I won't disagree that demonizing Putin is what the government wants us to do. I remember how the U.S. funded Saddam to use chemical weapons on Iran and then overthrew him "for the sake of the people."
However, it should also be kept in mind that we're still far away from the Russian regime where speaking against the government (releasing classified documents doesn't count) or being a homosexual will land you in jail.
So yeah, no one's perfect, but I'll stick to North America for the time being, thanks.
> Speaking in favor of gay rights is considered propaganda and was made illegal last year.
That's false.
EDIT: Again, the statement above is false. It is legal to speak in favor of gay rights. It is illegal for adults to speak in favor of gay rights TO MINORS. Much like it is legal to have sex. And illegal for adults to have sex with minors.
Under the statute it is effectively illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in presence of minors.[5][57][60][64][65]
It is legal to "hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"
It is illegal "illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships _in presence of minors_."
so, anywhere in public? where would one find space to hold a public event where children are guaranteed to not be present?
Also the whole line of reasoning is that mentioning homosexuality to children makes them gay which is... bad?
thats a value judgment on homosexuality that was put in place by the government, yet you are trying to constantly say that this law holds no prejudice? what a shill.
Oh, before you try to come back with 'thats not a value judgement!' hold your breath. the law literally states that you cant say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships to children, that leaves only two possible positions: either homosexual relationships are better or they are worse
I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle. In fact, I don't event want my kids to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
There is zero prejudice in this value statement. And most parents agree with my position.
When my kids are adults they can decide about sexual relationships for themselves. Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
Does the law block speaking to kids about ALL sexual orientations, or just 'non traditional'?
you're point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. this is about discrimination against homosexuality.
But I'll address it anyways:
>I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle.
Good for you, luckily as a parent you have the ability to make those decisions for your kids.
This does not extend to you forcing your views on others.
>And most parents agree with my position.
and the rights of the majority are the only rights that matter, correct?
>Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
This is not how it works. Say you were an anti-vaccine advocate, you would want the legal system to outlaw vaccines, but many other parents would disagree. see how this conflicts with the rights of others?
Choose your words carefully, the law blocks _propaganda_ not speaking; of _"sexual relations"_ not sexual orientations. Translated from Russian to English, "sexual relations" refers to non traditional parental units, i.e. those that do not consist of a male + female. You may see here a discrimination against homosexuality but I see a legal framework for protection of a traditional family. LGBT individuals still have rights in this framework.
With respect to your anti-vaccine example. There is always a conflict between something that a minority may consider a right and the rule of the majority. There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal. Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict? Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
>or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in presence of minors.
Is it me, or is that the word 'say'?
>You may see here a discrimination against homosexuality but I see a legal framework for protection of a traditional family.
This is a direct contradiction. You cannot use law to legally protect one class of people without necessarily discriminating against those not in that class.
> There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal.
Weak example. Pedophilia has a direct victim (a child is unable to give consent)
>Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict?
No, but it wouldnt be to ignore it as you would. This is so far from what the discussion is about I wonder why you are trying to sidetrack this
>Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
? this is pretty much nonsense? yeah, rights are won through societal change as you say - Many societies are changing to accept homosexuality, not sure what you're trying to get at here? Why would i be proposing a novel solution to gay rights?
In free countries, minorities have right without struggle. We all are owed due process, free assembly and so on. This so-called conflict is made-up, where the majority imagines they are harmed by the private arrangements of the minority.
I assume you would have no problem showing your children a Disney movie where the prince marries a princess (kids' movies obviously have no explicit sex scenes).
Would you have a problem with a Disney movie where a princess marries another princess?
I.e. is your problem really just with exposing children to sex, or do you actually have a problem with gay characters?
Interesting. So how does this play out as a means of controlling moral values in Russia? Can I effectively break up any pro gay rights events just by bringing along enough children? Or does incidental inclusion of minors not count enough to stop an already planned event?
To be honest, gay rights events in Russia are usually broken up by far-Right mobs physically attacking anyone participating. It's fair to say the police aren't renowned for making concerted efforts to ensure things go peacefully, but they're generally not the ones dishing out the beatings either.
The law in question is pandering to the extreme levels of homophobia prevalent in modern Russian culture, and its justification and theme is loosely based on an actually much more explicitly anti-gay law that existed on the UK statute book not so long ago; our current PM opposed its repeal in 2003 and yet ended up backing gay marriage a decade later. Legislators sometime reflect popular sentiment more as they shape it.
Which doesn't mean it isn't a terrible law, and much more likely to be used to persecute people in Russia than the UK (or indeed Singapore where homosexuality is technically illegal). But some perspective is useful here. From the waves of condemnation emitted from certain sources earlier this year you'd never guess that last Olympic venue where homosexual activity was actually illegal was Atlanta in 1996.
I'd appreciate the campaign to support Russian gay rights much more if I believed much of the media behind it wasn't - for better or worse - really far more interested in Russia's foreign policy. Or that it wouldn't backfire...
It is illegal "illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships _in presence of minors_."
I know that propaganda of sex to children had been forbidden last year (which makes one wonder, has it really been legal before 2013?), did not know this one. Any links would be appreciated. I can read and write Russian so the law's name would be good enough for me.
It's the same law; their logic is that promoting LGBT rights means promoting deviant sexual behaviour, and doing so publicly will inevitably reach children.
"Their" is referring whom exactly? I don't think Russia is a Common Law country, judges there cannot derive something from a law so whomever you think is interpreting the law. Were not media saying that gay athletes in Sochi are going to be incarcerated using the same logic?
You can't really use Sochi as an example. The Olympics are a very important international event and Russia wanted the good publicity. You'll also notice that Putin ordered the release of many political prisoners just in time for that event.
It is legal to speak in favor of gay rights. It is illegal for adults to speak in favor of gay rights TO MINORS. Much like it is legal to have sex. And illegal for adults to have sex with minors.
The logical structure of the two arguments is the same.
I don't want my kids to be exposed to public promotion of any sexual lifestyle. In fact I don't even want them to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
LGBT community can rent out a conference center and hold the rally there, advertising it publicly and denying minors access to the premises. This is perfectly legal under today's LGBT laws in Russia.
It doesn't matter what you want your kids exposed to... because there are activists who are working with politicians in most Western countries to totally change sex educations classes.
For example, in the UK, teachers are to tell kids as young as 13, which is below the age of consent:
"normal behaviour includes taking an interest in pornography, having sexually explicit conversations, using the internet to chat online and consenting to oral or penetrative sex with the same or opposite gender."
Or kids as young as 9:
" So-called “green behaviours” are defined as those that “reflect safe and healthy sexual development”.
For children aged nine to 13, green behaviours include “solitary masturbation” and “use of sexual language”."
LGBT community can rent out a conference center and hold the rally there, advertising it publicly and denying minors access to the premises. This is perfectly legal under today's LGBT laws in Russia.
However, it should also be kept in mind that we're still far away from the Russian regime where speaking against the government (releasing classified documents doesn't count) or being a homosexual will land you in jail.
So yeah, no one's perfect, but I'll stick to North America for the time being, thanks.