Russians Pass Ban On “Gay Propaganda” While Banning Gay Pride Parades in Capitol For 100 Years

The plight of homosexuals in Russia is getting worse under Vladimir Putin.  Gays and lesbians had their own Spring movement after the fall of the Soviet Union — coming out of the closet after decades of repression.  Then came Putin and his alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin’s government quickly used gays and lesbians as targets of political attacks. Those political attacks have now turned to actual attacks as thugs raid gay bars and clubs — beating down both men and women while the police do nothing.  The recent legislation banning “gay propaganda” (and a ban on parades for 100 years in Moscow) has triggered the increase in attacks as homophobes see official support for their violent campaigns.

Alyona Korolyova, 47, watched helplessly as her girlfriend was kicked in the head as part of an organized attack by masked men.

The attack came during a celebration of the internationally observed National Coming Out Day. The men clearly had prepared for the attack and the police did not intervene. She reported that “At around 9.30pm, a group of masked men ran by me, yelled: ‘This fight has been ordered’ and began overturning tables, throwing chairs and beating whomever fell under their hands.”

Eight Russian regions have banned “homosexual propaganda” in the past year – Arkhangelsk, Ryazan, Kostroma, Magadan, Novosibirsk, Krasnodar, Bashkortostan and St Petersburg. A national ban is now being prepared in the Duma.

It is all part of the regression of Russia under the authoritarian image of Putin.

The Russian Supreme Court vote to uphold the ban on “gay propaganda” in its review of the Arkhangelsk region’s ban. However, it ruled that gay pride parades and other demonstrations in support of gay rights are legal while banning direct appeals to children.

Gay and lesbians Russians have shown considerable courage in refusing to return to the closet and passivity. They continue to push for full rights, particularly free speech rights.

Source: Guardian

62 thoughts on “Russians Pass Ban On “Gay Propaganda” While Banning Gay Pride Parades in Capitol For 100 Years

  1. Joseph? Is that you? It’s a lot harder today to say one thing then do another and get it away with it than it was when you used to do purges.

  2. As the Church gains prominence and power in Russia this kind of violence will increase. Christ wants his religion back!

  3. Do you think this possibly could be in coincidence with the resurrgience of the Russian Orthodox Church????? Naah, Churches are good for people, aren’t they???? Bwa-hahahahahahahaha………..

  4. Is this what happens when a country becomes less liberal and more totalitarian? More accurately stated, this IS what happens when control-oriented conservatives take over a country.

  5. Which is considerably less salient to the present behavior than Putin being raised, educated and employed professionally as a totalitarian thug. Totalitarianism is not the sole province of one side of the political spectrum or the other.

  6. Gene, I believe we agree on Putin. If you simply read rcampbell’s comment he labels Putin a conservative. I’m just pointing out the obvious flaw in his comment. Hopefully that comports w/ your blog creed.

  7. OK, so you can take the Communism out of Russia but you can’t take the Russians out of — their insane desire to pander to control-freak-murderous thugs? Or something like that?

    Look at Putin. Do YOU think he is strictly heterosexual? Gee, where’s that gaydar article when you really need it?

  8. And I was just pointing out the obvious flaw in your comment, nick.

    Precision in terms is important and there are few fields where that gets abused more than political science. Putin’s relevant behavior is totalitarian – not conservative, not Communist. Totalitarianism is a political system where the state holds or seeks to hold total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life which is exactly the flaw in the decidedly mixed message Putin sent out on human rights in taking his above described action. While is action is arguably conservative in the social sense, it is decidedly not Communist either. The proper term is totalitarian, or in the alternative authoritarian, but totalitarian is the more precise term. That comports with the technical terms of art and the common usage of the English language.

  9. I agree with Gene on his assessment of Putin as totalitarian. As a matter of fact, a number of the oligarchs funding the Republican party seem to have leanings in that direction. It is all about power and control. Come to think of it Dr. Stanton Samenow, in his several books on the criminal mind lists the need for power and control as key elements in the personality makeup of the psychopath.

    We have quite a few of those in this country who would love to seize power to the extent they would turn this country into a true single party system with just a single box to check on every ballot.

  10. Wow Gene, you will do a triple axle trying to make a point on which we agree. My first comment and prior ones show I understand the dictatorial nature of this dangerous man. I’m just not allowing someone to rewrite history and label communism as conservative when it is the antithesis. Now, shake your dick, this pissing contest is over and never should have even started. I thought you had a busy week.

  11. nick,

    While rc was only imprecise with his usage of technical terms as the move by Putin was arguably socially conservative, you on the other hand, were simply wrong. How very typical of your usual responses though. First, you assume that I agree that Putin is the most dangerous man in the world when I said nothing of the sort and then secondly you act like a tough guy douche bag who relates everything to his penis when it is pointed out that you were wrong. If you don’t like others pointing out when you are wrong? Stop being wrong.

  12. NICK:

    in the context of the soviet union, Putin is a conservative. He wants to conserve/bring back the old soviet system.

    Most American conservatives I know are more along the lines of classical liberals.

  13. It would take a team of highly trained shrinks to unravel your narcissistic personality disorder. Now please, have the last word which is part of your pathology, and get back to your busy week. Then, BASTA!

  14. nick:

    I would also say what Gene says is social conservatism is more a religious fanaticism of evangelical Christens, who by the way, are not necessarily “conservative”.

  15. Bron, Thanks for a sane response. The old Soviet system was communism which is liberal. Or do I have it backwards and the communist hating Reagan was a liberal?

  16. Bron, You are a decent guy trying to find some sense to what Gene is saying. This isn’t about conservative, liberal, Putin, communism, etc. With Gene it’s about Gene and his enormous brain.

  17. nick:

    everyone who disagrees with Gene says that about him.

    blogger A: Gene, I dont agree
    Gene: you are wrong, this is why …..
    blogger A: Gene you have narcissistic personality disorder.

    It almost never fails.

  18. Whereas with you nick it is about your enormous inferiority complex and inability to accept when you’re wrong.

    As for telling me what to do? Good luck with that. And I am engaged in my busy week. Unfortunately for you I am tied up waiting for an unexpected call from a plumber and I’m always near a computer of some sort.

    You were wrong. Deal with it. Or whine about me some more, ya loser. It’s funny.



    Good show on a definitionally and contextually correct application of the term conservative in equating it with traditionalists. You’ve been reading. Even better, you’ve been learning.

  19. Reagan was actually more of a liberal. Although there was his stand on abortion. I think that was the evangelical influence.

  20. BF, Would “douchebag” count as an ad hominem attack in your book?

    Bron, He is a very smart, angry, narcisssist, not in that order.

  21. OS, I agree with you. In fact, many in this country regard it as a form of treason to disagree with their candidate. It’s gotten so that certain adjectives that used to simply describe general political ideas have become “charges” and have to be denied! I find it appallingly stupid. When my kid was younger, he asked me if I was a “capitalist or a communist” and that began a conversation (I always trusted him to be smart and wise even when he was very young and therefore uneducated/ignorant) about what various things one could “be” politically. We covered the various kinds of governmental systems and governmental systems ideas and when we got to “anarchy” he couldn’t understand it. I managed to get him a book that described anarchy. It was confiscated from him after a search that was not constitutional (as per the reputed Fourth Amendment that used to be part of alleged American Government) and I was then informally (and without notice) charged with parental unfitness for encouraging “terrorist behavior” in a minor. No behavior was mentioned. Nobody proved my kid had read the book, either.

    What it meant to me in that circumstance is simply what I see now in politics everywhere around me: To suggest that the way of the dominant political force is not appropriate, constitutional, or even very smart, is considered “radical” [a word I like because it does, after all, relate to the roots of our culture, which need some attention from time to time] and traitorous. This is the way of the Soviet Union; this is the way of Idi Amin; this is the way of the Third Reich; this is the way of all the greatest failures of the greatest empires in history. And we are tromping along on that way…

  22. I didn’t name name’s, nick, but I’m guessing you feel that was only for you. Well, everything isn’t about nick all the time, though yours was the only comment that consisted of zero content/ all character attack. Hey, if the shoe fits, right?

  23. BF, Be straight @ was directed only @ me. I’m the last person you want to try and bullshit. Your hero throws out STFU, stupid assh@le, idiot, douchebag, all the time. I’ve never used those investives. I used “shove it up your ass” once for which I apologized. Choose your heroes wisely. Yours is a hypoctite and a black hole of needy.

  24. “I’m the last person you want to try and bullshit.”

    Ok, you have my utmost respect, let me assure you. Why would I want to BS you, again? Who’s my “hero”. How is it that you are always telling me how I am, btw, yet you are always wrong?

    Maybe its difficult learning that one person’s use of the word “liberal” isn’t actually the universal meaning of the word.

    For some its been propagandized to the point that “liberal” could have no other connotations except a visceral negative response with no understanding.

  25. nick,

    You should learn the difference between ad hominem and insult. It is important to note the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. An ad hominem attack seeks to counter an argument based on the the person making it. An insult simply seeks to belittle someone, you know, like calling them a narcissist for pointing out you’re full of crap. Insult can be added to a refutation, however. It’s not nice, but then again, I don’t suffer fools gladly and you, nick, are certainly a fool. You being a douche bag has nothing to do with the nature of your argument being wrong. You were wrong because you were wrong, not because you are you. Douche bag was not even introduced as appropriate impeachment evidence although in your case I could probably make that argument work. It was merely an insult because you go out of your way to act like a douche bag when all I had done was point out you were wrong. You could have taken the lesson about political science terminology for what it was but nooooo! You had to run it through the filter of your penis and think it was a pissing match merely because someone had the tumidity to challenge your word as gospel. You don’t just react that way to me, by the way. You react that way to anyone who challenges what you say. Most of them are just nicer than I am.

    And needy? Yeah. I’m about as needy as I am meek. You’ll have as much luck getting that dog to hunt as you are the narcissist thing.

    I get that you don’t like me, nick. I just don’t care because the feeling is mutual, Tough Guy. Some people like you, some people don’t, and that’s just the facts of life. That you can’t out argue or out insult me should be a lesson for you to learn how to argue better and quit trying to piss me off and beating on your chest like a threatened monkey when I point out you’re wrong. All your weak efforts do is result in my (and others) amusement at your expense. I don’t expect that to happen though. You’re demonstrably hard of learning.

    Carry on.

  26. The gang-bangers are measuring their units once again, or should I say once upon a time.

    What is next, cross dressing at The First Church of Bullies?

    Short of that, realize that no debates ever take place here.

    A debate has a judge who decides which argument is the better one.

    Harangues masking as debates are unproductive, having been decided by the one making the argument.

    Not too classy, as far as discourse goes.

  27. Well Internet tough guy. Here’s one thing I would bet my house on. If you spoke to me in a bar here, like you talk to me here, it would only happen once. You’re the faux tough guy. I surmise you were picked on in school as a youth. And that’s too bad. You intellectualize where qualtities like common sense, empathy, etc. are called for, not showing off your God given intellect. I’ve seen your hypocrisy as have many others. You diminish yourself in some peoples eyes. I realized just how angry you are when you compared me to Hitler and my deceased sister to his dog. SWM and I were just having a nice conversation about food and the restaurants we went to in Texas before she died. Out of the blue, probably after a couple vodkas, you spew that hate. Then, just yesterday you admonish someone for making a comment about a dead relative. When brains and ego were passed out you went through those lines a few times. You skipped the class, character and social skills lines altogether. Did your plumber call yet, very busy man?

  28. No. A formal debate has a judge(s). No judge is needed or prescribed to deliberate a topic du jour.

    You know that, Dredd.

    Is “classy” up for debate? Are you judging?

    Folks come here by choice, as well. No one is forced to subject themselves to the haranguing, bullying comments section, as far as I’ve observed.

  29. BF, I will take you @ your word. If you didn’t direct that comment about ad hominen attacks @ me, or solely @ me, then I’m sorry. I’m a gentleman, raised by a gentleman.

  30. And here’s an opinion of Ryazan dweller. I have a friend who’s a lesbian. That’s what she told me about the parades: ” I enloy living with my friend and we do not wish to turn our happy life into political circus, because parades in Moscow are political circus”. And that’s what it is.

  31. Whatever you want to think, nick. You’re the one with the tough guy complex whenever someone challenges what you say. But thanks for the veiled “I could kick your ass”. That always makes me laugh. The bottom line is you might be able to kick my ass, nick, who knows, but you’d be going to the ER and wearing at least one cast home for your efforts. I’m a big fairly well trained guy and I play a mean defense. I’m just not so dumb as to play the tough guy. It really rankles your feathers that I’m not intimidated by you in the slightest though, mentally or physically. Also you supposition about my childhood is laughable. Like all lil’ boys, I won some, I lost some, but unlike most lil’ boys, I was the kid who got sent home on a regular basis for thrashing the bullies picking on the disabled kids.

    As far as hypocrisy goes? Using yet another word you don’t understand. Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case. My standards and beliefs are just as I have stated. If you think you can prove otherwise? Knock yourself out. As I have stated, I don’t suffer fools gladly. That I find you a fool is another matter.

    You also still totally managed to miss the point of the Hitler example even though I explained it to you in such simple detail a child could understand it and it had nothing to do with you and your sister. The point was about you and BBQ and that liking something good in common with another person does not make you de facto good or have anything substantive in common. It merely means you like something good. If you choose to be insulted at this point, that is is your choice. However, any false equivalences about your sister are not from me comparing her to a dog but rather you mistaking her for BBQ because you can’t properly process example by analogy with that mediocre mind of yours. I’m sure she was a lovely person and I’m sorry for your loss, but really, your outrage over this imagined slight is just imaginary. I’m not going to apologize for your misconception, especially after I explained in detail what I meant.


    Are you done?

  32. I didn’t know you were short. Most people can rationalize more succintly than you just did. I was done awhile back, read the transcript.

  33. Malisha: “Look at Putin. Do YOU think he is strictly heterosexual? Gee, where’s that gaydar article when you really need it?”

    LOL, word.

    My only reservation is that he was head of the KGB, his thing is control and any attendant pain is not an issue with him. Unlike others here I don’t think he has any political affinity, you don’t get to be the head of the KGB by being an ideolog, you get there by being a murderous sociopath. Any party affiliation was simply a matter of pragmatic convenience. He would have done as well as a Fascist; it’s about him, not a party.

    Like W I have looked in his eyes (in any number of photos) and all I saw was shark’s eyes, no humanity there at all. Actually, it makes me feel bad for sharks to use that analogy; I respect sharks.

  34. People can read the exchange on the 10/3012 post “Still Virginia Bound”. At 1:11p I end a series of comments w/ SWM about my deceased sister. Then Gene makes his Hitler/dog comment. I’ll let folks make up their own mind about how appropriate your comment was. Then followed w/ your admonition yesterday to someone regarding commenting about dead relatives. I forget the thread, maybe you remember. Folks can make up their own minds.

  35. Eeyore, Blue collar, ethnic gentlemen do, that’s my background and I’m damn proud of it. Generally, ballbusting is quite prevalent amongst most men in the east. I learned in the midwest it can be perceived like you apparently do. When I sense someone can’t handle ballbusting I stop..that’s what a gentleman does. Blouise is tougher than most of the men here.

  36. “nick spinelli 1, October 31, 2012 at 11:49 am

    Wow!! Gene, SWM, and the callous, mean, horrible Nick Spinelli agreeing on KC bbq. [. . .]”

    An exchange made directly to me, to which I responded:

    “Gene H. 1, October 31, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    The funny thing about Hitler is that he loved his dog.”

    Which had nothing to do with your exchange with LK which I was not involved in. To which your response was:

    “nick spinelli 1, October 31, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Gene, How classy!”

    Resulting in the following exchange:

    “Gene H. 1, October 31, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Hitler did love his dog, nick. That’s a historical fact. The point, which obviously went over your head, is that liking something good does not make you a good person. It simply means you like something good. You liking something good that I happen to like does not give us anything but the most superficial of common ground and does not mitigate you previously putting your foot in your mouth in any form. It is still more deflection on your part. Innocence by association works no better than guilt by association if you don’t know how to use the rhetorical tools properly. However, if you want to talk about class, how about starting the discussion with how uncouth one must be to minimize those rightly concerned with a life threatening storm. That’s a far more robust way to address the subject. It shows a remarkable insensitivity for not only their situation but their rightful assessments of concern in the face of danger because they don’t meet up to some ridiculous macho preening posturing ideal. Doesn’t it, buttercup? But who knows if it is classy or not? No one. Classy is not an objective standard, but a subjective one. No one said what you said was classy or not. The criticism was directly to the callous nature of your comments. Personally, I think people who say things about how classy something is or isn’t are usually devoid of any substantive praise or criticism other than a weak appeal to their own preferences. Classiness and dictating what is and isn’t is not only a weak subjective concept, it is inherently elitist in begging the question that you the speaker are the arbiter of class. Weak ego-centrist opinion wrapped in condescension. Your opinion of classiness has no more value than any other opinion unsubstantiated by an objective standard of some sort like logic or evidence. And like any unsubstantiated opinion, it is as ephemeral as smoke.

    For example, contrast your pronouncement of classiness with my reasoned critique of the idea of classiness. Mine was reason based in quantitative terms and logic dissecting the uselessness of such pronouncements by showing them in the conceptual context of what they are. Yours was simply expressing your opinion over a point you completely missed in the first place. The later has instructive and analytical value, the former not so much.

    I know subtly isn’t your strong suit, but do try to keep up.

    Carry on.
    nick spinelli 1, October 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Gene, I would say you were raised by wolves in Johnson County but there are no reports of wolves there for over a century. Plus, wolves have a social structure and skills. Are you giving out candy today, or just lecturing kids on the need to revere logic? Stop digging your own hole. I was talking to SWM about my deceased sister and food. Why did you feel compelled to inject your hate? It wasn’t logical for someone w/ a soul.

    It’s cocktail hour on the west coast so I predict this will get even nastier. Why don’t you say your last hateful words. Why not compare me to Pol Pot and Stalin while you drink your Ketel One? And then move on. You’re an embarassment.
    Gene H. 1, October 31, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Once again, you succeed in completely missing the point, nick. I wasn’t comparing you to anyone. Did I say you were Hitler? No. I was pointing to his loving his dog as an example of a relationship. I was making a statement about one liking something good and the relationship it has to one being a good person or not – namely that it has none. Hate has nothing to do with it either. You again value yourself too highly if you think I’d go to the effort to hate you. Hate is work. Hate is for mortal enemies. You? You’re a very minor annoyance at best so do try to keep things in proper perspective. I know, I know, proper perspective is not your strong suit either, but do muddle along.

    If you’re embarrassed though? That would be your problem and an actually appropriate reaction for your earlier statements about those concerned with the storm. Personally, I’m not embarrassed nor is anyone of any consequence to me so unless you were talking about your reaction, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Then again, neither do you quite often so I don’t feel bad about that either.

    And thanks for the compliment. Wolves rock.”
    So given that exchange in its totality, it is apparent by the evidence that you are conflating insult to your sister to manufacture some sort of attempt at sympathetic righteous indignation to deflect that once again you said something wrong and someone challenged you on it.


    You’ll have to do better than that to prove I’m a hypocrite.

    You, however and as alluded to on that thread, did a fine job at illustrating you are a hypocrite by claiming to be some sort of empathetic humanist and yet minimizing the concerns and the people who rightly held them in the encroaching face of Hurricane Sandy.

    About now, a smart person would know they should walk away instead of further looking to exacerbate the situation, nick.

    Shall I pull up your own words and the admonishments of many to prove that point concerning you and Hurricane Sandy beyond reasonable doubt or do you want to cut your losses now? Hoisting you further on your own petard only amuses me, but I will if you wish to insist.

    Let’s see how smart you are.

  37. The thread where Gene took someone to task regarding talking about a dead relative was the Watering Down the 4th Amendment post @ 10:56a.

  38. I guess when you’re an underachiever this constitutes being “crazy busy.” When I was busy running my own agency I worked 80 hours a week. You are less busy than a govt. bureaucrat.

  39. Deflection and non-responsive.

    You should be less concerned with what I am doing (which is supervising plumbers while thrashing you on my laptop) than with the fact you are losing this argument badly.

  40. You could just say, “Yeah. I guess in light of now knowing the proper terminology, Putin’s acts were more totalitarian than Communist.”

    Or you can continue to play with your . . . shovel.

  41. I’m leaving it up for people to make up their own minds, why can’t you just breathe and let it go. I’m done. Say your last word and then go finish your paper route.

  42. You’re the one who started this, nick, by once again acting douchey when challenged. I was being perfectly nice until you gave me a reason not to be nice. But if you’re not man enough to finish what you start, I won’t be surprised. You should have learned by now this is the inevitable outcome when you try to change the argument from the argument to being about me instead. You are the embodiment of ad hominem response when anyone dares to challenge you. Too bad your own words impeach you when you attack the character of others instead of their argument. You didn’t even attempt to defend your initial position.

    The people can decide on their own. I’m quite content to let them. That is why I presented evidence to prove your outrage over your sister was manufactured.

    Too bad for you, you’ve got nothing of substance except for that nice big plate of red herring attempting to deflect from the fact you were wrong about Putin in the first place and that your attempt to attack me as rebuttal is (once again) a resounding failure.

Comments are closed.