Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[french frank]

To recap, then:

1. Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, though public attitudes remain hostile.

2. The new legislation is recognised as intensifying that hostility which represents 'a great danger' (quoted in a balanced BBC report) with an increase in incidents of what is also recognised as horrendous thuggery.

3. This is none of our business since this is merely a 'Russian tradition'.

4. If we venture to raise this subject as an area of intense concern to gays (not to mention to others) we should also be advocating taking military action against Syria.

Is this correct?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Absolutely and I am glad that many forum members are getting their priorities right. Let's not interfere in Syria where the odd few thousand people are gassed. Instead, let's focus on gay issues in Russia.

Nice, provocative post, ResM - but if it comes down to a choice between my being an armchair online petitioner against homophobic attacks in Russia and an armchair supporter of Western bombings of Syrian civilians and getting somebody else's children to risk their lives doing this for me (with all the success that has afforded in Afghanistan and Iraq), then you sum up my "priorities" quite well. And I feel quite as smugly holier-than-thou about my choices as you do about yours.

[ahinton]

To recap, then:

1. Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, though public attitudes remain hostile.

2. The new legislation is recognised as intensifying that hostility which represents 'a great danger' (quoted in a balanced BBC report) with an increase in incidents of what is also recognised as horrendous thuggery.

3. This is none of our business since this is merely a 'Russian tradition'.

4. If we venture to raise this subject as an area of intense concern to gays (not to mention to others) we should also be advocating taking military action against Syria.

Is this correct?

I rather fear that it might seem to be so although, to the extent that it might indeed be seen by some to be so, it serves to illustrate just how well some things can be "correct" without also being "right".

I will confine myself to responding to your point 3. by noting that withdrawing support for or involvement in something in Russia as an expression of protest against some specific proposed new legislation there is hardly the same thing as going into Syria with all guns and other weaponry blazing (and with or without majority national support) when those who might do so cannot even be certain against whom their intervention is supposed to be focused...

[jean]

Ff's four points seem to sum up pretty accurately what scotty, RM and Mr Pee have had to say on and about this thread.

But only they can tell us if anything needs to be added or modified.

[scottycelt]

To recap, then:

1. Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, though public attitudes remain hostile.

2. The new legislation is recognised as intensifying that hostility which represents 'a great danger' (quoted in a balanced BBC report) with an increase in incidents of what is also recognised as horrendous thuggery.

3. This is none of our business since this is merely a 'Russian tradition'.

4. If we venture to raise this subject as an area of intense concern to gays (not to mention to others) we should also be advocating taking military action against Syria.

Is this correct?

1. Yes
2, Well, that is the understandable fear of some, but you conveniently missed out the bit that unwarranted external interference in Russian affairs could have exactly the same unwelcome effect. Maybe even worse for gays.
3. It is no more our business than it is the business of Russians dictating to the UK about our new laws on 'Gay Marriage'.
4. Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean as it doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

[ahinton]

1. Yes

Homosexuality is indeed not illegal in Russia yet but the proposed legislation is clearly designed to marginalise non-heterosexuals; whether the general public attitude in Russia to non-heterosexuality is hostile remains well and truly open to question and, as has already been observed here, a mere single recent poll of a handful of Russian adults - particularly as it may or may not have contained loaded questions and may not have been conducted, collated and reported on to the standards expected in UK - can be no guarantee as a reliable indicator of majority Russian public opinion.

2, Well, that is the understandable fear of some, but you conveniently missed out the bit that unwarranted external interference in Russian affairs could have exactly the same unwelcome effect. Maybe even worse for gays.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that this was "left out" as a matter of not of "convenience" but of irrelevance; it is in any case also unclear to what particular "unwarranted external influence in Russian affairs" you refer here.

3. It is no more our business than it is the business of Russians dictating to the UK about our new laws on 'Gay Marriage'.

It is very much "our business" to have opinions on the matter and it is also "our business", if so any of us might choose, to respond to the prospect of such legislation by expressing those opinions publicly and/or privately and withdrawing support for or involvement in projects in Russia out of protest at them. That said, as I had not noticed any such "unwarranted external influence" in British legal affairs on Russia's part (have I missed any?), your reference to "the business of Russians dictating to the UK about our new laws on 'Gay Marriage'" is no more than a red (sorry!) herring.

4. Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean as it doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

It makes perfect sense to me; in your response to 2. here you inveigh against "unwarranted external influence in Russian affairs" and, were this to be an inappropriate course of action in this context, what "business" would it be of "ours" to be advocating military intervention - i.e. seeking to exert unwarranted external influence - in Syria?

[jean]

2, Well, that is the understandable fear of some, but you conveniently missed out the bit that unwarranted external interference in Russian affairs could have exactly the same unwelcome effect. Maybe even worse for gays.

You're making a lot of that 'bit', understandably so given how 'convenient' it is to your position on this, but I'd like to hear more from the person who claimed it was the case before I regarded it as a clinching argument that we should turn the other way and ignore what's going on.

4. Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean as it doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

It's a direct reference to this post:

...I am glad that many forum members are getting their priorities right. Let's not interfere in Syria where the odd few thousand people are gassed. Instead, let's focus on gay issues in Russia.

which you probably agree was pretty silly.

[scottycelt]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to assume that this was "left out" as a matter of not of "conveneince" but of irrelevance; it is in any case also unclear to what particular "unwarranted external influence in Russian affairs" you refer here.

Both of your 'points'.appear to be completely "off the wall" and are therefore virtually unanswerable. You seem to be saying it only matters if Russian gays are beaten up if it is for the reason which fits your own political and social agenda. If gays are beaten up for any other reason then that is 'irrelevant'. As to your second point, I can only hazard a guess and assume you are taking the 'proverbial'.

It is very much "our business" to have opinions on the matter and it is also "our business", if so any of us might choose, to respond to the prospect of such legislation by expressing those opinions publicly and/or privately and withdrawing support for or involvement in projects in Russia out of protest at them. That said, as I had not noticed any such "unwarranted external influence" in British legal affairs on Russia's part (have I missed any?), your reference to "the business of Russians dictating to the UK about our new laws on 'Gay Marriage'" is no more than a red (sorry!) herring.

Okay, you undoubtedly are taking the 'proverbial' ... so let's try the next one ...

It makes perfect sense to me; in your response to 2. here you inveigh against "unwarranted external influence in Russian affairs" and, were this to be an inappropriate course of action in this context, what "business" would it be of "ours" to be advocating military intervention - i.e. seeking to exert unwarranted external influence - in Syria?

There is a truly awful civil war going on in Syria. Many thousands are already dead including women and children. Chemical weapons have almost certainly been used. To compare this to a new overwhelmingly popular law in Russia aimed at protecting minors and curbing the excesses of 'gay rights activists' just because some Western 'liberals' don't like it is absurd in the extreme.

[jean]

There is a truly awful civil war going on in Syria. Many thousands are already dead including women and children. Chemical weapons have almost certainly been used. To compare this to a new overwhelmingly popular law in Russia aimed at protecting minors and curbing the excesses of 'gay rights activists' just because some Western 'liberals' don't like it is absurd in the extreme.

Please see my post above.

No such comparison has been made by any of those concerned about gay rights in Russia.

It was RM who dragged Syria onto this thread in the post quoted above, in which he suggests that caring about gay rights in Russia precludes caring about Syria.

Which is absurd and offensive nonsense.

[scottycelt]

It's a direct reference to this post: ... which you probably agree was pretty silly.

Why should I 'probably agree' about anything ... ?

As it happens I thought RM's post was far from silly ... it hit the nail right on the head!

I'm sure most sensible people can understand the difference between humanitarian intervention (or not) in a bloody civil war where chemical weapons have almost certainly been used and attempted busybody interference in the perfectly normal legal processes of another country!

[jean]

You disappoint me, scotty.

I am sure most sensible people can understand the difference between the two cases - differences that are so great that one may very well care about the one without feeling obliged to cease to care about the other.

[ahinton]

Both of your 'points'.appear to be completely "off the wall" and are therefore virtually unanswerable.

That might just be because they were not questions, scotty! They're no more "off the wall" than what they were a response to either.

You seem to be saying it only matters if Russian gays are beaten up if it is for the reason which fits your own political and social agenda. If gays are beaten up for any other reason then that is 'irrelevant'.

Is there some kind of language problem here? Where on earth did I suggest anything of the kind? To begin with, any persecution or sidelining of non-heterosexual people in Russia - especially if under legal sanction - matters to me and that has nothing to do with any "political and social agenda" on my part

As to your second point, I can only hazard a guess and assume you are taking the 'proverbial'.

If by the second point you refer to your interpretation that, as you wrote, "if gays are beaten up for any other reason then that is 'irrelevant' (i.e. to me), I have, once again, said nothing of the kind, nor do i think it.

Okay, you undoubtedly are taking the 'proverbial'

The "proverbial" what? How, exactly? Please be clearer and more specific.

There is a truly awful civil war going on in Syria. Many thousands are already dead including women and children. Chemical weapons have almost certainly been used.

On this much we certainly agree.

To compare this to a new overwhelmingly popular law in Russia aimed at protecting minors and curbing the excesses of 'gay rights activists' just because some Western 'liberals' don't like it is absurd in the extreme.

As FF noted, this "comparison", such as it is, arose from a post by RM, not one by me; that said, I am in any case not personally "comparing" the two - which would indeed be "absurd", as you say - but merely noting that each would involve countries intervening without invitation in the affairs of another state and implying thereby that the application of double standards might be seen as questionable.

[ahinton]

I'm sure most sensible people can understand the difference between humanitarian intervention (or not) in a bloody civil war where chemical weapons have almost certainly been used and attempted busybody interference in the perfectly normal legal processes of another country!

"Humanitarian" intervention, yet, of course - but what you seem either accidentally or wilfully to be avoiding (or is it evading?) here is that what's being referred to is military intervention! I'm sure most sensible people can understand the difference between humanitarian intervention and military intervention!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... a new overwhelmingly popular law in Russia aimed at protecting minors

So "minors" need protecting from homosexuals?

and curbing the excesses of 'gay rights activists'

These being ... ?

(You might wish to chose from these:)

In 2009, Irina Feotova is innocuously arrested for displaying posters declaring that "homosexuality is normal" and that she is "Proud of [her] sexuality" and fined an innocuous £40 for so doing.

On 25th January, this year, as a result of this innocuous piece of legislation, Anton Krasovsky was innoucuously sacked from his job as a TV presenter for letting people know on Air that he was Gay.

Three days later, peaceful protesters demonstrating against the innoucuous legislation were innocuously arrested (those counter-demonstrating in favour of the legislation were left alone).

On 28th March, Artem Kalinin, who was objecting to the innocuous legislation in a television interview, was innocuously beaten up on camera by Alex Kolegov, leader of a Neo-Nazi group in Russia who supports the innocuous legislation. Kolegov has not been arrested.


On May 10th, Vladislav Tornovsky was innocuously tortured to death by his friends after telling them that he was Gay. (Details are on line, but they are truly foul and I refuse to repeat them here.)

[scottycelt]

So "minors" need protecting from homosexuals?

Well they may well do from 'gay activists'. And it's up to the Russian themselves to determine from whom they need protecting not you or I.

These being ... ?

(You might wish to chose from these:)

In 2009, Irina Feotova is innocuously arrested for displaying posters declaring that "homosexuality is normal" and that she is "Proud of [her] sexuality" and fined an innocuous £40 for so doing.

On 25th January, this year, as a result of this innocuous piece of legislation, Anton Krasovsky was innoucuously sacked from his job as a TV presenter for letting people know on Air that he was Gay.

Three days later, peaceful protesters demonstrating against the innoucuous legislation were innocuously arrested (those counter-demonstrating in favour of the legislation were left alone).

On 28th March, Artem Kalinin, who was objecting to the innocuous legislation in a television interview, was innocuously beaten up on camera by Alex Kolegov, leader of a Neo-Nazi group in Russia who supports the innocuous legislation. Kolegov has not been arrested.


On May 10th, Vladislav Tornovsky was innocuously tortured to death by his friends after telling them that he was Gay. (Details are on line, but they are truly foul and I refuse to repeat them here.)

We know of cases where employees have been sacked or demoted in the UK for opposing 'Gay Marriage'. So what's the difference? Anyone who yet again demands examples, just Google!

I share your horror at unprovoked attacks on gays, atheists, jews, catholics, protestants, moslems or anybody else for that matter. Are you saying such attacks on gays will suddenly cease if the Russian laws are dropped.

The huge majority of Russians don't want 'equality' in sexuality. That is glaringly obvious. So why should the minority view hold sway?

Exactly the same is true in reverse. A much more significant minority in the UK don't want 'Gay Marriage'. The majority obviously do.

So it looks like the minorities in both cases will just have to lump it ... me included!