Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Thanas wrote:And what has Baghdad Bob to do with gays? Nothing? So don't lay into me for a point you simply just do not like while ignoring the other things.
The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia’s anti-gay laws
By Ian Ayres and William Eskridge, Published: February 1
Ian Ayres and William Eskridge are law professors at Yale University.
Controversy over a Russian law that prohibits advocacy of homosexuality threatens to overshadow athletic competition at the upcoming Sochi Olympics. Thoughtful world leaders, including President Obama, have criticized Russia for stigmatizing gay identity.
Many of these critics find it hard to believe that in 2014 a modern industrial governmentwould have this kind of medieval language in its statutory code:
●“Materials adopted by a local school board . . . shall . . . comply with state law and state board rules . . . prohibiting instruction . . . in the advocacy of homosexuality.”
●“Propaganda of homosexualism among minors is punishable by an administrative fine.”
●“No district shall include in its course of study instruction which: 1. Promotes a homosexual life-style. 2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style. 3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.”
●“nstruction relating to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include . . . emphasis, provided in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense.”
Amid the rush to condemn Russia’s legislation, however, it is useful to recognize that only the second quoted provision comes from the Russian statute.
The other three come from statutes in the United States. It is Utah that prohibits “the advocacy of homosexuality.” Arizona prohibits portrayals of homosexuality as a “positive alternative life-style” and has legislatively determined that it is inappropriate to even suggest to children that there are “safe methods of homosexual sex.” Alabama and Texas mandate that sex-education classes emphasize that homosexuality is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Moreover, the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.
Eight U.S. states, and several cities and counties, have some version of what we call “no promo homo” provisions. Before the United States condemns the Russian statute’s infringement of free speech and academic freedom, it should recognize that our own republican forms of government have repeatedly given rise to analogous restrictions.
It is no coincidence that these examples focus on what must and must not be said to children. An explanatory note accompanying the 2013 Russian legislation makes clear that the statute seeks to protect children “from the factors that negatively affect their physical, intellectual, mental, spiritual, and moral development.” Proponents of the U.S. statutes have offered similar justification. And, like Russian President Vladimir Putin this month, the U.S. laws warn gay people and sympathizers to “leave kids alone, please.”
The underlying ideology of these statutes is the same: Everybody should be heterosexual, and homosexuality is per se bad. This ideology has never rested on any kind of evidence that homosexuality is a bad “choice” that the state ought to discourage. The ideology is a prejudice-laden legacy of a fading era. (In fact, the strategy is daffy: Even if homosexuality were a bad lifestyle choice, state laws are not an effective way to head off such a choice.)
Putin has assured the International Olympic Committee that the law is merely symbolic. But in the United States, officially sanctioned anti-gay prejudice has contributed to classroom bullying and to the high level of suicides among gay teens.
The actor and playwright Harvey Fierstein has called on the United States to boycott the Sochi Games because Russia prohibits “propaganda of homosexuality.” But recall that in 2002 the United States proudly, and without comment, sent its Olympic athletes to a state — Utah — that prohibits the “advocacy of homosexuality.” Maybe Obama ought to send Olympic delegates Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano to Alabama and Texas.
We offer that suggestion somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is an important lesson here. Sometimes the moral failings of others can help us see moral failings in ourselves. It was revulsion toward Nazi Germany’s eugenics policy that, in part, caused U.S. legislatures and courts to renounce state sterilization programs. Opposition to South African apartheid and the Soviet Union’s totalitarian regime generated greater national pressure for the Eisenhower administration and the Warren court to renounce apartheid in the American South.
Putin’s inability to justify this law puts a spotlight on the inability of Utah, Texas, Arizona and other states to justify their gay-stigmatizing statutes. They should be repealed or challenged in court. Just as judges led the way against compulsory sterilization and racial-segregation laws, so they should subject anti-gay laws to critical scrutiny.
As things stand, one could imagine Putin responding to U.S. criticism by saying: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye.”
Read more about this topic: The Post’s View: Putin violates the Olympic spirit with harsh stance on gays The Post’s View: Russia’s war on gays The Post’s View: President Obama must find his voice on Russia Fred Hiatt: Putin turns back the clock in Russia Minky Worden: Russia’s anti-gay laws threaten the Olympics’ character
The article is misleading. What Russia is doing is much worse than what Utah is doing because Russia's law applies to everyone, not just schools. It is not illegal for a child in Utah to be told, "No, your teacher is wrong about homosexuals."fgalkin wrote:An interesting point:
I'll stop calling him that on this board if it offends you (I can understand why it would). I just see a dark path ahead and Putin's thuggish behavior seems eerily familiar to me as I've already stated several times. But I think I've gotten my point across so I will stop.Thanas wrote:Can we please not call Putin NuHitler?
They were both monstrous war criminals as well as guilty of crimes against humanity who were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, and since I got my point across already I think it's best if I and everyone else refrain from using either term.Channel72 wrote:Isn't "nuStalin" at least slightly better than nuHitler? I mean, Stalin had no love for the gays either.
(Even though neither is remotely accurate.)
fgalkin wrote:An interesting point:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
The U.S. hypocrisy over Russia’s anti-gay laws
By Ian Ayres and William Eskridge, Published: February 1
Ian Ayres and William Eskridge are law professors at Yale University.
Controversy over a Russian law that prohibits advocacy of homosexuality threatens to overshadow athletic competition at the upcoming Sochi Olympics. Thoughtful world leaders, including President Obama, have criticized Russia for stigmatizing gay identity.
Many of these critics find it hard to believe that in 2014 a modern industrial governmentwould have this kind of medieval language in its statutory code:
●“Materials adopted by a local school board . . . shall . . . comply with state law and state board rules . . . prohibiting instruction . . . in the advocacy of homosexuality.”
●“Propaganda of homosexualism among minors is punishable by an administrative fine.”
●“No district shall include in its course of study instruction which: 1. Promotes a homosexual life-style. 2. Portrays homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style. 3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.”
●“nstruction relating to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include . . . emphasis, provided in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense.”
Amid the rush to condemn Russia’s legislation, however, it is useful to recognize that only the second quoted provision comes from the Russian statute.
The other three come from statutes in the United States. It is Utah that prohibits “the advocacy of homosexuality.” Arizona prohibits portrayals of homosexuality as a “positive alternative life-style” and has legislatively determined that it is inappropriate to even suggest to children that there are “safe methods of homosexual sex.” Alabama and Texas mandate that sex-education classes emphasize that homosexuality is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Moreover, the Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct has been unconstitutional since 2003.
Eight U.S. states, and several cities and counties, have some version of what we call “no promo homo” provisions. Before the United States condemns the Russian statute’s infringement of free speech and academic freedom, it should recognize that our own republican forms of government have repeatedly given rise to analogous restrictions.
It is no coincidence that these examples focus on what must and must not be said to children. An explanatory note accompanying the 2013 Russian legislation makes clear that the statute seeks to protect children “from the factors that negatively affect their physical, intellectual, mental, spiritual, and moral development.” Proponents of the U.S. statutes have offered similar justification. And, like Russian President Vladimir Putin this month, the U.S. laws warn gay people and sympathizers to “leave kids alone, please.”
The underlying ideology of these statutes is the same: Everybody should be heterosexual, and homosexuality is per se bad. This ideology has never rested on any kind of evidence that homosexuality is a bad “choice” that the state ought to discourage. The ideology is a prejudice-laden legacy of a fading era. (In fact, the strategy is daffy: Even if homosexuality were a bad lifestyle choice, state laws are not an effective way to head off such a choice.)
Putin has assured the International Olympic Committee that the law is merely symbolic. But in the United States, officially sanctioned anti-gay prejudice has contributed to classroom bullying and to the high level of suicides among gay teens.
The actor and playwright Harvey Fierstein has called on the United States to boycott the Sochi Games because Russia prohibits “propaganda of homosexuality.” But recall that in 2002 the United States proudly, and without comment, sent its Olympic athletes to a state — Utah — that prohibits the “advocacy of homosexuality.” Maybe Obama ought to send Olympic delegates Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano to Alabama and Texas.
We offer that suggestion somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is an important lesson here. Sometimes the moral failings of others can help us see moral failings in ourselves. It was revulsion toward Nazi Germany’s eugenics policy that, in part, caused U.S. legislatures and courts to renounce state sterilization programs. Opposition to South African apartheid and the Soviet Union’s totalitarian regime generated greater national pressure for the Eisenhower administration and the Warren court to renounce apartheid in the American South.
Putin’s inability to justify this law puts a spotlight on the inability of Utah, Texas, Arizona and other states to justify their gay-stigmatizing statutes. They should be repealed or challenged in court. Just as judges led the way against compulsory sterilization and racial-segregation laws, so they should subject anti-gay laws to critical scrutiny.
As things stand, one could imagine Putin responding to U.S. criticism by saying: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye.”
Read more about this topic: The Post’s View: Putin violates the Olympic spirit with harsh stance on gays The Post’s View: Russia’s war on gays The Post’s View: President Obama must find his voice on Russia Fred Hiatt: Putin turns back the clock in Russia Minky Worden: Russia’s anti-gay laws threaten the Olympics’ character
The US did send athletes to Salt Lake City with no problem.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Access to adversarial journalism is rather more important than watching people spin around on ice skates or whatever, so I don't fault anyone for boycotting Russian entertainment but not more essential services.fgalkin2 wrote:On that note, I wonder how many people here that are boycotting the Olympics still get their news from RT?
You do realize that RT is an official state news agency of the Russian government, fully funded from the Federal Budget, and controlled by the Ministry of Information. As such, it is the primary organ of disseminating homophobic propaganda in Russia, and is currently headed by a former news anchor who built his entire career on attacking homosexuality and spreading conspiracy theories about the West.Grumman wrote:Access to adversarial journalism is rather more important than watching people spin around on ice skates or whatever, so I don't fault anyone for boycotting Russian entertainment but not more essential services.fgalkin2 wrote:On that note, I wonder how many people here that are boycotting the Olympics still get their news from RT?
There's plenty of reasons not to boycott the Olympics, one being that Russians would then win EVERYTHING, making it the most lopsided Winter Olympics in history. Which, to me, is a good thing, because I support Team Russia, as I do in every other sporting event. Not the athletes' fault their government is a bunch of corrupt homophobic assholes.Flagg wrote:I think any country that claims to respect LGBTQ rights should have boycotted the Sochi Olympics. If half the world didn't show up it would make Putin look like the foolish thug he is and his Oligarch goons wouldn't have been particularly pleased I think. I get that this is the only shot at competing on the world stage most of these athletes will ever get, but cry me a fucking river. People are getting their teeth knocked in simply because of how they were born and it's state sponsored. Standing against that and sending a message to fascist thugs is more important than national dickwaving at how many shiny metal things people who happen to have been born in your country win.
On the other hand, it may have strengthened his position in the short term and caused more problems for Russia's LGBTQ community. That's an argument I can respect as opposed to "let our athletes win shiny metals!"
Well yeah, it would be lopsided, but with the biggest asterisk in Olympics history.fgalkin wrote:There's plenty of reasons not to boycott the Olympics, one being that Russians would then win EVERYTHING, making it the most lopsided Winter Olympics in history. Which, to me, is a good thing, because I support Team Russia, as I do in every other sporting event. Not the athletes' fault their government is a bunch of corrupt homophobic assholes.Flagg wrote:I think any country that claims to respect LGBTQ rights should have boycotted the Sochi Olympics. If half the world didn't show up it would make Putin look like the foolish thug he is and his Oligarch goons wouldn't have been particularly pleased I think. I get that this is the only shot at competing on the world stage most of these athletes will ever get, but cry me a fucking river. People are getting their teeth knocked in simply because of how they were born and it's state sponsored. Standing against that and sending a message to fascist thugs is more important than national dickwaving at how many shiny metal things people who happen to have been born in your country win.
On the other hand, it may have strengthened his position in the short term and caused more problems for Russia's LGBTQ community. That's an argument I can respect as opposed to "let our athletes win shiny metals!"
My issue is with people who boycott the Olympics because of Putin, yet get most of their news from RT because it's "adversarial journalism." That's just the height of hypocrisy.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
Hey now, sometimes RT is fun to watch just to see how far out of wack from reality Russian state news is. It's like Fox News with Russians.fgalkin wrote:My issue is with people who boycott the Olympics because of Putin, yet get most of their news from RT because it's "adversarial journalism." That's just the height of hypocrisy.
That is stupid and disgusting.wautd wrote:In vaguely related news, Flappy Bird has been pulled from the App store. Mercifully, there's now VladiBird
