Skip to main content

Russia has appeared quite prominently on the world stage this summer. But this post is not about Edward Snowden. The coming of the Olympics to Sochi, Russia in the winter of 2014, as well as Moscow's hosting this month of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) World Championships has shone a spotlight on that country's attitude toward homosexuality.

In June, Russia passed a new law banning the discussion of "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations around minors." The video above demonstrates exactly what that law means, as an activist is arrested for unfurling a banner that reads "being gay is normal."

A number of athletes and other public figures have protested vigorously against the new law. Here on this site, Dave in Northridge and others have done a terrific job posting about the issue.

The law itself is both absurd and vicious in its dehumanization of homosexuality. The widespread support it received in the Russian parliament—the lower house passed the law 436 to 0 (with one abstention)—is also reflected in state propaganda, where the lead news anchor on Russian state television offered the following gem:

I believe it is not enough to impose fines on gays for engaging in the propaganda of homosexuality among adolescents. We need to ban them from donating blood and sperm, and if they die in car accidents, we need to bury their hearts in the ground or burn them as they are unsuitable for the aiding of anyone's life.
This law and the hate from which it springs sickens me. I don't expect there are many here who would disagree. That's what brings me to the particular angle I want to explore.

Please follow me beyond the fold for more.

Yelena Isinbayeva, a Russian pole vaulter and so-called "face of the Moscow world championships," defended the anti-gay Russian law by asking for "respect" for her culture and her society:

"We consider ourselves like normal, standard people, we just live boys with women, girls with boys ... it comes from the history," she said. "[The protests are] disrespectful to our country. It's disrespectful to our citizens, because we are Russians," she said.

"Maybe we are different than European people and people from different lands. We have our law which everyone has to respect. When we go to different countries, we try to follow their rules. We are not trying to set our rules over there. We are just trying to be respectful."

Isinbayeva later sought to clarify her comments, noting that English is not her first language, and that she rejects "any discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their sexuality." Homosexual activity among consenting adults has not been illegal in Russia since 1993, and this is what she is presumably referring to when she said she rejects discrimination.

Clarifications aside, I want to examine more deeply the rhetoric she used to defend the law. Respect our culture, Isinbayeva said. Our beliefs about homosexuality come from our history, they are authentic to us and have their roots in our people's traditions. Our ways, she claimed, are not better than yours, just different, and we have a right to be different.

This is the language of cultural conservatism for certain, but it is also the language of a particularly extreme, relativist kind of multicultural ideology (there is much diversity within multicultural thought). Isinbayeva bends that language to her own purposes, but the fact remains that that language has always been open to such abuse.

If all cultures are truly equal, as some harder forms of multicultural ideology argue, then Isinbayeva and her anti-gay allies in Russia are right. In fact, the idea that all cultures are somehow equal has hampered some on the Western left from criticizing hate and other abuses of human rights in non-Western cultures since at least the controversy surrounding the 1989 fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomenei of Iran against Salman Rushdie following the publication of The Satanic Verses. During the controversy, in reaction to those who sought to accommodate those Muslims offended by Rushdie's book on the grounds of respecting cultural/religious differences, English journalist Andy McSmith wrote:

We are witnessing, I fear, the birth of a new and dangerously illiberal "liberal" orthodoxy.
There is nothing wrong, in theory, with a general commitment to respect all cultures, and there is certainly plenty to criticize about my own culture. The point is, when push comes to shove, I'll always choose to respect people's rights over people's cultures. All cultures are not equal. The culture of white nationalism, or of the Christian Nationalist/Christian Identity movement—yes, by any definition these are cultures—is not worthy of respect, but rather is something to be vigorously rejected and opposed by anyone who respects human rights.

Kenan Malik framed the issue quite well:

We can either recognise people as equal, or we can recognise cultures as equal. We can't do both.
Hatred of homosexuality is, according to Russian law and prominent Russian cultural icons, central to Russian culture. I cannot respect that culture or any culture, whether Western or non-Western, that goes on record as opposing equal treatment for actual flesh and blood human beings, or publicly declares that some groups of human beings are less worthy of respect than others because of who they are. Only a liberal universalist approach can truly defend the equal rights of all people.

Cultures don't have rights. People do.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Sep 01, 2013 at 05:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by LGBT Rights are Human Rights, Invisible People, Barriers and Bridges, and More and Better Democracies.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site