Demonizing Putin is what your government wants you to do to avoid seeing the bigger picture. The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power?
Demonizing Putin is what your government wants you to do to avoid seeing the bigger picture. The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power?
It's been only 24 years since we escaped their control and apparently we've been lucky, but now Putin is destroying any chance of having a peaceful neighborhood. War is effectively at our borders and Putin is to be blamed.
So spare me rhetoric about every government or country being the same. No, they are not equal. And I hope the Putin administration will receive what it deserves.
Don't twist my words. I said governments are becoming more authoritarian. I stand by this statement.
I strongly disagree that governments are becoming more authoritarian, it's quite the opposite, governments are becoming more liberal and democratic, with the situation improving even in countries such as Libya, Egypt and Morocco. The only reason for why the situation seems bleak to some people is because access to information has become unhindered due to the Internet.
I don't know enough about Morocco to call you out on that one, but dude... Libya and Egypt? If the current goings-on in those countries forms the basis of your opinion then I think you might need to rethink your position
Europe pre-WW2 was overrun with all variations of fascism and authoritarianism. Prior to that, it was still ruled by Kings, Queens, and Imperial rule ala Napoleon.
If the US were anything like Russia, we couldn't be having this conversation on a heavily trafficked web site like HN located within the US. The US still has the greatest level of freedom of speech of any nation on earth, and the strongest speech protections, even after some of the recent erosion.
But yeah, thanks for bringing that up - goes to show that what goes around comes around ;-)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
Man, it's 2014, the people that did anything in WW2 on both sides are long dead.
And in the context of that time, "the Allies" included Stalin's Russia (read some history, this tyrant killed more of his own people than there were victims of Hitler's holocaust!), so choosing to support Hitler's Germany against an alliance that included Russia was not necessarily a bad idea at that that time, even morally and ethically speaking.
And concerning post-war "retribution" as a way to handle international relationships after a war: basically the only reason Hitler himself came to power in Germany was because this country had to endure an extremely harsh "retribution" post WW1 so maybe the people that made this harsh post WW1 deal really deserved the killings and destruction of WW2! Post WW2 western European countries all benefited from something called the Marshall Plan from the US and of decades of productive cooperation in the EU, regardless of who did what in WW2, whereas the "Eastern Block" countries all got to endure "retribution" and being part of the unhealthy forced economy of the USSR.
International politics is something that should be taken separately from concepts such as "fairness" and "correctitude" and "punishing someone for one's bad deeds". You don't punish a whole people for the consequences of what a leader decided, even if they followed that leader. You try to rebuild countries and economies, regardless of what seems "fair" or not, and you try to accelerate economical growth, even if this even means letting 1 in 10 war criminals get away. You optimize social and economical systems for performance so that they can provide the best average "quality of live", even if this means swallowing some shady politics once in a while and occasionally "forgetting" some historical truths when remembering them is not "productive".
Thankfully the US, UK and modern Germany get these basic principles right, and I really hope they will have as much of an influence as possible on international politics, in the detriment of Russia and China who, despite the immense economic growth of the last, haven't really gotten to the level where they really understand what "healthy modern democracy" is all about and know how to play "the game" and also make the people happy.
The problem here: after the cold war, which Russia lost, nobody cared to rebuild its economy; instead everything was done to siphon people and resources away and to destroy industry. Obviously US really did not want to see Russia on the map anymore and so they did that.
Guess what - 20 years pass, Russia is angry like a non-mortally wounded wild animal.
I'm not a fan of mr. Putin but he's very cautious still. With someone less cautious it WILL look like pre-WW2.
And of course it will be a disaster for everyone involved.
Second of all, if they lost the cold war, I don't get why they'd want another one. Putin is only cautious because he knows that in such a scenario he will lose. And Putin's nationalistic behavior only happened because Russia was on the brink of another economic recession.
Sure, but industries will be destroyed and people die, starve and be forcibly relocated. That's what happened to ex-USSR a lot because the rest of world did not see any reason to rebuild a country that in fact yielded to them.
You are free to "don't understand", but the damage I mentioned was done. Don't then be surprised when people you considered harmless want to nuke you for all the good. All the good that, strictly speaking, you did not have to do.
"Second of all, if they lost the cold war, I don't get why they'd want another one"
If Germans lost one world war, why would they want another one?
I strongly believe that any country put in a position of power will expand the control by any means necessary. Your own history is far from flawless: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941_Odessa_massacre.
That said, I strongly doubt Russia has any interest in Moldova or Romania. Putin lost a figurehead in Yanukovich and grabbed what he could out of the ensuing mess. Putin did not start what happened in Ukraine, but rather was extremely opportunistic once it happened.
Don't get me started on "Putin did not start what happened in Ukraine".
Personally, I'm very conflicted on the question of Crimea and don't think I can comment or discuss unbiasedly.
Maybe not equal to you. US has propped up almost countless corrupt regimes and cartels for its own interest. You just don't care when it's happening in Saudi Arabia or Mexico.
There's no sane comparison to be made between the US and its neighbors, and what the Soviet Union did to Europe.
The US - Canadian border for a century was the largest, basically unguarded border in world history.
Wake me up when the US invades Canada and starts annexing territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re... "A decades long civil war ensued in which some 200,000 people were killed, mostly by the US backed military" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9t... "The coup subjected Brazil to a military regime politically aligned to the interests of the United States government" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
Too many to dig up.
"Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America"
Are you awake yet?
When I think of Putin, I don't so much think of things my government says (in fact, Americans don't generally pay that much attention to what the government says; our legislature is skirting single-digit approval ratings).
I think more about news stories about how 4chan-style prank videos of kids having gay porn posters put up on their wall are reported as factual news by Russian state-owned television:
http://www.advocate.com/world/2014/12/06/watch-russian-docum...
However, it should also be kept in mind that we're still far away from the Russian regime where speaking against the government (releasing classified documents doesn't count) or being a homosexual will land you in jail.
So yeah, no one's perfect, but I'll stick to North America for the time being, thanks.
You can't really use Sochi as an example. The Olympics are a very important international event and Russia wanted the good publicity. You'll also notice that Putin ordered the release of many political prisoners just in time for that event.
The law is explained in detail here: http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files...
And as I've said earlier, that basically prevents any public promotion.
I don't want my kids to be exposed to public promotion of any sexual lifestyle. In fact I don't even want them to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
LGBT community can rent out a conference center and hold the rally there, advertising it publicly and denying minors access to the premises. This is perfectly legal under today's LGBT laws in Russia.
For example, in the UK, teachers are to tell kids as young as 13, which is below the age of consent:
"normal behaviour includes taking an interest in pornography, having sexually explicit conversations, using the internet to chat online and consenting to oral or penetrative sex with the same or opposite gender."
Or kids as young as 9:
" So-called “green behaviours” are defined as those that “reflect safe and healthy sexual development”. For children aged nine to 13, green behaviours include “solitary masturbation” and “use of sexual language”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11209109/...
But can they kiss in public? Or hold hands, even?
That's false.
EDIT: Again, the statement above is false. It is legal to speak in favor of gay rights. It is illegal for adults to speak in favor of gay rights TO MINORS. Much like it is legal to have sex. And illegal for adults to have sex with minors.
No, it isnt. key point from the text:
Under the statute it is effectively illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships in presence of minors.[5][57][60][64][65]
It is legal to "hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"
It is illegal "illegal to hold any gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships _in presence of minors_."
The law in question is pandering to the extreme levels of homophobia prevalent in modern Russian culture, and its justification and theme is loosely based on an actually much more explicitly anti-gay law that existed on the UK statute book not so long ago; our current PM opposed its repeal in 2003 and yet ended up backing gay marriage a decade later. Legislators sometime reflect popular sentiment more as they shape it.
Which doesn't mean it isn't a terrible law, and much more likely to be used to persecute people in Russia than the UK (or indeed Singapore where homosexuality is technically illegal). But some perspective is useful here. From the waves of condemnation emitted from certain sources earlier this year you'd never guess that last Olympic venue where homosexual activity was actually illegal was Atlanta in 1996.
I'd appreciate the campaign to support Russian gay rights much more if I believed much of the media behind it wasn't - for better or worse - really far more interested in Russia's foreign policy. Or that it wouldn't backfire...
> _in presence of minors_
so, anywhere in public? where would one find space to hold a public event where children are guaranteed to not be present?
Also the whole line of reasoning is that mentioning homosexuality to children makes them gay which is... bad? thats a value judgment on homosexuality that was put in place by the government, yet you are trying to constantly say that this law holds no prejudice? what a shill.
Oh, before you try to come back with 'thats not a value judgement!' hold your breath. the law literally states that you cant say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships to children, that leaves only two possible positions: either homosexual relationships are better or they are worse
I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle. In fact, I don't event want my kids to see a blurred photo of Kim Kardashian's naked butt on TV.
There is zero prejudice in this value statement. And most parents agree with my position.
When my kids are adults they can decide about sexual relationships for themselves. Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
you're point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. this is about discrimination against homosexuality.
But I'll address it anyways:
>I don't want my kids to be exposed to any form of expression supporting any sexual lifestyle.
Good for you, luckily as a parent you have the ability to make those decisions for your kids.
This does not extend to you forcing your views on others.
>And most parents agree with my position.
and the rights of the majority are the only rights that matter, correct?
>Until then I decide for them and I want a legal system that supports my decisions.
This is not how it works. Say you were an anti-vaccine advocate, you would want the legal system to outlaw vaccines, but many other parents would disagree. see how this conflicts with the rights of others?
With respect to your anti-vaccine example. There is always a conflict between something that a minority may consider a right and the rule of the majority. There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal. Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict? Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
Is it me, or is that the word 'say'?
>You may see here a discrimination against homosexuality but I see a legal framework for protection of a traditional family.
This is a direct contradiction. You cannot use law to legally protect one class of people without necessarily discriminating against those not in that class.
> There are minorities that want pedophilia to be made legal.
Weak example. Pedophilia has a direct victim (a child is unable to give consent)
>Do you have a novel solution for the minority rights conflict?
No, but it wouldnt be to ignore it as you would. This is so far from what the discussion is about I wonder why you are trying to sidetrack this
>Traditionally rights for minorities have been won through struggle, societal change, and war among many other ways. Are you proposing a novel solution for LGBT rights in Russia?
? this is pretty much nonsense? yeah, rights are won through societal change as you say - Many societies are changing to accept homosexuality, not sure what you're trying to get at here? Why would i be proposing a novel solution to gay rights?
Thanks for the discussion
Would you have a problem with a Disney movie where a princess marries another princess?
I.e. is your problem really just with exposing children to sex, or do you actually have a problem with gay characters?
For example, in a public square.
Sounds like a rhetorical question but I don't guess the answer. Do you mean Putin is doing it because of the civilian unrest?
> Demonizing Putin is what your government wants you to do to avoid seeing the bigger picture.
No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts. The bigger picture is, censorship is bad, and if US defends the freedom of opinion in Russia, it's good because we can turn those arguments back to the US gov.
Really? Much in the same way that the media of 10 years ago convinced the populace that Hussein was involved with 9/11, the media today is propagating the following memes:
- Putin hates gays
- Putin kills journalists
- Putin was responsible for downing of MH17
How many of these memes are supported by facts? When accusing a leader of a nuclear power of these things, shouldn't the accusations be ironclad?
Putin regime has killed several journalists.
The gay thing is not so clear, he may be gay himself.
If you have evidence that Russian troops shot down flight MH-17 then you should present it to the Dutch parliament and the United Nations.
Otherwise, like the rest of us, you should wait for investigators to finish their work.
It was the (trigger-happy) proxy forces, more likely.
Similarly, when given such data as ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R... ) it's very hard to suspect there isn't something amiss; this theory guided as well with russia's likely history of using assassinations as a tool prior. (I hate to bring up the Alexander Litvinenko case as that it's probably been beaten to death, but I think it's fair to say it doesn't lend me to trust the Russian govt.)
It's all fine and good to call for fact checking, but to neglect to take in the same facts you so loudly call for, you do yourself a great disservice.
perfect shill bait.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTS4ZASCo_0&list=UUsd-fzq2Mj...
Brian is gay btw.
a couple 5 year old youtube videos, not very convincing lets dig deeper
joined twitter in 2009 but his first tweet was this january, 2 tweets ever - oh and the tweet was this article, apparently the only this thing "journalist" has ever written(and its not even journalism? its a whitepaper)
diversity spectrum eh? lets check them out
nothing but their own website comes up on a web search (diversityspectrum.org), bunch of meaningless bullshit you'd expect from a 'thinktank' website
I'll check the domain registration - looks like its registered to Perfect Privacy LLC
weird why would they want to obfuscate the domain?
What about this owner, Lynn Gardner Heffron?
searching her turns up similar results to your buddy Brian, bunch of astro turfed bullshit.
Sorry shill, I dont even care if brian m heiss is a real person in the world, these are clearly shill accounts designed specifically to push this one single whitepaper document. Let me know when Brian M Heiss (the Media Professional/Public Relations Pro/Journalist - his words) writes something else, maybe i'll check it out, because for such an incredible media talent he has a surprising lack of footprint on the internet
your assessment, not his. where is your footprint on the internet?
That's interesting, but it doesn't help to support what he's saying one way or another. In the West, plenty of LGBTs either openly supported, or attempted to minimize the harmful impact of their government's (or their church's) anti-gay policies -- right up until the very end, when public opinion (and if you will, history) eventually turned against them.
So Brian's defense of the status quo in the RF is not much different.
1. The law never mentions or uses the word gay, lesbian, homosexual or any other LGBT identifier. [Chapter 2 & Appendix]
2. The law focuses on children, it’s title is “On Protections of Minors from Propaganda of Non-Traditional Sexual Relations”. The messaging and strategy to bring the ban on propaganda from the law of several regions to national laws is part of a larger family values push and is based on the successful anti-same sex marriage push in the United States. [Chapter 2]
So it's based on the same semantic BS as the anti-LGBT propoganda coming from the America's religious right. Except that, onerous as they are, they've been largely unsuccessful at having their agenda codified into federal law (not that they wouldn't dearly love to).
The fact that the author states points 1+2 so matter-of-factly (despite the semantic subterfuge) makes is clear where his biases are, and difficult to take any of the other points seriously.
But nonetheless:
3. Russia is actually expanding protections of members of the LGBT community: On September 20, 2013 the official delegation of the Russia Federation announced their willingness to take all required measures to prevent homophobic hate crimes and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation at the 24th UN Human Rights Council. [Chapter 2]
OK, so there are rays of hope at least.
4. There have been regional (much harsher) versions of the propaganda ban in effect for 7 years and there were only 2 convictions for violations of the regional laws and both were overturned. [Chapter 3]
5. In 6 months of the Federal Law there have been 3 convictions: 2 were acts of civil disobedience to challenge the legality of the law, the other is a story which you must read. [Chapter 3]
My understanding from people either in Russia recently (or from the FSU) is that it's widely understood that these laws are at best barely enforceable (and perhaps not even intended to really enforced). But that's also precisely the point: they're meant to have symbolic effect -- and the symbolic effect is generally taken to be quite chilling (like a shot across the bow, as it were).
6. Statistically you are far more likely to be the victim of an anti-LGBT Hate Crime in the United States than in Russia. [Chapter 4]
Seems dubious, given what my friends tell me. Most likely these crimes simply aren't reported, or the stats are suppressed (given the way crime stats are routinely manipulated in many countries, including the U.S.).
7. In Russia you cannot be fired from your job for being an LGBT individual, in the United States you can. [Chapter 4]
Possibly a valid point; I wouldn't know.
8. Since 1993 gay sex was made legal in Russia, in 12 US States gay sex is a crime. [Chapter 4]
Technically correct (in that those laws are still on the books in some states). But the more important fact is that the Supreme Court famously ruled these laws unconstitutional in 2010. Which is a rather important omission for the author to make actually; it suggests he's not really all that on top of things, as far as the basic status of gay rights in the U.S. are concerned. (Or perhaps he does -- and is, again, playing semantic head games).
9. While President Obama says “I have no patience for countries that try to treat gays or lesbians or transgender persons in ways that intimidate them or are harmful to them.” his policies demonstrate he has nothing but patience. [Chapter 5]
This, sadly, is basically true. But it's also an attemp to change the subject.
10. The group impacted most if found to be in violation of the law: Multinational corporations. [Chapter 6]
No. It's millions of LGBTs in the Russian Federation, young and old, unable to live their lives openly, and constitutionally protected from prosecution for simply being what they are.
That's not what people generally say about him. A fairer summation of his attitudes towards LGBTs is that he considers them to be morally defective, and their lives and freedoms to be more or less expendable.
Putin was responsible for downing of MH17
To the extent that he invaded a neighboring country via a poorly trained proxy force, and gave them big, expensive toys without sufficient training (or tactical intel) to use them properly, along with high pressure to achieve results; and to which he hasn't showing anything resembling genuine remorse over the incident -- I think you know very well where the responsibility lies.
I believe that the West underestimates the strength of the Russian people, and their unsatisfied dreams of becoming the world superpower. Sadly, I think that this "violation of the pact" you are writing about is not serious enough to cause a change of power. And even if it was - who should continue ruling Russia? There are no direct candidates, but also I see no long-term perspectives. New democracies that formed after USSR collapse were built upon pre-war traditions. Russia has never seen any democracy.
I know that there are many Russians that disagree with their government. I know there are many in jail because of their opinions. But this is a minority. For the average Russian Putin is still the guy.
I agree with the former very much. Not sure the latter is the reason why, but it's a decent enough theory. The fact that authoritarianism is the general trend globally is very disturbing - and there is little to no civilian opposition to this.
Not really. Ferguson represents a lot of things, but I don't think there's any evidence that it's part of some national crackdown on dissent. How would that even work?
As part of bringing Russia closer, the West decided to shred Russia of its defense interests inherited from the Soviet Union. There was a systematic attack by the West on Russia's interests in Central Asia, Georgia, Syria, and now Ukraine. You can only bait the bear for so long until it bites you back.
But he isn't "biting back" at the West. He's biting on the bones of thousands of civilians (of all nationalities) killed in Ukraine. And hundreds of his own soldiers, sent illegally (by Russia's own laws) to fight in a war beyond its borders.
Don't know who you are but I'll happy if citizens of the West will be under an impression that nuclear weapons will never be used. For many reasons.
As far as I'm concerned, while we could bicker about whether Russia or the West has been more insanely stupid in its part in the escalating spiral of provocation in recent years, it would be quibbling over details.
The point that matters is that all of the governments in question are behaving like fools, and need to be brought under control or replaced with saner minds before the same pattern of stupidity that we saw a hundred years ago leads to the same results - and this time around, both sides have nuclear weapons.