Protests Against Russian and Its Olympics Opening Dialogues About Its LGBT Community

After many years of protesting by the small but active lgbtq activist community, the international community is finally taking notice of human rights abuses and homophobic laws and prejudices rampant in the chilly country. A lot of it has to do with momentum around the Olympics, and the potential effects (or not) that protests will have.

A Kremlin-supported law passed Russia’s parliament, and was then signed into law by President Vladimir Putin, back in June that placed a ban on “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” with jail time and harsh fines. In the view of the Orthodox Church, this is meant to promote traditional family structures and spur “Western European” advances into Russia, but to many others it seems intended to continue fostering a hostile atmosphere for lgbt people within the country. While police—not to mention the native population—already target queer individuals, this is another way for government forces to overcome its dissenters with swift police action.

Recognizing this public injustice, what started out as a small demonstration of protest has sparked nation-wide activity here in the United States and abroad to the United Kingdom boycotting one of the few Russian exports: Vodka.

It started when activist and author Dan Savage called for gay bars and supporters to boycott Russian vodkas, specifically the most prominently known Stolichnaya, or Stoli, Vodka. Since then, bars in West Hollywood, Chicago, NYC, and elsewhere have pulled Stoli from their shelves, dumped it into the streets, and are refusing to sell any more until the political situation changes abroad.

A statement was issued by the CEO of Stoli, Val Mendeleev, who reiterates that the company “has always been, and continues to be a fervent supporter and friend to the LGBT community” and cites initiatives and projects that partner with the queer community, like being the official vodka of Miami Pride and it’s “Be Real: Stories from Queer America” documentary series. Further, Mendeleev cites that the vodka sold in the U.S. is owned by SPI Group, based in Luxembourg, and while it does use some Russian ingredients, it also has distilleries in Latvia, and has been in disputes with the Russian government over brand ownership for years.

Another who argues against the protest is foremost Russian lgbt activist Nikolai Alekseev, who asks “what is the aim of this boycott?” “To be honest, I don’t see the point in boycotting the Russian vodka,” Aleksev continues. “It will [not] impact anyone except the companies involved a little bit. The effect will die out very fast, it will not last forever.” Rather than this economic protest, Alekseev sees a more useful pressure placed on lawmakers and political leadership who supports anti-lgbt measures.

Vodka may not be your drink of choice, so a better protest for you might be the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

Controversy began after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was reviewing allegations that queer athletes and tourists in the country for the games would be targeted because of the new law. After receiving assurances from the government that this would not be true, the response from the Russian government apparently flip-flopped, announcing that foreigners would be under the same scrutiny while in the country. Human Rights Campaign Vice President for Communications Fred Sainz said in response that “until there is formal action to repeal the law, it applies to everyone within Russian borders. It ought to be clear to the IOC that verbal assurance from nameless Russian officials will do nothing to protect LBGT Olympians, visitors, and personnel during the Sochi games.”

So another round of protests was announced, this one calling on athletes and governments to protest the event. U.S. groups have asked the country to not participate, and for athletes to not go in order to make a statement to the country.

However, several individuals and groups have spoken out against these methods, citing more effectiveness at dealing with issues at the Olympics than simply protesting.

The Russian LGBT Network, on their Facebook page tells lgbt supporters, “Do not boycott the Olympics—boycott homophobia!” by exercising their freedoms of expression and to not censor beliefs or actions just because of the actions of the government. To openly disagree with Russian policies would send a stronger message activists said. They point to the 1968 Olympic games where although many boycotted the event, all that is remembered is Tommie Smith’s and John Carlos’ “human rights salute” on the podium to stand in solidarity for those fighting for equality and human rights.

Greg Louganis, one of the world’s greatest divers who also happens to be a gay man, spoke out against what a boycott would mean for Olympic athletes. “Boycotts hurt the wrong people, [the athletes.” He argues that it would be selfish of the queer community to disrupt such an important event for world athletics.

Doing his part in the activism, a gay speed skater from New Zealand, Blake Skjellerup, reports that he will be wearing a rainbow pin in the Sochi Games, and calls on others to do the same. “I have no interest in going back in the closet in Sochi… This is not about defiance, this is me standing up for what I believe in.” He agrees with Louganis, saying that “I think visibility is the best possible solution, as opposed to hiding away and not attending.”

UK court convicts teen for non disclosure of trans status prior to penetration

A case that got my attention from a Facebook thread in a Transgender group I am a member of has come to an end with some strange results, here a leading UK trans advocate has laid the case for us to look at, shared via creative commons license as per (re)use policy set out.

Zoe O'Connell 

The Court of Appeal has just published it’s judgement in the latest sex-by-deception case. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time a written judgement has been provided in such a case and is binding on the lower courts, i.e. creating case law.

It’s not good news.

As I’m quoting direct from the judgement, the below contains detailed references to sexual acts. This is unavoidable as it is highly relevant. There are no references to underage or non-consensual acts, the case revolves entirely around “deception” as to gender invalidating consent.

I’m going to quote extensively from the judgement as I believe it speaks for itself However, you can skip the quotes and just read my summary and it should make sense. What I will note is the heavy and unnecessary use of quote marks to imply deception earlier on: ‘him’, ‘his’ etc. This is despite the note from the judge towards the end about “confusion with her own sexuality”, specific reference to the person concerned “talking about wanting a sex change” and a pre-sentence report revealing “a history of…confusion surrounding her gender identity”.

The judge’s way of phrasing things could at best be described as insensitive and I suspect they had no training in this area.

6. Arrangements were made for “Scott” to come down to London to see M just after her 16th birthday…

7. …at the time the appellant was aged 17 years…

Summary: There was no issue with age of consent. (Quite the opposite, they waited until they were old enough)

8. … They went to a bedroom where it was dark and the appellant began to rub M’s vagina with her fingers and gave her oral sex. … M offered to give the appellant oral sex but the appellant declined. It was alleged (this being the count that was denied and not pursued) that M was penetrated with the dildo.

9. On the second visit, there were lots of occasions of oral penetration and occasions of digital penetration, always of M. … On the third visit, although there were difficulties in the relationship, they had a party. They still talked about having sex but the appellant was not interested in trying again.

Summary: There was genital contact and penetration with tongue and fingers. There was no penetration with a dildo or any confusion/lack of clarity over what it was penetration was with considered in the case. This is important: There was no “penis-in-vagina” sex involved in the case.

10. However on the fourth and final visit in November 2011, the appellant was confronted by M’s mother about really being a girl. … The appellant kept talking about wanting a sex change and M said the appellant had lied to her for four years and all that time she had been calling her Scott.

47. …The pre-sentence report spoke of a history of self harm and confusion surrounding her gender identity and sexuality, which were resolving….

Summary: There’s clear confusion over gender here. Talking about wanting a sex change is enough to get protection as a trans person under the Equalities Act 2010.

23. The case for the Crown was that M’s consent was obtained by fraudulent deception that the appellant was a male and that had she known the truth, she would not have consented to acts of vaginal penetration. Mr Wainwright argues that deception as to gender cannot vitiate consent; in the same way deception as to age, marital status, wealth or, following EB, HIV status being deceptions as to qualities or attributes cannot vitiate consent.

A little confusing this, but in a nutshell: It has been ruled previously that deception over age, marital status, wealth or HIV status does not matter.

26. Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing that the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellant’s deception.

Summary: Gender is somehow special because, presumably, “eww, gay people” and “eww, you turned me gay”. Homophobia as much as transphobia. “Deception” when it relates to gender does matter, even if primary sexual characteristics (Vagina/Penis) are not involved. As far as I’m aware there has never been a case in the UK involving deception as to religion, which would be an interesting comparison as it can involve strong emotions too.

Age, marital status, wealth or HIV status do not matter. Gender does.

11. …On 30 November 2011, M gave a full account to police of these offences. Although one or two answers might be said to be equivocal, she said that she did not know that “Scott” was a girl…

12. The account which the appellant provided to the police in a prepared statement was to the effect that she met M through the internet, pretending to be “Scott” because it made her more comfortable. She suggested that M found out about her real identity as early as December 2009 and they had a big argument. They eventually started speaking again and then met up. She expressed the view that she thought that the complainant knew or suspected that the appellant was a girl. That suspicion would be inconsistent with the suggestion of an argument when M found out; neither would it be consistent with M’s purchase of condoms before the first visit and preparation for it in 2011.

30. The draft witness statement re-iterated that the appellant had lost contact with M around Christmas 2009, noting that it was resumed when M requested pictures via a webcam for which purpose the appellant made herself look like a boy. The statement goes on to say that when the appellant travelled to London, she did not try to disguise herself as a boy and continued with these words:

“12. I presumed Monique knew that I was a girl and consented to sexual activity which took place although I specifically deny I ever used a dildo on her. I admit I had a dildo which she saw but I did not use it on her.“

Summary: The judgement goes on at length beyond this and is also concerned with the accuracy of legal advice given, but there appears to have been some doubt as to how aware M was about the gender situation. Given they were both teenagers, possibly confused about sexuality and on one side gender, this perhaps isn’t surprising.

Essentially it goes on to say that although the burden of proof is with the prosecution, if you’re trans and out yourself to someone prior to any sort of sexual act – even touching – then it would be best if you can prove it, in case they (or their parents) later try to prosecute. A Gender Recognition Certificate would, I hope, be a defense – but having read the judgement, I’m not certain.

Quite how you prove you told a partner without outing yourself to all and sundry, putting yourself at risk of physical violence, loss of employment, homelessness etc is not addressed in the judgement.

Australia Closer to Passing First-Ever, Intersex-Inclusive LGBT Anti-Discrimination Bill

Gay News Network reported:

New legal protections for LGBTI Australians passed the Federal Lower House last week with a bill the government says will better protect Australians from discrimination.

The Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill is designed to make it illegal for someone to be discriminated against based on their sexual or gender identity.

"These new protections are long overdue and I’m delighted we are bringing them one step closer," Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said.

"The absence of these protections at the federal level means that many members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community have been victims of discrimination when accessing accommodation, healthcare, and everyday consumer services.

"The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has tabled its report and urged passage of the Bill this parliamentary term."

Minister for Ageing Mark Butler said the reforms will mean there is greater protection for older LGBT people when they access aged care services.

"While most aged care service providers are accepting of residents regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, we think there should be legal protection that ensures such discrimination cannot occur," Butler said.

"When such services are provided with tax payer dollars, it is not appropriate for providers to discriminate in the provision of those services.”

During the passage of the bill Liberal MP Michael Keenan said the Coalition supports the move.

“This bill follows from the government's abandonment of its Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill on 20 March,” he said.

“Its principal effect is to adopt the recommendation of coalition senators, in the minority report of the senate committee which inquired into the bill, that the Sex Discrimination Act should be amended so that it extends to discrimination on the basis of sexuality.

“It should be noted that this was the policy which the coalition took to the 2010 election, and it remains coalition policy, which the government has now adopted.”

NSW GLRL policy and project officer Jed Horner told SX the organisation welcomes the bill’s passage through the House of Representatives.

“We call on the Senate to pass the Bill, with amendments to ensure that elderly LGBTI people can access aged care services without fear of legally sanctioned discrimination. If enacted, these protections will go some way towards ensuring LGBTI people can lead lives with dignity as they age,” he said.

“Significantly, the inclusion of sexual orientation as a ground of protection will have the effect of ensuring bisexual people have access to some protections, something that is not the case under existing NSW anti-discrimination law.

“The inclusion of the grounds of intersex status will likewise provide protection at law for people who are intersex, a long overdue and welcome move.”

The bill also extends the grounds of marital status in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to include relationships status to offer greater protection to same-sex couples.

The bill is now before the Senate where it is expected an amendment will be moved to take out the exceptions given to religious organisations.

Referred to Committee (21/03/2013): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Report due 17/06/2013

Track the Bill HERE

Pope/Catholic Church backlash after his anti gay comments continue

So the backlash is on in earnest as it has since the news first came earlier this year that the Catholic Church will be opposing countries such as the United States and Europe who have opened the gates for gay marriage rights and indeed LGBT rights on a whole. 

Pink News UK and indeed several other platforms have been reporting in rapid succession the actions taken by LGBT activists and Catholics alike who are opposed to the moves by the Vatican on this vexed issue for many who just want to live their lives in the open with a family structure and why not, maybe to alleviate some of the world's problems we could get on with the business of granting such rights and state benefits as those are what the real issues are about.

Dutch Catholics seek to "deregister" from the Church

According to the founder of a Dutch website which aims to offer information to those looking to leave the Catholic church, thousands of Catholics have been researching how to do so.

Tom Roes, who operates a website containing the documents required for members of the Catholic church to “deregister” themselves, said the number of visitors to the site went from around 10 a day to over 10,000, reported the Irish Times.

“Of course it’s not possible to be ‘de-baptised’ because a baptism is an event, but this way people can unsubscribe or deregister themselves as Catholics,” Mr Roes said.

He went on to say that he had no way of knowing how many people actually went on to leave the church after visiting his site,ontdopen.nl.

Out of the population of the Netherlands, around 28% is Catholic, while roughly 44% is not religious. Reports suggest that 18% of the population is Protestant.

In his ‘World Day of Peace’ remarks last week, the Pope said: “There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union.
“Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilise marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society”, the Pope told worshippers.

Pope Benedict XVI was also pictured giving a blessing to Rebecca Kadaga, the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, who has promised to pass the country’s notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a “Christmas gift”.

On 26 December, a petition started to push Barack Obama to label to the Roman Catholic Church a “hate group”, following a similar petition to label the Westboro Baptist Church the same.

The petition cites comments made by the Pope at Christmas where he said that gay people are manipulating their sexual orientation to alter god-given nature, and that they ”deny their nature”, which is “given to them by their bodily identity.”

The Netherlands was the first country to legalise equal marriage, back in 2001, and official statistics report that, by the end of 2010, 14,813 gay couples were married in the country,

Back in October, the country’s government began looking into changing the law to take into account its 25,000 LGBT families, and issues faced by step-parents or sperm donors

As for the petition 

With more than 77 million registered members, the Catholic Church is the largest single denomination in the United States of America and it is highly unlikely that the president would wish to alienate such a large number of people. Released less than 24 hours ago, it has failed to gain any signatures and is currently not visible on the main White House petitions website.

In is ‘World Day of Peace’ remarks last week, the Pope said: “There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union.
“Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilise marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society”, the Pope told worshipers.

Pope Benedict XVI was also pictured giving a blessing to Rebecca Kadaga, the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, who has promised to pass the country’s notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a “Christmas gift”.

The petition can be found here.

On December 17 I posted on Gay Jamaica Watch the protest at the Vatican by LGBT representatives who vehemently opposed the Pope gay marriage slight as it was described then, 

A group of demonstrators protesting against the Roman Catholic Church's stance on homosexual marriage tried to enter St Peter's Square in the Vatican on Sunday as Pope Benedict was giving his weekly address to pilgrims.

The protesters - who were kept out of the square by police - were upset over a speech by the pontiff on Friday in which he appeared to include efforts to legalize gay marriage among the threats to peace in the world.

"We find intolerable the assertion that gay unions are dangerous to the world. Weapons are much more dangerous," Gianfranco Mascia, 52, an activist who organized the protest told Reuters. "No to arms, yes to rights for everyone,"

The group of about 15 people held up signs reading "Gay unions don't harm peace, weapons do" in various languages.

In another previous post on GLBTQJAMAICA in response to a Gleaner letter entitled: Same-Sex Marriage A Misnomer, Fraud (Gleaner Letter) I lamented that at no point did anyone in the struggle locally, JFLAG or otherwise have asked for gay marriage rights or rights similar to those heterosexual couples get after tying the knot or related state recognition when we can't even get passed privacy and consensual sex matters. 

check out the latest figures from the Statistical Institute 

Local groups such as the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (founder imaged below) and Reverend Al Miller all repeatedly suggest marriage will be poison to humanity.

Certainly we are nowhere near the end of this debate and it seems homosexuality is to become the dividing issue between believers and non believers alike where as far as I see it the existence of God is not my problem but how the word has been reinterpreted for varying agendas.

Peace and tolerance

H