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

[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.

[rvg]

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.

Note to self: do not by any real estate in Eastern Europe.

[Montmorency]

To clarify, this is how I meant "tied":

1.a. Mortgages are tied to properties in that properties are used as collateral while they are being paid for.

1.b. Mortgages are tied to the owner in that the owner has legal-contractual responsibility for paying off the loan to the lender. If the lender sells his property while the mortgage is still outstanding, the bank collects from the proceeds however much is necessary to satisfy the mortgage. If the borrower dies, then his estate or whoever the property passes on to is henceforth responsible for the mortgage, unless there is a foreclosure following the death. See also: Due-on-sale clauses.

This is what is familiar/expected by me.

2.a. Mortgages are tied to properties in that properties are used as collateral while they are being paid for.

2.b. Mortgages are tied to the property in that if the borrower sells the property, the borrower is no longer responsible for the mortgage; the responsibility is passed on to the new owners of the property. Whoever owns a property at a given time is responsible for paying off the mortgage attached to the property.

This is what had me confused.

The deal is that you shouldn't be able to transfer ownership unless the bank okays it.

Well, the bank for putting up an off-the-books mortgage that no one knew about until the lawyers came barging in.