Law Banning Gay Propaganda May Become Federal

Sign text: No to gay parades

From Rambler News:

A ban on homosexual propaganda could become federal

A bill on fines for homosexual propaganda could be passed on first reading by the State Duma as soon as the end of this session.

The head of the Duma committee for family, women and children, Elena Mizulina has spoken about this. ITAR-TASS reports that the initiative was introduced into the Duma in March by the legislative assembly of the Novosibirsk Oblast.

Elena Mizulina reminds us that a number of members of the Russian Federation have already passed such measures. “We’re talking about a limitation of rights, and therefore it’s better if it’s a federal law. We agree that it’s not the Duma’s place to hide behind regional parliaments”, the head of the committee explained.

The MP said that the bill could be examined in the plenary session of the 19th December. She is sure that the document has a good chance of being passed. “There’s no basis for not voting for it”, Mizulina said. She added that many members of the Russian Federation have already sent in positive feedback.

The bill introduces fines for homosexual propaganda from 4-5,000 roubles [£80-100, 100-125€] for individuals, 40-50,000 roubles [£800-1,000, 1,000-1,250€] for individuals in a position of responsibility, and from 400-500,000 roubles [£8,000-10,000, 10,000-12,500€] for legal entities. According to Mizulina, it is unlikely to be a be considered a criminal offence, an administrative infraction should be sufficient.

The head of the committee believes that the second reading could only happen in the spring, as the text needs to be worked on and discussed with experts. In particular, it will be necessary to give a definition of propaganda. “Propaganda – the term already exists in electoral law, it needs to be direct agitation, a call to action. “Join us!”. And that should be an excuse for homosexual behaviour.”, the MP considers.

In the past, Mizulina has said that the law is not contrary to international practice. In particular, she cited a decision of the European Court of Human Rights. In the decision it was said that authorities should “consider the moral climate and traditions of the country in relation to sexual relations.”

Comments from Rambler News:

_ яблонский:

All gays come from normal families. Orientation is innate. If you son turned out to be gay, would you strangle him?

Bujhm Htgby:

Good news – we’re waiting for it to be realised.

Серега Петров:

A question for those defending gays… if everyone were gay, then what would happen to mankind?… We’d die out. That means that there is an unnatural trick in you all. And you’re all talking about the normality of it all.

Олег Викторович Думбрава:

In a country with a falling birth rate, we can only welcome laws like this. The self-destruction of Europe is the personal affair of the Europeans, just as bans and permission on the same-sex issue is only our population’s affair.

Ильдар Ильдар:

Spit on the gays. Other problems in the country worry me: corruption, arbitrary rule of the authorities and chinushi, crime, health, education, employment.

Инквизитор В: (responding to above)

You won’t believe this, but there are some people here that would tell you that it’s homosexuals who are to blame for this)

Пётр Сидоров:

Banish all the faggots to Western Europe! They love roosters there, they’re all roosters themselves…

незнайка .:

Not long ago, I was chatting to a guy about gays… until then, I thought he was an intelligent guy, but then he revealed himself… often, this theme throws light on what’s hidden in others… when a person doesn’t accept the world around him the way it is – that’s a true reflection of his soul!

Kosta Kalin:

This fashionable word “propaganda” will not be forgotten quickly while it can be applied to anyone who is in opposition to the authorities.

Натали !:

I have nothing against gays, but it’s unacceptable to promote it, so I’m for the law)

Дмитрий Иванов:

The question is, what will be considered propaganda…

ctac dehterev:

I’m for the law. I’m not calling for gays to be hanged and for their personal belonging to be cut off, but they don’t need to show off their ugliness openly in public. One’s personal life and sexual preferences should be private.

Primus Pilus:

What will become of Swan Lake now? Will it be banned or what? Tchaikovsky was one of the gays. And should we cross Nero and Caligula out of history to support this law?

Help us maintain a vibrant and dynamic discussion section that is accessible and enjoyable to the majority of our readers. Please review our Comment Policy »
  • Bravo Russia!

    • mr.wiener

      What the hell is gay propaganda anyway, “don’t hit me. I’m gay”, “I have rights too, I’m gay”?
      After California allowed gay marriege and marijuana use I’m starting to think the bible reference that “If a man shall sleep with another man , then he shall be stoned” was just an unfortunate error in translation.

      • lonetrey / Dan

        Ahahahahaha, I didn’t even think of that. Good point :P

      • Kate

        that was funny :)

  • Paul M

    Wow, the ignorance and hate is flowing strongly today. I’ve noticed a lot of the comments are along the lines of “I don’t hate gay people, but I wish they’d just keep it private”. Just how exactly do you expect that to happen? If you turn it around, are heterosexuals expected not to hold hands or kiss each other when they greet? When a heterosexual is invited to a dinner party are they supposed to leave their wife/girlfriend at home and not flout their heterosexuality in public? What the hell is homosexual propaganda anyway?

    • CCCP

      The difference is that heterosexuals are normal, and homos are not. So while no normal person would be offended at seeing heterosexuals engaging in such behavior, most people would be offended and disgusted by seeing people of the same sex doing the same thing.

      In any case, it is our country and our culture, so why should we have to adhere to foreign standards? Westerners should practice what they preach, and stop criticizing other countries that have different customs and moral principles than they do. After all, y’all love saying stuff like how it’s wrong to make minorities conform to the majority, and that diversity should be celebrated, but in the same breath saying how those “backwards intolerant Russians, Iranians, Chinese, etc.” should get in line and embrace “democracy”, “tolerance”, “diversity”, etc.

      If y’all really care so much about the “poor homos” in Russia, why don’t you pressure your governments to accept them all as refugees? Then it’s a win-win, as you get to enjoy the company of your beloved fruity friends, while we get to enjoy the absence of their company.

      • I’m going to let this comment stand, but please be careful with your word choice. Expressing your opinion is acceptable (and encouraged), using abusive language towards others is not, and “homos” and “fruity” here verge on being unacceptable. “Gays” or “homosexuals”, for example, would both be fine.

        • CCCP

          Well, it’s your site so you make the rules, but why the dual standard for the translated comments and the ones on here? After all, there’s a mention of “faggots” in one of the comments, and that’s more offensive than “homos” as far as I know (and I didn’t know “fruity” was even considered offensive to begin with).

          Then again, apparently you’re from Britain, so maybe the offensiveness of some words is perceived differently than what I’m used to (American English).

          • Perhaps it’s a cultural difference.

            I suppose the big difference is that what’s out there is already out there, and there’s no point in retroactively censoring it and therefore giving an inaccurate impression of the response to the story.

            On the other hand, it’s not the sort of thing that I want to become a feature of the comments on this site. I don’t see any good reason that we can’t have discussions without insulting people.

          • lonetrey / Dan

            To be fair, I never knew “fruity” was offensive either. It just never comes to me as a synonym in my mind when I discuss gay rights with people, but I’ve heard it used before by peers with little reaction.

      • Paul M

        What you consider normal might not be normal to others. Also just because the majority of people are heterosexual doesn’t make homosexual people abnormal – the vast majority of people like soap opera’s while I hate them, am I abnormal? Once upon a time people would have been disgusted and offended at seeing interracial couples (some people still are) and there was a huge public outcry against mixed marriages especially in the US. There’s a special name we give people today who are disgusted by and stand against mixed marriages.

        Ah, the old “It’s our culture so you western imperialist scum shouldn’t judge us” argument. If you are so against foreign customs and morals then stop drinking tea, stop wearing suits, T-shirts, jeans etc. and go back to wearing traditional clothes and stop your women from voting, or are you only selective in what foreign customs and morals that you want to accept? And guess what? My native country has changed a lot over the several decades I’ve been alive and has accepted many foreign customs and morals too. It’s not a bad thing believe me.

        These homosexuals are Russian and they want to live in Russia yet you would discriminate against your own people? What you’re asking for is the right to deny other people their rights. I’m very tolerant of a lot of things but the one thing I won’t tolerate is intolerance.

        • CCCP

          Regardless of what any particular individual considers normal, there exist certain social norms (i.e. what society as a whole considers to be normal), and it just happens that Russian society considers heterosexuals to be normal while homosexuals not so.

          Some people may hate wearing clothes, and while no one is stopping them from walking around naked in the privacy of their own homes, what if they held marches and demanded the right to walk around town naked, claiming that those offended by it are just intolerant backwards rednecks who do not appreciate the beauty of the human body?

          Heh, this absolutist view many Westerners have really amuses me, I’ve often heard phrases of that sort, like “if you hate America, stop using a computer, get off the Internet, etc.” Why do some people think that one either has to accept something in its entirety or reject it completely, without any partial options? After all, it would only make sense to adopt others’ positive aspects and avoid the negative ones. Kind of like the Russian saying, “дурак учится на своих ошибках, а умный на чужих” (the fool learns from his own mistakes, while the smart person learns from the mistakes of others).

          In the end someone still has to compromise. If they want to stay in Russia, then either they have to compromise by keeping their homosexuality restricted to the privacy of their homes, or most people would have to compromise by tolerating their homosexual expressions in public. So, why should the majority have to compromise for the sake of a minority, and not vice versa?

          • Paul M

            I can understand that a nudist can walk around naked in private but put on some pants and a shirt when they leave their house but how exactly is someone supposed to stop being gay when they leave their house?

            This absolutist view of conservatives really amuses me. I’ve often heard phrases such as “This is not Russian” or “This is un-American”. Why do some people claim that their society and culture is fixed and neatly categorised in order to justify and protect their prejudices?

            At the end of the day you wouldn’t dream of telling a Black person to not be Black in public? There was once a time when most people were offended at the sight of Black people and had them segregated from society. thankfully we’ve moved on and now realise how repugnant and idiotic our behaviour was back then. To this day Black people remain a minority in my country and the majority have had to compromise for their sake and I think we’re all better of and a lot wiser for it. After all we can’t do anything about the colour of our skin. Likewise a homosexual person can’t do anything about their sexual orientation and one day in the future we’ll look back and say “I can’t believe we used to think that about homosexuals.”

            Tell me, what exactly is wrong about being homosexual? And don’t give me the “It’s not normal” argument because to me that isn’t even a valid point.

          • CCCP

            Does a nudist that puts on some clothes when going outside automatically cease being a nudist? Perhaps he’s just practicing self control in order to refrain from offending the people around him, at least until he gets to the nearest nudist beach where he’ll be free to engage in nudism without offending anyone… In a similar fashion, a homosexual doesn’t stop being one if he avoids blatantly homosexual behavior in public.

            I’ve noticed that many Western liberals like comparing homosexuals to racial minorities, but that’s as ridiculous as comparing apples to oranges. Besides, did you ever stop to think about the possibility that such comparison is offensive to blacks themselves? I’m not sure if you’re aware of the typical views on homosexuality in the African-American community… In either case, a member of the Negroid race doesn’t have to do absolutely anything (in fact, he doesn’t even have to be alive or have any flesh remaining, as bone structure is enough for forensic archaeologists to determine his race) for others to determine that he is black. However, a homosexual that has the same ability of self-control as any mentally healthy person, would be perfectly capable of preventing others from instantly determining his sexual orientation. Being incapable of controlling oneself is a sign of a mental or emotional disorder, either that or a sign that someone has an agenda and is doing it on purpose.

            As for what’s wrong with homosexuality, did you know that it used to be classified as a mental illness until not so long ago? Well, you’ve probably heard of that, but that’s not the important part, what really matters is whether you know WHY it was declassified.. As per the PC version, that you probably subscribe to, suddenly people’s consciousness made an evolutionary leap to realize that homosexuals are regular people just like us, the error of old ways had to be amended, and from then on everybody lived happily ever after.. ;)

            But what was the catalyst behind this sudden transformation in public consciousness? In fact, the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness is by no means a result of this transformation, rather it precedes the transformation in question, being a major stepping stone that helped achieve it in the first place. After all, with this detail taken care of, there was no longer anything in the way of implementing a program to brainwash the population into accepting homosexuality, since it’s no longer considered a mental disorder, then there must be nothing wrong with homosexuals, right? As much as liberals love to believe that the fundamental shift in values that had occurred in the West over the past half century is the result of a natural transformation in human consciousness towards enlightenment, in reality, the acceptance of “diversity” in all its current forms, not limited only to homosexuality, is just a result of carefully orchestrated psy-ops whose goal being the modeling of a population into what suits the purposes of those behind this whole scheme. I’m not going to get into more detail, as that’s off topic, and besides, you probably wouldn’t be interested anyway and dismiss it as loony conspiracy theories. Anyway, my point is that being declassified for political reasons doesn’t make homosexuality any less of a mental disorder than when it was on the list. There have been many new disorders added in the recent decades, but I haven’t heard of any others being removed aside from this one, doesn’t that make one wonder why it’s so special? ;)

          • Paul M

            So you would be okay if gay people weren’t being gay in public? You mean like holding hands or going for coffee together or taking a walk in the park? You want to deny them the things heterosexual people take for granted?

            I think comparing homosexuals with minorities is a valid comparison as, say, black people who can’t do anything about the colour of their skin is a fair comparison as gay people can’t do anything about their sexual orientation. Homosexuals have suffered greatly at the hands of the state, being treated as criminals and deviants, being denied freedoms and rights that are given to others. The case of Alan Turing is a tragic one. He helped cracked the Naval Enigma code which aided Allied intelligence in WWII, he is also known as the father of Computer Science. Yet he ended up committing suicide probably as a result of being charged of having sexual relations with another man, sentenced to prison but then was chemically castrated instead.

            Are you saying that homosexuality is a mental disease and the reason we don’t see it as such is due to a massive inter-governmental conspiracy designed to control the way we think? Well, here’s my pet hypothesis: Psychologists who have studied mental illness all their lives have reached a better understanding of what mental illness is. Using the collective knowledge of these psychologists we can say based on scientific research that homosexuality is not a mental illness. That, coupled with gay rights activists raising people’s awareness, has helped changed people’s views.

          • CCCP

            You keep focusing on them “/being/ gay in public” as if /acting/ like a homosexual constitutes a fundamental part of their being, while in fact they don’t cease being homosexuals simply if they don’t act like ones in public. Heterosexuals take some things for granted because heterosexual behavior is considered acceptable in our society, so there is no need for one to give it any thought. There are some countries where even heterosexual behavior in public is frowned upon, so when traveling to those countries heterosexuals would also have to mind how they act.

            And unfortunately, it never ends with “holding hands and taking a walk in the park”. As the saying goes, give them an inch and they’ll take a yard. They always start with modest demands like we only want this and that, blah blah blah, but with each concession they get bolder and bolder, with other types of perverts and degenerates climbing out of the woodwork in the process. Ultimately this leads to things like some guy going to a women’s bathroom because he “thinks he’s a woman”, and parents setting up their middle-school daughter for hormone therapy “because she considers herself a boy”.

            Comparing the racial differences between people of different races with heterosexuals and homosexuals is ridiculous, it’s like comparing two different fruits (no pun intended) “this one is sweet and that one is red.” Racial differences are physical and are evident regardless of one’s behavior, while a homosexual isn’t any different from a heterosexual in the physical sense, and no one around him would even realize his sexuality unless he gives himself away by his actions. Think about it, for example (without laws against discrimination), if in some company there were two job advertisements, one has a “no blacks need apply” note and another a “no homosexuals need apply” one. What are the chances of a black guy getting the job in the first ad? What are the chances of a homosexual getting the job in the second ad? As you can see, if the conditions in the ad were strictly enforced, in the first case the chance of getting the job would be near 0% (well, maybe someone like Michael Jackson could pull it off, but not much hope for the average black guy). With the second ad, the chances are nearly 100%, as the homosexual only has to not act like a homosexual (at least during the interview), which I assume isn’t all that difficult. Therefore, I think comparing such fundamentally different aspects as race and sexuality doesn’t make any sense.

            Unfortunately, research in most fields to some extent requires the support of the government (as with funding and other issues), so as the Russian saying goes, “кто платит, тот и заказывает музыку” (the one who pays gets to choose the music). There was plenty of research on homosexuality as a disease, and research into therapies that could potentially cure it, but it was stopped half way due to lack of funding, when the government switched its policy and instead of supporting research on curing homosexuality it started supporting research on “proving” that there is nothing wrong with it. Aside from the lack of funding, with the passage of time Western society was becoming more and more politically correct, which of course makes it even more difficult for scientists to engage in research on curing homosexuality, as they’d just be made targets of criticism by liberals and the PC crowd, which could endanger their careers and even personal safety. That, coupled with “gay rights activists” spreading pro-homosexual propaganda, has helped brainwash the sheeple into having views supportive of homosexuality. ;)

          • Paul M

            As far as I remember heterosexual couples (in Moscow at least) were able
            to hold hands, go on dates and kiss each other when greeting in public.
            So why should gay couples be forbidden to do this?

            Ah yes, give
            them an inch and they’ll take a mile. The good old “slippery slope”
            fallacy. This was used as an argument against other forms of social
            change eg. giving women the vote. From this it is clear that you have a
            very stereotypical view of homosexual people and their behaviour whereas
            most homosexuals behave just the same as heterosexuals except in who
            they go to bed with. Just as there are perverted heterosexuals out there
            it would be unfair to claim that all of them behaved that way.

            I compared racial differences to sexual differences I was doing it from
            the point of prejudice and discrimination faced by both parties. In no
            way did I equate being Black to being gay.

            Maybe the field of
            research into homosexuality as a disease has had it’s funding cut
            because it is utter nonsense. Just like research into homoeopathy isn’t
            funded by governments as it has not been proven to work and in some
            cases has been proven not to work.

          • CCCP

            As I said before, the reason for this is because according to our customs it is perfectly acceptable for heterosexuals to do this, while most people would be offended by the sight of homosexuals doing the same thing. Just like it is perfectly acceptable for someone to take a stroll in public while eating a pirozhok, when on the other hand someone who enjoys eating shit wouldn’t find passersby too pleased if he walked down the street while munching on a steamy turd.

            The “slippery slope” is very much a fact rather than a fallacy, if you take a look at Western Europe and the Americas. There, it also started with humble pleads for equality, and look where it got to nowadays. Not only are the situations I described in the previous post already a reality there, homosexuals already have more rights than heterosexuals in some cases. As you can see, even though homosexuals in the West have already attained equality and recognition from society, as well as the legal system in some states/countries, their parades still continue. Not to mention that as they get bolder, their appearance and activities during those parades get more and more perverse (just look at what happens in San Francisco, for example). If the original purpose of their parades was to get equality, well they got it now, so why do they still continue with the parades, just to show off their degeneracy? They also have an undeniable advantage to heterosexuals in the job market, as it is much more difficult for an employer to reject their application or fire them because they can pull the “discrimination” card regardless of whether any discrimination actually took place. Same with any dispute in everyday life, they are always right because someone who doesn’t agree with them is “homophobic”.

            I agree that there are perverted heterosexuals as well as perverted homosexuals. However, while heterosexual perverts tend to hide their perversions from the public, the more perverted homosexuals are usually the loudest and most active in the ranks of the “gay rights movement”, so once the “basic rights” are achieved they still continue to push for the acceptance of various perverse behavior that even the majority of homosexuals probably wouldn’t subscribe to.

            Interesting that you bring up homeopathy (nice spelling you’ve got there, did you intend it as a pun? ;)) Actually from my personal experience, it does in fact work. For example, when I get burns from exploding oil or accidentally touching a hot surface (such accidents happen once in a while, since I mostly cook my own food), Cantharis 6 (a type of homeopathic medicine) works wonders, the pain disappears in a few minutes and no traces of the burn within a half hour or so. Also took one, I think it was Natrium Muriaticum 30, but not too sure, and it did a good job relieving me from hay fever. Of course, big pharmaceutical companies aren’t too enthusiastic about competition, so their lobby in the governments of certain countries has made significant efforts to prevent any funds from going into research on homeopathy ;)

          • Paul M

            Wow, this discussion is going to go on for ever. Interesting that you pointed out my spelling of Homoeopathy since both words derive from the Greek ‘homo’ meaning same or like. How do I know that what you have experienced with the medication you have taken is not merely a Placebo effect? An interesting talk by James Randi you might want to watch, it’s about 20 minutes but it is very entertaining

            Well I for one being quite aware of what’s going on in Western Europe can say with confidence that homosexuals are not treated equally. David Cameron Prime Minister of the UK is facing a massive backlash from his Conservative party over the issue of gay marriage. So you have no example with which to show your slippery slope hypothesis.

            How is the gay pride parade in San Francisco any different to the Carnival in Rio de Janeiro or the Notting Hill Carnival in London? You keep saying that homosexuals are deviants and perverts however I don’t see them as being any different from heterosexuals. As I have said before some people find interracial partnerships immoral and disgusting yet interracial couples are no different from couples who are from the same race. Where’s your slippery slope there?

  • golgota

    Russia boldly steps into the 19th century!

    • Actually, the Soviet Union was one of the first countries in history to legalize gay marriage; but after 10 years of having that law Stalin saw the negative effect of it on society. Keep in mind that most of the uber-liberal laws and ideals making their rounds in America now days are pushed by people who spent their time in college during the 60’s reading Karl Marx and protesting against “western imperialism.” If anything, politically and ideologically, America is unknowingly trailing behind Russia; everything new and “progressive” they’re trying has already been tried in the CCCP.

      • Paul M

        Interesting, let me check that….. Oh wait, that is a gross exaggeration. Homosexuality was merely decriminalised after the Bolshevik revolution most likely as a result of all the Tsarist laws being abolished and new ones written up rather than active lobbying by progressive Russians to have gay marriage legalised.

        • Even if I’m not right on that one (though I know I am-yet find argument futile) you can’t deny the fact that the Soviet Union was the first nation promoting leftism, gender equality, equality among the races, etc etc. America just since the 60s has been going through these things. I guess that puts us on par politically/ideologically with 1972 Russia.

          • Paul M

            Now that part is true.

          • golgota

            Why do you involve the US in this topic? No one is defending the country, or even mentioning it here! We focus on Russia, not the US!

          • Because, we (not including me) look at ourselves as more evolved……yet we are actually trying out their old ideas. When we look at them and tell them they need to be more open to gays, they stare back at us and say “We already tried that.” Everything we think we are uniquely offering them, i.e. liberalism, is not unique at all to them because those are actually their ideas recycled by us. People talk about them as if they have no grasp with any of these concepts, yet they have more experience and history with them than most Americans.

          • golgota

            More experience and history? History – sure, experience, doubtful! You can use experience to progress, not go back on something. And furthermore, you assume it is Americans, but this is a global site. Let’s focus on Russia, and not obsess and compare to the US!

Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»