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
Dredd, I tried to end it but Emporer Gene won’t let it go.
Poopsie, That’s a shart. When I do that I say, “That’s going to leave a mark.”
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?
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.
Gene H:
tumidity? dont you mean temerity?
Although tumidity is a good word.
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.
I farted and some poop came out…
“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.
BF, Be straight @ least..it 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.
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?
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…
BF, Would “douchebag” count as an ad hominem attack in your book?
Bron, He is a very smart, angry, narcisssist, not in that order.
Reagan was actually more of a liberal. Although there was his stand on abortion. I think that was the evangelical influence.
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.
********************
Bron,
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.
nick:
Gene is very smart. I am estimating his IQ as north of 140.
Because ad hominem attacks are always the way to win a debate. /sarcasm
Not backwards, nick. Just wrong…again.
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.