of proof fall on the government prosecutor, to show that someone's speech or behavior "promotes homosexuality to minors"? Or does the burden fall on the defendant, to show that his/her speech does NOT "promote homosexuality to minors"?

That is exactly my concern. The law is ambiguous at best. Just about anything could be construed as "gay propaganda." For example, I have lots of rainbow colored jewelry - not at all connected to the gay rights movement - but if I wore it in Russia, or if I wore anything multicolored, or if my husband wore his rainbow suspenders, what would happen? If I'm having a few drinks in a pub and I mention that my husband's uncle is gay, is that "propaganda"?

I have no idea. The law is utterly ambiguous and open to anyone's interpretation, I think.

A more serious thought that occurred to me about the "are people born gay?" question. As Deborski, Lampada, and others living in the States can attest, so-called "ex-gay therapists" who claim that homosexuals can become heterosexual through a combination of prayer, faith, and Freudian psychoanalysis have been controversial for many years. And for the most part, they're controversial because such therapy hardly ever works as promised, and the number of dissatisfied clients goes into the tens of thousands.

For homosexuals who don't want to be homosexual because it conflicts with their religious faith, this ex-gay therapy may indeed help them to avoid homosexual activity, but it doesn't cause them to lose interest in the IDEA of sleeping with persons of the same sex -- nor does it cause them to develop an interest in heterosexual activity. They just become celibate gays, in other words, which is much less than what the ex-gay therapy advertises.

Anyway, I think it's worth noting that the clients of these ex-gay therapists are, in nearly all cases, gay men and women who were raised in extremely conservative religious environments; who spent their childhoods NOT seeing "pro-gay propaganda," and instead listening to preachers talk about how much Jesus hates the wicked sin of sodomy; but for some mysterious reason...

...they turned out totally homosexual anyway, and started to realize when they were 12 or 13 years old or so that falling in love with and kissing and sleeping with someone of the same sex sounded like the greatest possible thing in the entire world. No one put this idea into their head -- in fact, they grew up completely surrounded by the very opposite of this idea -- but they just knew. Or, rather, some unconscious part of their brainstem just knew it was true, automatically, on a level that transcended rational will. (When you're a 13-year-old boy sitting in algebra class, незваная эрекция хуже татарина -- why do so many people have trouble understanding this elementary fact, and what it implies about the alleged "choice" of sexual orientation?)

But anyway, I also wanted to recommend the documentary Trembling Before G-d, about gays and lesbians who came from a family background of so-called Ultra-Orthodox Jews -- also known as the haredim, which more or less means "they who tremble" in Hebrew. Not only are their religious views extremely conservative, but they are also known for their tendency to avoid the "secular" world and its media. In short, they grew up with practically zero exposure to the type of "homosexual propaganda" that the Russian government is trying to shield Russian kids from -- yet, по щучьему велению, they turned out gay.

Anyway, the documentary is made for a "general" audience -- i.e., you don't have to be familiar with gay life or Judaism or Ultra-Orthodoxy -- and it brings up some interesting points about, for example, the difference between "homosexuality" and "gay identity," and also examines the seeming mystery of why some gay people from extremely conservative and vocally homophobic religious cultures attempt to remain inside those cultural structures.