EDIT: The Wikipedia article is full of hedging on this topic, e.g.
- "According to _some commentators_..."
- "Under the statute it is _effectively illegal_",
Since when did journalists become legal scholars? Shouldn't we evaluate laws based on legal outcomes, not on a journalist's speculation?
"Under the statute it is effectively illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in defense of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships."
You cannot hold a pride parade (a minor might see it); you cannot distribute brochures (a minor might read it); you cannot have a website (a minor might see it). The freedoms we take for granted in the West, limited though they may be, simply do not exist in Russia. Every single item that mentioned as something you can do in Utah is something you cannot do in Russia, by law. And that's not even touching on the more restrictive laws in many regions and cities, nor on the surge in hate crimes and other unofficial repression.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#Bans_on_g... (Although really, just google it; there's tons of info.)
We're concerned with the amount of oppression actually occurring in Russia, and with the actual life of actual gay men and women in Russia. Your comments and links focus on the laws, but it is very possible to pass a wonderful sounding law and then ignore it in practice. In fact, Russia's predecessor, the Soviet Union, was famous for doing just this. Their constitution guaranteed a wide range of freedoms which were never actually enjoyed by the subjects of the Soviet empire.
If we want to evaluate the drafting of a law, we would of course turn to a legal scholar; their views on phrasing are critical. But if you want to know about life on the street, you turn to a journalist.
You stress the word "effectively" in the phrase "effectively illegal", as if this undermines the importance. It does nothing of the kind, because we want to know if you can hold an actual gay pride parade in Moscow (which you cannot), not whether any given law, if read and applied fairly, would ban gay pride parades (which it arguably does not).
And I see this same mistake (trying to analyse the laws rather than their application) repeatedly in your comments and in the sources you cite. You're effectively arguing that it doesn't matter if a law is being used to repress and hurt people, if you can find someone arguing that the law shouldn't be used this way. As if this magically makes the actual harm to actual people go away. But this is nonsense.
At the end of the day, their are gay pride parades in, eg, Utah, but not in, eg, Moscow. And everything you've said and linked to does not address this core point, that homosexuals are being brutally repressed in Russia, and not in the US.
Neither do we want it here, nor feel the necessity to allow, either practically, or legislatively, period.
As for the alleged atrocities happening to those against whom the law is aimed, let's read the paper linked.
(also, no phobia, but given your language, well -- disgust you back, to say so)
For the other people who might be gay, and for the children who might be gay (at least 1% of them even at maximum oppression, and much more in an accepting society), no. You have no right to interfere, to force your unscientific and bigoted ideas on them, or to harm, oppress or imprison them. Your law is wrong. Your culture is wrong. Stop.
And exactly matching your point on the colorful percentage varying depending on the established attitude, we plain prefer our future to remain 99% hetero (and not, say, become 80%), that simple :)
Speaking of culture, mine, I believe, is, sadly, better than yours (again, bigot you back!), as is my understanding of what is actually happening here.
Rights, but not the means to "convert" others in a long-term -- as where the society as a whole goes is a holistic choice, with the voices of 1% playing roughly proportional role.
And, no, the majority does not get to dictate the public behavior of the minority, so far as it does not harm others, except in a society that has internalized the intrinsic subhumanity of that minority. Which you have. You've washed your brain and I am done with you.
It's amazing that there are people who still think that letting gay people be publicly gay makes more gay people. Regressive parts of the U.S. have that problem, too, but at least they're dying off.
Sounds more like me being done with you, honestly, but farewell (and good luck supporting non-existent jailed public homosexuality evangelists) :)
Before you decide to down-vote me into oblivion and accuse me of hating minority groups please read the white paper linked above. Note I am not affiliated with the person who wrote it or scribd. I just want people to see both sides of the argument.
EDIT - And what a surprise down-voted. Seriously did anyone clicking the down arrow actually read the paper? Considering how long it is and that this post is 5 minutes old I seriously doubt it.
It's very obviously written for the purposes of advocacy, despite protestations that it's not. The defense of this law seems to be:
1) It's not that bad. It doesn't target the LGBT community, it just bans any sort of public acknowledgement of a class of people that just happens to include LGBT folks.
2) The media has blown this way out of proportion by saying what the law only implies. Also by not mentioning that the law was enacted to protect the children. Why don't they mention the children?
3) Even if the law is that bad, it hasn't been enforced much yet.
4) Even if the law is bad, those guys over there are just as bed.
Oh yeah, definitely want to consider both sides of this argument.
Just out of curiosity, boyter. When you refer to "both sides", how would you sum up the other side in one sentence? "It's not that bad" is not, in fact, a defense of anything.
"With all that in mind, we can conclude that the only accurate, fact-based, logical answer to the question is YES"
Wow, just wow.
This guy is a nutjob. He argues with a straight face that the Russian law isn't targeting the LGBT community, just non-traditional sexual relationships. He's either a liar about his long involvement in the LGBT community or he's learned absolutely nothing from it, as it's classic couching of terms as cover.
He even brings up the (unenforceable) anti-sodomy laws in US states, discussing how the majority of them are actually written to outlaw sodomy (non-vaginal intercourse) between any two people, not just same-sex couples, but they were used as tools to specifically target homosexual long after they were no longer (or rarely) enforced against heterosexual people. And yet he can't seem to connect the dots.
In any case, this goes from infuriating to fucking stupid pretty quickly. Check out the pages culminating in the conclusion I quoted above on page 70.
"The law in its current form is an improvement over what existed before."
BTW I shouldn't have used the phrase "both sides". What I mean is we should not get caught up in the media's interpretation of the law. My mistake there and sorry for the confusion.
My referring to the "not that bad" is to way its being presented by the media.
I can see how advocating for equality can be listed as a crime based on what's listed in the law. It's interesting that the word "propaganda" is used which leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. Point 3 is the sore point it seems, although I can see why its in there as you would not want to equate "child-adult" relationships which this would prevent. It all hangs on the word "nontraditional".
That Russia has a reasonable political platform regarding its LGBT citizens? I am not sure that it is possible to 'blow out of proportion' what is most certainly a human rights issue. This was your own assertion, not that of the paper's.
The topic was the Google Doodle showing support for LGBT people and your first impulse is to imply that the situation in Russia is in fact a non-issue.
That is why you were downvoted, man.
Please, please, please read the linked white paper. It is well researched, well written and provides citations and sources to its conclusions. It is also written by a lawyer who identifies themselves as part of the LGBT community.
If nothing else, scroll down and read the translation of the Russian Federation law in there (the only good version I could find) and really think on what it means to the individual.
You were bemoaning being downvoted, and I explained why.
I was commenting on the context which you provided inside of your original comment. If you actually don't care or don't wonder why such a comment would be downvoted, then disregard my post(s).
I expected to be down-voted. I was also hoping that there would be enough people around with an objective point of view to read the paper and provide solid cited counter arguments.
I hold no stake in this. I am neither Russian or part of the LGBT community. I am interested in human rights, and I want equal opportunities for all regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender or otherwise. Torch and pitchfork attacks are not the way to achieve this.
Are you saying that this position can simply be disregarded out of hand? That strikes me as disrespectful and self-important. If nothing else it is non-conducive to any actual discussion on the matter - unless all you want is an echo chamber to reaffirm your preexisting positions on the matter.
> The topic was the Google Doodle showing support for LGBT people
Specifically in relation to the LGBT issues surrounding the Olympics, i.e., Russia's "anti-gay" laws. The Russian laws are very much a part of this topic. You're being disingenuous.
The commenter called it "The LGBT Russia thing" and if that does not aptly sum up how trivial s/he perceives the topic to be, I don't know what does. "That human rights violation thing". Sorry, it doesn't fly with me.
I am not saying Russian laws are not a part of the topic. What I am saying is that characterizing the topic as being "overblown" by citing that paper is absolutely ludicrous.
EDIT: Wanted to add in this: How do you have 'rational discourse' when one side of the discussion is demonstrably pursuing nothing less than a human rights violation? It is like saying the Catholic church's sex scandal was 'overblown', or slavery, or any other human rights topic you can imagine. Where is the rational discourse there? How can "human rights violations" ever be an "overblown" topic?
It's written by somebody who claims to be a journalist and managing editor yet has basically zero online presence in bylines or anything that I can find. Nor does he provide any contact information (apart from being from Chicago, which, good for him, I guess?). That makes very little sense.
In the US at large, LGBT rights and support for them has been growing, imperfectly and inconsistently, but growing. In Russia, it seems that there's been a backlash, and Putin and company are stirring up public sentiment against LGBT people. I'll take the word of Russians that things are actively getting worse:
Fucking hell, the countries are even the same here...
My comment references a Russian propaganda technique of brushing off human rights violation accusations by saying "Yeah well, the US is shitty", as though that excuses them. I suppose Yandex could in theory be used to distribute this form of propaganda, I don't really know much about them.
But if you care about facts on the ground—what people do, not what they say—then the US is worse than Russia.
I have no idea about any of the facts, but that's what I took to be what he was saying.
but thanks for linking that, seems to do a better job of providing better context of the LGBT situation in Russia.
Give me a goddamned break.
Give me a break.
Seriously, without getting snarky, how about you actually read the whitepaper. The person who wrote it is a lawyer and member of the LGBT community.
You might want to do some reading up - starting with this 5 series VICE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ_aSl3ktjg
I am not saying there are not problems. I am saying that the media coverage of it is overblown, and because of that any rational thought or discussion about it is impossible. I provided a link to a document which as I pointed out elsewhere is well written, researched, provides citations and has some reasonable conclusions.
I understand it is hard to remove emotion from this sort of topics, in much the same way that discussions on climate change rapidly spiral out of control.
I had hoped that HN was beyond being a vote brigade and that posting it would produce some reasonable discussion on the topic.
> Public actions designed to promote pedophilia, sexual relations with minors,pederasty, lesbianism and bisexuality shall be prohibited.
You see what is missing? Gay. Lesbian? Bisexual? In there. Gay not. Why? The subtext is: it's implied by either pedophilia or pederasty. Yes, those are techniques you find also among American conservatives fighting gay rights. But you know what? Those images and stereotypes can be found all over the world, for centuries at least. But making laws that turn those stereotypes official? Yeah, that's a problem. Not the people being convicted by those laws. The precedence such laws create.
I agree that there is lots of legislation which uses anti-pedophilia as a way of passing though "Won't somebody please think of the children!" works, and that's why it is used. I disagree with it of course, but yes I am aware of it.
Wait you are saying that by deliberately excluding "gay" then its implied? Sorry but that's a bit of a stretch which I disagree with.
Look, as far as I can tell this law can be boiled down to "We don't want people to force non-traditional marriage beliefs on minors". The specifics of it have issues. I can see how advocating for equality can be listed as a crime based on what's listed there though. Its interesting that the word "propaganda" is used which leaves a fair amount of room for interpretation. Point 3 is the sore point it seems, although I can see why its in there as you would not want to equate child-adult relationships which this would prevent. It all hangs on the word "nontraditional" and "propaganda".
Read up http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201402/being-gay-...
First, this white paper is horribly written in comparison to a real research paper or academic report. It seems to be written for the audience of a site such as Infowars, which, not surprisingly, is one of the main sites that have promoted this white paper.
Second, I was mostly interested in the author's comparison of the rates of hate crimes committed against LGBT people in Russia and the US. Not surprisingly, the author simply compares rates reported by the SOVA Center and the FBI. Anyone who has studied criminology for five minutes knows that you can't adequately compare the levels of crime in different areas this way. The American Society of Criminology, the largest criminological association in the world, has stated this numerous times in their publications, including their policy statements (which strongly recommend against using Unified Crime Reports (UCRs) to compare levels of crime in different cities that are located IN THE SAME COUNTRY).
> It is also written by a lawyer who identifies themselves as part of the LGBT community.
Yes, and Bjørn Lomborg is a lifelong environmentalist, which I also learned at Infowars.
The only mention of Brian M. Heiss, the author of the white paper, anywhere on the Internet is this white paper. Please direct me to this author, which should be easy since he's apparently your favorite source regarding this issue. I would never cite a source whose existence I couldn't prove.
> Letting the media tell you what to think
Are Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch "the media"?
There are still plenty of places in the USA where you could be killed for being gay, the difference is not by the state but by individuals.
So we are not exactly a shining beacon ourselves.
the difference is not by the state but by individuals.
Google has been quite active in fighting for gay marriage within US, submitting amici briefs to the court cases, spending money on campaigns, and so forth...
"Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime."
"The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies if Congress is acting in pursuance of its constitutionally authorized powers."
Congress does not have an authority to govern sexual conduct. Just because enforcement of sodomy laws has been unpopular long before 2003, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Hint: The Supremacy Clause limits federal law; the product of the legislative branch. Lawrence v. Texas is court decision; the product of the judicial branch. That's like saying the second amendment requires the legalisation of marijuana because pot is a type of rifle. ><
I've come to the point where I think the acronym is silly. I think right now we are up to "LGBTQIAPK". I may be a little out of date on that.
The fact is, some of the issues between the groups in the acronym are shared and some aren't. At one point in time, banding together for them was probably useful if not necessary. Today I think each group would be better going it alone, as they all have very unique concerns.
So the outcome of that is obvious : either disallow people to choose gender in sports, or live with the knowledge that all female records will be broken by (ex-)men in no time whatsoever.
Just say GSM at leave it at that; it includes every minority group from the LGBTQIAPK by definition, and all the others we might think up in the future.
To much sex talking. Just because there's so much sexual media doesn't mean that the LGBT should get their part of the attention on the news. We should go the other way and talk less about sex in the media.
I hope it is not too arrogant of me to assume that you are straight because I cannot fathom a gay person arriving at the conclusions you have arrived at.
Working under this assumption, would you say then, that any relationship you had with a member of the opposite sex was inherently sexual in nature?
Again, give me a break.
You can love someone and want to be with them for the rest of your life and not want to have sex with them. It really isn't a stretch of the imagination.
edit to add: It's the GNU Manifesto, which is an appendix in emacs' Info node.
On Vim it's the startup splash screen:
~ Help poor children in Uganda!
~ type :help iccf<Enter> for information
edit2: But that was an excellent choice of analogy, there was no need to delete it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Righ... (note that the signatories to this treaty also signed the original treaty and obviously, that means they were lying at least once)
Anyway, I use DDG from time to time, I like it but the results aren't always the best in my experience. More power to you, I hope DDG works well for you, your comments in this thread just seem pretty disingenuous.
Also, if you use the Omnibox or other search boxes in the browser, you don't even see it. You only see this if you visit www.google.com
Anyway, there's actor James Cromwell. We need to band together and overcome the negative association with the good ole' Lord Protector.
(My grandfather used to tell me that he traced our ancestry and supposedly we are closely/directly descended, but I don't buy it. On the other hand, 23andme localized my ancestral DNA pretty strongly to the UK)
The story I was told growing up that he was hated so much when he died, they dug up his body and desecrated it.
Showing support for LGBT people == politics? Give me a BREAK.
You can politicize anything you want. But there is nothing inherently political about showing support for an LGBT human being. 'What neoconservatives want to make political issues of' is an entirely different matter.
The moment something is merely mentioned in a law, it is henceforth to be considered under the header of "political topic"? Why? Because some political strategist (or worse, lobbyist) told you it was worth legislating for or against?
Your position can be summed up as "It is okay for Google to make Google Doodles about person X until whatever person X worked on became politicized".
Why was it okay for them to make a doodle about Simone de Beauvoir but not about your fellow LGBT human beings? This is the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Really?
I find it also horrific that you make a false parallel to text editors which also have demonstrable 'political' (as you've employed the term) positions.
And for those who for whatever reason cannot see it on Google, it reads:
"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter