> The real question is WHY is Putin cracking down on threat to his power?
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.
>>No-one is demonizing Putin, they're telling facts.
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?
While I think it's very appropriate to question media portrayals, I think you crossed a line in suggesting that russian treatment of gays is "a meme." (If I'm interpreting you too strongly, I apologize, but please just skim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia a bit, especially the section on "national law"; for me at least this leaves very little of the governments stance to question)
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.
interesting, an article written by an author who has never written anything else and comes up with not a single social media profile, or really anything other than this article and articles referencing it.
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
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.
From the Executive Summary ("10 Things You Didn’t Know About Russia’s Anti-Gay Law & LGBT Rights"):
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.
> The argument for the war in Iraq was not that Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Direct links of the Hussein regime to al-Qaeda was prominent as justification for the war.
> The argument was that Hussein had WMD (reasonable assumption given that the US had given him a bunch of chemical weapons and he had used them against his own people), and that intelligence said he was going to attack next. It was a "preemptive" war.
This is false. While claims about WMD (many of which were false, and known to the US to be false at the time they were made -- as pointed out in the same UN session where Powell made his famous presentation, several of the specific claims in that presentation had been researched and debunked by UN weapons inspectors prior to that time) were made, there was no claim of specific intelligence of a planned attack, but just the specter that if Hussein acquired WMDs as the Administration claimed he was actively seeking to do and near doing, then he might either use them directly against the US or its allies or transfer them to terrorists who might do so. It was not a preemptive war as that term is generally used, it was an example of a broadening of that concept beyond the traditional notion of imminent threat to a speculative and future threat, which might best be described as "preventive war" (if one felt the need to distinguish it from any other instance of simple aggressive war, which it unmistakably was.)
> However, hand waving that everyone in America was so stupid as to believe Hussein was behind 9/11 really undermines your other points.
The majority of Americans did believe that [0], and that belief persisted at significant, though reduced, levels several years later [1][2]. I'm not sure how accurately relating facts undermines the grandparent comment's other points.
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.
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.