The U.S. Olympic Committee is doing its best to tread a very fine line for Sochi:
The athletes are always going into countries with laws different than his or her own country. They’re going to agree with those laws in some ways, they’re going to disagree with those laws in other ways. It’s our strong desire that our athletes comply with the laws of every nation that we visit. This law is no different.
It’s true that law, in the abstract, means roughly the same thing no matter where you are: It is the rules citizens and even visitors are expected to obey. And because Olympic athletes by definition must visit many countries, it’s hardly unreasonable to expect that they should not intentionally break the laws of any country in which they compete.
But is the Russian law truly no different from any other law? Certainly athletes at the Sochi games should not murder people or steal or commit rape. Even laws that have less universal agreement should generally be obeyed, both out of respect and prudence.
The Russian law, though, prohibits propaganda. In itself, this is an indication of illegitimacy, at least by modern standards. The law also prohibits only propaganda of a very specific kind. Here is the closest I have been able to come to an English translation of Article 6.21 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses:
Propaganda is the act of distributing information among minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes, 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive, 3) equates the social value of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations.
One of the cornerstones of law is clarity. People must know, within reason, what the law requires or prohibits. This law is a model of vagueness. What are “nontraditional sexual relations?” For that matter, what are “traditional” ones? Can Russian TV run “Sex and the City?” Discuss.
Still, we clearly know what the Duma and Vladimir Putin intended — Shut up about the gay rights. More specifically, shut up in front of the children.
This a a modern spin to remove the stigma against laws about propaganda. Everyone wants children protected.
But children are everywhere. More specifically, any form of journalism in the modern world, from NBC to the internet, may be seen by minors, which means the practical effect of this law is to prohibit any public discussion of gay rights. The invocation of children is superfluous to the goal of banning pro-gay speech.
And that equates exactly with prohibiting any chance of achieving gay rights.
Absent an explicit equal protection guarantee, minorities have little but speech with which to make their case. By definition, minorities must persuade a large number of the majority if they are to have any peaceful political participation at all. Majorities seldom change their minds just because.
The Russian propaganda law is ideally designed to prohibit not just Russian discussion of gay equality, but to make sure it doesn’t happen when Russia is on the world stage. At its best, this law is little more than Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. At its worst, it is the first step toward a set of Nuremberg Laws for Russia’s lesbians and gay men.
This makes it not just important to mock the law, it makes it imperative. However, that can be done respectfully, even joyously. Rainbow fingernails? Perfect. Holding hands? Sweet. These and hundreds more small gestures skirt the law without violating it. Maybe the rainbow fingernails are a fashion statement. And holding hands is just holding hands, right? Heck, in post WWII Russia, this was a postage stamp!
The discussion of gay equality in Russia has a long way to go, but reliance on state control of information will not help it be seen as a modern nation. It will be uncomfortable for Russia’s population to experience, within its borders, the increasing support among heterosexuals for gay equality. But there is no wishing — or legislating — away that conversation.
7 Comments for ““This law is no different. . . “”
posted by Jorge on
The Russian propaganda law is ideally designed to prohibit not just Russian discussion of gay equality, but to make sure it doesn’t happen when Russia is on the world stage…
This argument puts me to mind of a famous opinion by former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Abrams v. United States:
“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. . . . But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas–that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.” (as cited in Sandra Day O’Connor’s The Majesty of the Law, 107).
Add the Eastern Orthodox’s Church’s influence and you have an even more apt comparison.
However, I am not as enthusiastic as I would like to be. Is freedom of speech a value unique to the United States, or is it the natural right of mankind? Even if it is a “natural” right, I don’t think this idea of “traditional” vs. “non-traditional” sexual relations is intended to be anything but a screen for Russians’ own ideas of what is natural and unnatural. It’s hard to take the high ground under such circumstances. And how many other places violate people’s natural rights in far more egregious ways, while we stand by the sidelines and do nothing? Often for very good reason.
Ultimately, pragmatic concerns are likely to rule here. You mentioned that the law is vague. That is why you see stories about Russian officials throwing a fit over Madonna and Lady Gaga, and stories about gays being kidnapped and outed under duress. There is a need to stir up enough outrage and anger, not about the law itself, but about the culture it aids and abets, so that the costs of doing nothing are higher than the costs of acting.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This makes it not just important to mock the law, it makes it imperative. However, that can be done respectfully, even joyously. … Maybe the rainbow fingernails are a fashion statement. And holding hands is just holding hands, right? Heck, in post WWII Russia, this [image of two soldiers kissing in celebration of Russia’s victory over Germany] was a postage stamp!
And this [image of Matthew Mitchum kissing his husband in Bejing in celebration of Mitchum’s gold medal] is a violation of Russian law.
I have no doubt that Olympians from any number of countries will find ways, both subtle and clever, to mock Russia’s law. Young people are good at mocking in ways that are ambiguous, as anyone who has raised a teenager knows first hand. But it remains a fact that if Johnny Weir acknowledges his relationship with his husband in any way, at the Olympics, in a venue in which children are present and/or which might be broadcast to children, he and his husband (and the corporation broadcasting, if that is the case) will be criminally liable.
The US Olympic Committee has entered into what Stephen called “collaboration of the ugliest sort” in an earlier post. Stephen was right on that score.
I, for one, think that gays and lesbians should be raising hell with the US Olympic Committee.
posted by Doug on
I think EVERYONE who supports LGBT equality should be raising hell with the US Olympic Committee.
posted by Houndentenor on
As well as anyone who believes in free speech rights. The IOC is requiring the Swedish athlete to repaint her fingernails. If the IOC is not for universal human rights, then why was South African banned from participating for so many years?
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree with all of the above. It’s one thing to honor the customs of another country. We adjust to people driving on the other side of the road, we take our shoes off went entering homes, etc. None of that requires us to walk a minefield without knowing what perfectly innocent action can get us arrested. The IOC has the power to move the games, and if necessary postpone them for a year to make that happen. So far no athlete has been arrested for rainbow nail polish or holding hands. That doesn’t mean those actions might not be interpreted as “propaganda” by a local official. And not just athletes, but anyone in Russia is in danger of any action being interpreted as “propaganda.” Why are people still making excuses for this?
posted by Jorge on
And this [image of Matthew Mitchum kissing his husband in Bejing in celebration of Mitchum’s gold medal] is a violation of Russian law.
…
None of that requires us to walk a minefield without knowing what perfectly innocent action can get us arrested.
…
So far no athlete has been arrested for rainbow nail polish or holding hands. That doesn’t mean those actions might not be interpreted as “propaganda” by a local official.
…
The US Olympic Committee has entered into what Stephen called “collaboration of the ugliest sort” in an earlier post. Stephen was right on that score.
It all sounds a little hysterical to me, but the law is a little hysterical as well, and this issue desperately needs more energy. I’ll write a letter to the US Olympic Committee.
http://www.teamusa.org/Footer/Contact-Us
Perhaps I’ll find the perfect hook in the process. Oh, I know, I’ll look up how Dan Savage described it. Now I already said that I’m satisfied that President Obama is alert to the need to protect our athletes. So I’ll write him a letter, too. Maybe he can pressure the committee, too.
posted by kosh iii on
I have little faith in the IOC/USOC. This is the same group that a number of years ago sued to block “Gay Olympics” (aka Gay Games) despite the fact that other special interests could use the name. Then they sued and won against Dr. Waddell and got a punitive judgement lien on his property just before his death.