January 17, 2014

"We do not have a ban on nontraditional sexual relationships... We are not forbidding anything and nobody is being grabbed off the street...."

Said Putin.
"We have a ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and paedophilia. I want to underline this. Propaganda among children. These are absolutely different things — a ban on something or a ban on the propaganda of that thing.... You can feel relaxed and calm [in Russia], but leave children alone please."

21 comments:

SJ said...

Compare and contrast:

In the United States, the industry that creates/releases movies has a ratings process that restricts/forbids children from seeing certain films.

This is a socially-acceptable, non-government method of keeping children from seeing/hearing certain things.

In Russia, this is a proposed limitation of "sexual propaganda directed at children". (Russia doesn't have, in either its legal structure or its social history, the strong protection of liberty that we have in America.)

On the one hand hand, a private organization is doing something to restrict children from seeing certain things. (If I recall correctly, the America private organization did so under an implicit threat of government action.) Usually things deemed hazardous to their minds; things that children may not be mature enough to handle.

On the other hand, we have a foreign government restricting certain publications/films/TV-shows that might disseminate ideas it deems hazardous to children and to culture.

Admittedly, government actions are different than private organization actions (even those that are culturally-dominating and done under implicit threat of government action).

Do we in the U.S. want to go all cultural-imperialist on Russia and force them to change this?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

paul a'barge said...

Wow. Now why didn't we think of that ... oh wait, we did. About 30 years ago. And then the Gay Activists blew through that wall like a train.

Good luck, Putin. Once you open the door to these folks, they'll stop at nothing to get to your children. All the time. Without hindrance. Or shame.

MadisonMan said...

Putin should define his terms.

As stated, 'propaganda' could mean just about anything.

jimbino said...

Yes, Putin needs to define his terms.

I don't know about Russian, but Arisotle considered "philia" a good thing.

Furthermore, heterosexual child abuse is more common than the homosexual variety, except perhaps among priests and choirboys.

I think what Putin really dislikes is "propaganda" --any public expression of opinion that doesn't follow the Russian State script.

n.n said...

The issue is how and why society classifies behaviors for normalization, tolerance, or rejection. The homosexual agenda, the libertine agenda, etc. have intentionally derailed a proper conversation of this issue on its merits. Whether by choice or default, this issue will now enjoy a recurring review.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

MadisonMan said...
Putin should define his terms.

As stated, 'propaganda' could mean just about anything.

1/17/14, 2:20 PM


"propaganda" does mean anything and we're talking Russia here. It gives the police almost complete power to hassle anyone they think is gay or gay friendly. The law forbids obvious things like gay pride parade but less obvious things like the rainbow flag.

There was an openly gay reporter who was fired because his employment might be considered "propaganda".

m stone said...

I think if I hear the expression "have a (proper, national) conversation" on an issue again, I may barf on my keyboard.

Didn't we play this linguistic PC game during the 2008 national election and everyday since, not only on race, but other topics?

Some groups inherently want to block any discourse, usually the same ones who talk about the conversation.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Do we in the U.S. want to go all cultural-imperialist on Russia and force them to change this?

No. It isn't any of our business. They are in Russia. We are not.

n.n said...

m stone:

The proper conversation will happen when arguments are internally, externally, and mutually consistent. We may choose to make accommodations, but they should be established as social constructs through unforced compromise. Today, we are not discussing the issues other than with a narrow perspective, which is made preeminent by virtue of force or emotional appeals. This ensures that a recurring review (e.g. regurgitation) is not only likely but inevitable.

The Godfather said...

Yes, yes, Comrade Putin I understand and believe everything you say.

Will you take the thumb screws off now?

Revenant said...

Do we in the U.S. want to go all cultural-imperialist on Russia and force them to change this?

Forcing Russia to change its law isn't even under discussion.

Should we, as one of the few nations on Earth that embraces the fundamental human right of free speech, criticize governments that do not protect it? Um, yes. Yes, we should. Our nation is founded on the principle that rights are common to all mankind, not just to Anglo culture.


eric said...

Yeah, they sneak through the door called "Tolerance" and then insist upon acceptance.

Illuninati said...

Putin said:
" "We have a ban on the propaganda of homosexuality and paedophilia. I want to underline this. Propaganda among children. These are absolutely different things — a ban on something or a ban on the propaganda of that thing."

I noticed in the comments under that article that some people confused propaganda aimed towards children which Putin was talking about and child sexual abuse which was not mentioned. Putin wants to protect Russian children from gay propaganda which he believes is inappropriate for children. I imagine that a large number of Americans would agree with him.

mccullough said...

It's for the children is the rallying cry of a lot of statists in the U.S. as well.

mtrobertsattorney said...

How would Hillary handle this? Would she call for sanctions, a boycott or sever diplomatic relations?

mtrobertsattorney said...

How would Hillary handle this? Would she call for sanctions, a boycott or sever diplomatic relations?

rcocean said...

We have no more right to tell Russia what to do with their internal affairs, then they have with us.

Yes, lets mess with a man who has 10,000 nuclear warheads because he doesn't like the Gheys.

Brilliant.

rcocean said...

We have no more right to tell Russia what to do with their internal affairs, then they have with us.

Yes, lets mess with a man who has 10,000 nuclear warheads because he doesn't like the Gheys.

Brilliant.

Jim S. said...

Furthermore, heterosexual child abuse is more common than the homosexual variety, except perhaps among priests and choirboys.

Child sexual abuse by priests is lower than child sexual abuse by any other group of people who have children in their care (public school teachers, private school teachers, daycare providers, etc.). It just gets more publicity because it's a double betrayal, of the children and of their religion.

John Lynch said...

This is what an insecure, doomed culture acts like. When they are circling the drain they rant about gays and Jews.

Revenant said...

We have no more right to tell Russia what to do with their internal affairs, then they have with us.

You're right, but not in the way you mean. We both have the right to tell the other nation how we think it ought to act, internally or externally.

I don't recall Ronald Reagan, for example, saying "well if the USSR wants to send people to the gulag that's their business, not ours". He criticized the practice, as well he should.

Nobody who is actually in the right need fear the opinions of others.