Russian Anti-gay laws and violence, and the Olympic (Winter) Games.

[Sarmatian]

Marriage is torture, that's an axiom. :)

On a serious note, I don't disagree that situation is bad in that regard in Russia. What I despise, though, is selective outrage over it.

South Africa is many, many times worse than Russia when it comes LGBT rights. Where was the outrage back then?

[Kralizec]

South Africa is a hostile environment for LGBT people due to bad law enforcement. Russia has the same problem but has opted to enshrine this bigotry into law by making "homosexual propaganda" a criminal offense. Pretty big difference.

[rvg]

South Africa is a hostile environment for LGBT people due to bad law enforcement. Russia has the same problem but has opted to enshrine this bigotry into law by making "homosexual propaganda" a criminal offense. Pretty big difference.

Since you bring up enforcement, what makes you think that this law will be dutifully enforced in Russia?

[Kralizec]

Presumably the athletes will be asked to be discreet about it. And if a gay athlete kisses his partner in front of the cameras I expect that it would be censored, but that would probably be the end of it.

I expect that Putin & Co don't want to enforce them on the athletes (or high-profile foreigners in general) because they don't want the diplomatic mess it would cause. Supposedly they even assured the IOC that they wouldn't do so. In the end it's about wether or not it's ethical to hold an event like this in an autocratic craphole like Russia, to stipulate for exceptions for your own privileged people while the residents of the country are subject to harsh treatment.

Problem is, under that line of thought the pool of countries where you can olympic games becomes rather limited, while the whole premise of the event is that it's for all nations and all people. Some people argue that countries like Russia and China use these events as propaganda tools. But unless I missed something, the IOC is not a missionary organisation that aims to promote democracy and other good stuff, even though a lot of people expect it to be.

[rvg]

... But unless I missed something, the IOC is not a missionary organisation that aims to promote democracy and other good stuff, even though a lot of people expect it to be.

Precisely.

[Sarmatian]

Presumably the athletes will be asked to be discreet about it. And if a gay athlete kisses his partner in front of the cameras I expect that it would be censored, but that would probably be the end of it.

Two Russian girls actually kissed on the mouth during the world championship in athletics in Moscow after they received their medals. They were both cute and it was hot :). I don't know what was the reaction to it. I'll google it.

EDIT: I was too far away. Only the right one is kinda cute, and I'm not sure it was full on the mouth but close enough.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...rs_podium.html

EDIT 2: This was the photo I've seen originally. Here they both look cute and kiss full on the mouth. Now, if they were only to put on nurse uniforms... :)

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/natio...220105411.html

Problem is, under that line of thought the pool of countries where you can olympic games becomes rather limited, while the whole premise of the event is that it's for all nations and all people. Some people argue that countries like Russia and China use these events as propaganda tools. But unless I missed something, the IOC is not a missionary organisation that aims to promote democracy and other good stuff, even though a lot of people expect it to be.

Give the man a cigar!!!

But, only Russia and China? Don't you think that placing a WTC flag along national flags of participant nations during Salt Lake City Olympic games was using the event as a propaganda tool???

[Montmorency]

Just to oblige with a rag on the former Russian Empire, I'd like to drop a story:

A guy I know bought an apartment in Ukraine for cheap after its owner died.

Problem is, the former owner-man had taken out a mortgage off the books, which no one knew about until after the property was sold to New Guy, so now the bank who 'owns' the mortgage is suing New Guy.

Apparently, in the Ukraine mortgages are attached not to the borrower, but to the property itself*; thus, the bank can demand that New Guy pay up on this mature loan - which the previous owner had deferred or skipped out on somehow.

Again, let me emphasize that the original loan was off the books and that Ukrainian mortgages are linked not to the borrower but to the property. Also, the interest rate is like 15% or something.

...

I hope the poor fellow can settle out of court or else find some kind of loophole.

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this isn't how it works in the US, right? I haven't yet taken out a mortgage, and I only know a few basic generalities, but surely in the US the estate of the deceased borrower would be expected to honor the loan, or else whoever manages the property or appropriates it (and why not the bank itself, there...) - right? I can't recall who exactly New Guy bought the property from, but whoever sold it ought to be repaying any outstanding loans, right? That makes a little more sense, right?

How the hell can it make sense to transfer the mortgage to the buyer?! What a back-asswards system. In fact, I wonder if this is really even how it works in the Ukraine and whether the New Guy, as a foreigner, is getting scammed by this bank...

[Sarmatian]

Just to oblige with a rag on the former Russian Empire, I'd like to drop a story:

A guy I know bought an apartment in Ukraine for cheap after its owner died.

Problem is, the former owner-man had taken out a mortgage off the books, which no one knew about until after the property was sold to New Guy, so now the bank who 'owns' the mortgage is suing New Guy.

Apparently, in the Ukraine mortgages are attached not to the borrower, but to the property itself*; thus, the bank can demand that New Guy pay up on this mature loan - which the previous owner had deferred or skipped out on somehow.

Again, let me emphasize that the original loan was off the books and that Ukrainian mortgages are linked not to the borrower but to the property. Also, the interest rate is like 15% or something.

...

I hope the poor fellow can settle out of court or else find some kind of loophole.

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this isn't how it works in the US, right? I haven't yet taken out a mortgage, and I only know a few basic generalities, but surely in the US the estate of the deceased borrower would be expected to honor the loan, or else whoever manages the property or appropriates it (and why not the bank itself, there...) - right? I can't recall who exactly New Guy bought the property from, but whoever sold it ought to be repaying any outstanding loans, right? That makes a little more sense, right?

How the hell can it make sense to transfer the mortgage to the buyer?! What a back-asswards system. In fact, I wonder if this is really even how it works in the Ukraine and whether the New Guy, as a foreigner, is getting scammed by this bank...

Mortgages are always tied to the property. That's why they're called mortgages and not credits. The deal is that you shouldn't be able to transfer ownership unless the bank okays it.

[HoreTore]

Marriage is torture, that's an axiom. :)

On a serious note, I don't disagree that situation is bad in that regard in Russia. What I despise, though, is selective outrage over it.

South Africa is many, many times worse than Russia when it comes LGBT rights. Where was the outrage back then?

Where the outrage was? All over the place?

[Papewaio]

Apartheid South Africa got ostracised by the Commonwealth nations, trade bans and sports bans.

Not exactly the best one to pick as your defence.

"Your honour, where was the outrage about Nazi Germany in the early 40's" - Defendant
"Have you heard of WWII?" - Judge

[Sarmatian]

Where the outrage was? All over the place?

Yeah, but no one could hear it from the vuvuzelas, right? Got ya.

Apartheid South Africa got ostracised by the Commonwealth nations, trade bans and sports bans.

Not exactly the best one to pick as your defence.

"Your honour, where was the outrage about Nazi Germany in the early 40's" - Defendant
"Have you heard of WWII?" - Judge

I'm not talking about apartheid South Africa, I'm talking about "hell on earth for lgbt" current South Africa. And that South Africa hosted the world cup, the biggest sport event in the world by far.


So, you analogy doesn't really work. To work, it would have to go something like this"

"Your honour, where was the outrage about Nazi Germany" - Defendant
"Have you heard of Marshall's Plan?" - Judge

[Ironside]

I'm not talking about apartheid South Africa, I'm talking about "hell on earth for lgbt" current South Africa. And that South Africa hosted the world cup, the biggest sport event in the world by far.

Has South Africa done any legal changes on the matter recently? Or any clearly influential inofficial changes?

Changes creates reactions, that's the way things works. If you actually want to see protests in Africa on worsening the situation for lgbt, see Uganda.

What you're saying is that if you're aren't outspoken about a nasty status quo in any place of the world, you can't complain about a country making changes for the worse, as long as they're not as nasty. That's a common and incredibly paralysing and vile argument.

To follow that logic. Even while bombed, Serbia wasn't the worst place on earth. Unless the Serbian people did a particulary complaining about those places, they had no right to complain about getting bombed.

Fine, fine to correct it, it would be any actual protester in another country that hasn't that right.

[Sarmatian]

Has South Africa done any legal changes on the matter recently? Or any clearly influential inofficial changes?

Changes creates reactions, that's the way things works. If you actually want to see protests in Africa on worsening the situation for lgbt, see Uganda.

What you're saying is that if you're aren't outspoken about a nasty status quo in any place of the world, you can't complain about a country making changes for the worse, as long as they're not as nasty. That's a common and incredibly paralysing and vile argument.

To follow that logic. Even while bombed, Serbia wasn't the worst place on earth. Unless the Serbian people did a particulary complaining about those places, they had no right to complain about getting bombed.

Fine, fine to correct it, it would be any actual protester in another country that hasn't that right.

I'm not arguing against discussion of lgbt rights in Russia, but the thread's about whether international sport events in Russia should be boycotted because of it.

The elephant in the room that everybody is trying to ignore is South Africa which hosted a world cup a few years ago. Nobody called for boycot, and mainstream media largely ignored the issue.
Just because a situation is worsening in Russia, it's still light years ahead of South Africa.

it's the double standards that bother me, simple as that.

[Husar]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/08...russia-so-far/

This link was posted here earlier and had a little surprise for me. I was surprised to read that the video in point 4 is just about one gay guy, the picture made me think otherwise. It reminded me of Lemur's thread of anti-gays who turn out to be gay after all.
I mean, it looks hilarious and I honestly thought the "sailor guys" (paratroopers, I know) were the gay ones there.

The South African problems were discussed here in the media throughout the World Cup btw. as are the Russian ones.
So in a way these events shine a brighter light onto the problems these countries have than is done usually. That is, even if the problems aren't the focus of media attention next to the sports coverage, they're still discussed far more than they usually are. And just the notion of maybe boycotting it, even if there is no boycott, intensifies the discussion of the problems.

Alternatively we could try to invade Russia and force them to accept gays, a historically proven method.