Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is the same Russia that trolled the entire world by beating the piss out of Georgia until they just got tired of it, right?

Clearly they take international criticism seriously.

I'm not a fan of what is going on over there, but given their track record I don't suspect any amount of global outrage is going to change Putin's mind about this sort of thing.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
It had no detrimental effect bar for the ones who are being repressed. If I was told that I wasn't allowed to express my identity then I'd be pretty peeved over it.

The right of expressing an identity has developed into the right to push it in peoples faces thanks to gay pride activism. I don't want to know if someone is gay or straight, they should keep it to themselves.

So if you saw someone holding hands in the street, or giving their partner a peck on the cheek, you'd ask them to stop? Cause those aren't exactly "pushing it in poeples faces", but in russia, if the two people involved were of the same sex, they'd be arrested.

Note that waving a rainbow flag or wearing a rainbow pin may be enough to get someone arrested, imprisoned and deported.

While a good portion of the world is finally sorting out their issues with gay rights, Russia seems to have decided to double down on the bigotry.

China didn't threaten to arrest anyone who showed up wearing an Amnesty International pin.

Personally, reading between the lines of the mayor of Vancouver's recent statements, I see the massive difficulties and challenges of moving the olympics this far in and believe a "Challenge accepted" meme would fit right in.

Orlanth wrote:They shouldnt be 'fighting' for this or any sexuality cause. Sexual preferences are a private personal matter, everyone else is expected to keep it to themselves, why not Gay Pride.

Let's reverse the roles, then. I'm assuming that you consider yourself to be heterosexual, and I'll suggest for the purpose of this example that you have a girlfriend.

If you hold her hand in public, you're going to jail.
If you kiss her in public, you're going to jail.
If you kiss her in private and someone thinks you did, you're going to jail.

So now tell me about how you shouldn't be 'fighting' for this or any sexuality cause. Go on, please.

Orlanth wrote:The right of expressing an identity has developed into the right to push it in peoples faces thanks to gay pride activism. I don't want to know if someone is gay or straight, they should keep it to themselves.

Ever whistle at a pretty girl?
Ever kiss a girl in public?
Ever hold her hand?
Ever dance with her?
Ever buy her a drink at a bar/pub?

Well fething stop doing that, you hypocrite.

Ever do this in public Azazel?

Oh it looks like a stag do!

 djones520 wrote:
Ever do this in public Azazel?

Not me personally. ...But I kind of want to now for some reason.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:They shouldnt be 'fighting' for this or any sexuality cause. Sexual preferences are a private personal matter, everyone else is expected to keep it to themselves, why not Gay Pride.

Let's reverse the roles, then. I'm assuming that you consider yourself to be heterosexual, and I'll suggest for the purpose of this example that you have a girlfriend.

If you hold her hand in public, you're going to jail.
If you kiss her in public, you're going to jail.


So now tell me about how you shouldn't be 'fighting' for this or any sexuality cause. Go on, please.

It can happen, Saudi Arabia has some similar laws. Their country, their culture, their rules. As with Russia the populace are majority behind these laws there is a mandate for them.
So long as they are evenly applied there is nothing to comment on. We have no right to demand the Russian people live according to our ways.

 azazel the cat wrote:

If you kiss her in private and someone thinks you did, you're going to jail.

I dont defend that, but then neither does Russia, only public displays of homosexuality are banned.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The right of expressing an identity has developed into the right to push it in peoples faces thanks to gay pride activism. I don't want to know if someone is gay or straight, they should keep it to themselves.

Ever whistle at a pretty girl?
Ever kiss a girl in public?
Ever hold her hand?
Ever dance with her?
Ever buy her a drink at a bar/pub?

Well fething stop doing that, you hypocrite.

That would be acceptable in the UK, with the exception of the wolf whistling which can be seen as harassment (I agree with that assessment and never wolf whistle anyway).
If I traveled to Saudi Arabia I would be careful not to do any of those things in public if their society doesn't like people doing so.

Bottom line its not our business to tell other countries how to set their cultural boundaries. Especially when we are in a societal mess because of the 'trendy' social dogmas imposed upon us since the 90's.

I think there is a tremendous amount that the world can do to limit the barbarity in countries like Russia, but boycotting the Olympics is just empty grandstanding. If people actually give a gak, then limit trade, isolate them from the political dialogue... that's the kind of stuff that'll actually achieve something.

But just boycotting the Olympics will achieve nothing. It will do nothing but boost Putin's 'us vs the West' mindset, and jerk around a bunch of British citizens who have trained really hard because they want to compete for their country to be the best in the world at a winter themed sport.

 d-usa wrote:
Boycotting the olympics is stupid, for any reason.

If you turn an apolitical sporting event into a political stage, then you might as well just get rid of the olympics and simply organize "The Sporting Competition With People I Agree WIth" games.

There are a lot of things people can do to any country to protest anything that they don't like about it. But the Olympics should not be used for that.

Yes, definitely.

But this is the kind of thing that the dear Russian people are missing out on.



Yes that was completely necessary.

Orlanth you seem to have a problem with homosexuals and the like being open at all about their sexuality. You keep making reference towards it as though you don't want to see it and that it should be kept behind locked doors...

Again I'll point out that saying, "because you don't complain about x other problems you have no right to do it in this case" is a bit of a dumb point to be making. It may not be our right to impose our cultural standards on others, but neither should they do the same to foreign nationals visiting their countries if they'd be violating International laws (or at least guidelines) to do it. Arresting tourists isn't going to do anything for people's opinion of them conversely, so I don't see us telling them to go themselves is going to somehow destabilize the situation anymore than they would be.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Well, there is the fact that billions of tax dollars go towards the Olympics, none of which will be of benefit to the people who are paying those taxes.

Not really. Or rather, it depends on the Olympics in question. Sure, it costs billions of dollars, but lots of nation building projects cost billions of dollars, and so the real question is what the country in question got out of the games.

So, for instance, there's cases like Greece, where billions of dollars were squandered, long term infrastructure projects were minimal, and everyone left with the opinion that Greece was still very much a shambles. Compare that to China, where much of the money spend was on upgrades to road and rail networks that will benefit Beijing for decades, and the whole project basically changed world opinion overnight - China moved from being a potential future power to a current worldpower with greatly admired project management abilities.

Then there's cases like Australia, where the value of increased tourism was estimated to be more than 10 times the cost of the games.

The only sporting event I care less about than the Winter Olympics is Hockey.

Winter Olympic Boycott craziness doesn't even register on my give a gak scale.

Russia,

Stop being a dick to the gays. Where are you going to find good home decorators if you chase them all out?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Want to give a cursary glance of the boycotting section of the 1936 Olympics wikipedia article before you ask something like that? Though I do feel the need to ask if the Germans actively persecuted foreign tourists at the time like the Russians may do. Also, as has been stated, 77 years can change the situation a lot. Considering that the only person not to shake Jesse Owen's hand at those games was the US president (yes, the guy who called those of African descent an inferior race shaked the guy's hand), and the guy had to stay in his own accommodation outwith the US' because of the US, not the Germans, I wouldn't say that the opinions of those who did attend aren't biased.

No, Hitler didn't shake Owens' hand. But not as a personal snub to Owens, but because Hitler only wanted to congratulate the German winners. Told that was unsporting, he instead declared that he would shake the hand of no winners, including the German ones.

Hitler did send a signed picture of himself to Owens later... which was bizarrely more than Roosevelt ever did, as he was worried about offending Southern voters.

 kronk wrote:
The only sporting event I care less about than the Winter Olympics is Hockey.

No respect for Curling

 Orlanth wrote:
For the record Chamberlain didn't trust Hitler at all, but the UK was not ready for war and France was not giving any backing. Chamberlain is an unfairly maligned figure.
However the point stands, we gain nothing by protesting Moscow on this issue except to piss them off. Boycotting sports and cultural events damages relations and places the UK in a difficult position. Besides our kowtowing to political correct ideology has already made the UK society a laughing stock across the world, and choosing this issue as a major issue to damage relations over can be justifiably seen as.
"We have confused our culture to promote PC dogma, and now insist you confuse Russian culture also."

Yeah, I mean ultimately, if you're going to piss someone off you might as well do something useful. Lobby for Russia to be excluded from trade negotiations. Ban direct trade.

Not turning up at the games won't change one fething thing for any homosexuals unlucky enough to be living in Russia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
It's not even that one sided m,oral agrument, Putin has good reason not to unlock gay pride movements in Russia.
Russia has seen the result of gay pride movement in other nations including the UK.
Gay Pride marches would be all very well if they stopped at providing equal rights for gays, but they don't.
They are often an agitation platform for minority parties, and political agitators.
In the UK for example it was gay rights activitists that initiated the spat with Chile over Pinochet when he was arrested by gay rights activist during a sanctioned quiet visit to the UK.
Gay Pride marches are a stepping stone for such groups as the Socialist Workers party and as a social group gays can be more volatile than many.
Also Gay Pride means what it says it means, pride in other words: we are here and in your face, we demand acceptance. Fair enough, but often tolerance is not reciprocated.

There are many reasons why Putin would choose 'thanks but no thanks' over allowing that sort of activism within his own borders. It causes less ructions if people kept their sexuality to themselves.

No, none of that has anything to do with it.

Authoritatian leaders find scapegoats very useful. No matter how gakky life is for people, as long as a leader can point to some random other group and say 'look at these immoral people, you can hate on them and feel better about yourselves' well then that leader has a pressure valve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Actually they can stir up trouble with most people given the chance, in the UK Gay Pride is often linked by the extreme left, but of course anyone who isnt falling over backwards to welcome it is 'conservatively minded'.

They shouldnt be 'fighting' for this or any sexuality cause. Sexual preferences are a private personal matter, everyone else is expected to keep it to themselves, why not Gay Pride.

How did you escape from 1984?

I mean, seriously, this debate happened, the result became clear and society moved on. "You can be gay but I don't have to know about it" turned out to be complete and total nonsense. Sexuality is not purely private, because it's part of human relationships and part of human identity. You can't tell people they're free to be gay as long as they do it absolutely in private. It'd be a total fething nonsense to tell straight people they're free to be straight, as long as they keep it to themselves, and it's no different for any other sexuality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Ever do this in public Azazel?

First up, heterosexual people do that kind of outward sexuality stuff.

Second up, that kind of showing is a direct reaction to the social taboo more conventional homoesexual sexuality has in society. When there's been a longstanding opposition to holding hands or kissing in public, well then a small number are going to strip to basically nothing and demand people acknowledge them as they are.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Orlanth you seem to have a problem with homosexuals and the like being open at all about their sexuality. You keep making reference towards it as though you don't want to see it and that it should be kept behind locked doors...

No such problem. I have a problem that pressure groups in the UK insist on telling a sovereign country what their culture should be.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

It may not be our right to impose our cultural standards on others, but neither should they do the same to foreign nationals visiting their countries

Actually they can. If you visit a country it pays to know about its laws and customs.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Arresting tourists isn't going to do anything for people's opinion of them conversely, so I don't see us telling them to go themselves is going to somehow destabilize the situation anymore than they would be.

Tourists get arrested all the time for doing things ok in one country in another, and by and large nothing is done about it. Dubai is a case in point, fairly popular tourist destination, but has some very stringent social laws.

 sebster wrote:

No, none of that has anything to do with it.
Authoritatian leaders find scapegoats very useful. No matter how gakky life is for people, as long as a leader can point to some random other group and say 'look at these immoral people, you can hate on them and feel better about yourselves' well then that leader has a pressure valve.

Russia has always had a disdain for homosexuality in public, open homosexuality is not very Russian.
It is not reasonable to assume that this is purely a scapegoat.
Also public opinion in Russia has become more conservative due to the antic of activists which offended large proportion of the Russian populace.
Yes Putin certainly profited that for example Pussy Riot trolled a church that had important symbolism to the Russian because it was rebuilt after being destroyed under Stalin.

wiki wrote:
The court's decision aroused "little sensation" domestically. Many Russians were outraged by Pussy Riot's church protest and supported "the right of the majority to worship in peace". The Soviet government had destroyed the Christ the Savior Cathedral in the 1930s (it was rebuilt in the 1990s), adding to the location's significance to believers. At the conclusion of the trial, a series of Levada Center polls showed that, of 1600 Russians surveyed in 45 cities nationwide, 42% also believed Pussy Riot had been arrested for insulting the shrines and beliefs of the Orthodox Church. Meanwhile, 29% saw it as a case of general hooliganism, while only 19% saw it as a political protest against Putin. Overall opinion was for the most part negative or indifferent. Only 6% sympathised with Pussy Riot, while 41% felt antipathy towards them. 44% believed the trial was "fair and impartial", while 17% believed it was not. Of those following the case, 86% favored some form of punishment, ranging from prison to forced labor or fines, while 5% said they should not have been punished at all.

Note that popular support for Pussy Riot was far stronger outside Russia than inside, different cultures you see.

 sebster wrote:

I mean, seriously, this debate happened, the result became clear and society moved on. "You can be gay but I don't have to know about it" turned out to be complete and total nonsense.

Rubbish, for example the US military had a policy of dont ask dont tell that worked well.

 sebster wrote:

Sexuality is not purely private, because it's part of human relationships and part of human identity. You can't tell people they're free to be gay as long as they do it absolutely in private. It'd be a total fething nonsense to tell straight people they're free to be straight, as long as they keep it to themselves, and it's no different for any other sexuality.

Rubbish again. Societies can and do tell heterosexual people how it is appropriate to behave in public. It's called social taboo and often shapes a nations laws. Maybe you aren't seeing this because under the current western fashion anything goes. However because the desire for freedom results in chaos, just as the desire for order results in control, society is heading in cycles from promiscuity back to conformity and around again. The 60's were far more permissive than the 70's and 80's.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Ever do this in public Azazel?

First up, heterosexual people do that kind of outward sexuality stuff.

Second up, that kind of showing is a direct reaction to the social taboo more conventional homoesexual sexuality has in society. When there's been a longstanding opposition to holding hands or kissing in public, well then a small number are going to strip to basically nothing and demand people acknowledge them as they are.

Your later amendment highlights my point.

First up, heterosexual people doing that sort of stuff probably get arrested. The rainbow flag in these circumstances means 'society cant touch me'. Ultimately it can become a socially imbalancing privilege status if some groups are empowered beyond others and this leverage can be powerful in that hands of activists, and ultimately causes deeper division than if society was policed more evenly without fear of offending an empowered minority..

Second this is indication of the cycle in progress. People sick of control strip off in public in an attempt to gain freedom. Later people sick of the chaos force people to cover up in order to restore order, and the cycle continues.

We are at a different point of the cycle to Russia, however with the global village activists over here demand everyone be on the same page.

Da Boss wrote:Why is Stepben Fry England's greatest man?

Name one Briton more intelligent, witty, classy and handsome than Mr. Fry. He is truly the ultimate renaissance man.

Frazzled wrote:

pgmason wrote:
Why shouldn't the winter olympics exist Frazz?

Its played by rich people, for rich people, with rich people attending.

Come visit backcountry BC in the winter. Tons of poor kids sliding downhill on secondhand skis and boards, dishwashing their way onto the lifts. All the other winter sports were invented to stop snowbound pioneers from going mad and murdering the families with the woodaxe. Richety rich rich, now yeah, sure, but that is true of all Olympic level competition (and spectating).

Orlanth wrote:so much uninformed nonsense about "Gay Pride Activism"

Please read into the issue and inform yourself. Gays should have the right to hold hands and be affectionate in public just as straight couples do, and be able to do so without threat of persecution or violence. Any opinion to the contrary is hypocritical at best and bigoted at worst.

Soladrin wrote:I vote we make grab-ass an olympic sport.

Synchronized Grab-Ass! Go for the Gold!

Universal human rights are something we all should work towards, regardless of nationality. I think Russia is being held to a higher standard because of it's perception as a first world country.

feeder wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Why is Stephen Fry England's greatest man?

Name one Briton more intelligent, witty, classy and handsome than Mr. Fry. He is truly the ultimate renaissance man.

Several come to mind.
I preferred Michael Palin to Stephen Fry, and that's limiting comment to similar people.

feeder wrote:

Orlanth wrote:so much uninformed nonsense about "Gay Pride Activism"

Please read into the issue and inform yourself. Gays should have the right to hold hands and be affectionate in public just as straight couples do, and be able to do so without threat of persecution or violence. Any opinion to the contrary is hypocritical at best and bigoted at worst.

I am well informed thank you. Informed enough to see the Orwellian goodthink behind those and similar comments.
You are now the third person to assume that anyone who understands the rights of a sovereign society not to witness homosexuality on the street does so because of personal intolerance. Whereas in fairness it is because I can see the sovereign right of the Russian parliament and people to decide their cultural boundaries for themselves. While I don't I could conceivably come to this conclusion and be gay, and not out of self hate either.
Furthermore the goodthink extends into assumption that such claims of accepting the Russian states right to formulate its own differing point of view are hypocritical and homophobic.

This is one of the reasons these current movement are so dangerous, gay activism has a grossly unfair, let along disempowering advantage if anyone critical of it can be flatly labeled a hypocrite and/or a homophobe. Its why Stephen Fry may yet hope to get what he wants, even though a boycott would likely severely damage UK relations with Russia let alone crush the dreams of British sportsmen and women, who will likely be too old to compete at this level in 2018, something he evidently has no care about. However hysterical the call for the boycott is, if politicians fear being labeled homophobes for not agreeing to it they might well be frightened into supporting it. Frankly I think this is what Stephen Fry is counting on, if there wasn't the fear label attached the protest would get nowhere.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

feeder wrote:

Universal human rights are something we all should work towards, regardless of nationality. I think Russia is being held to a higher standard because of it's perception as a first world country.

Not all countries move in the same pace or direction, also means of handling society vary. Please remember that when Russia will legislate on just about anything they don't go for half measures and the resulting laws are more stringent than is common in western Europe, its a legacy of Communism I suppose, but it also goes back further. It's their way of doing things, and the strictures ought to be seen in that context.
Also many countries have comparable social attitudes to Russia but handle them entirely differently even if results are similar. Japan has long had laws that equalise sexuality but societal taboos that kept gays in the closet without any need to legislate about it. People in media and politics only started to come out over the last decade, but technically had the freedom to do so far earlier.
The lesson here is that we should look at a nations laws in accordance with that nations people and culture and legal history and not our own.

Russia enacting hate laws that persecute it's homosexual citizens is not "culture" or "point of view". It is hateful intolerance and should be loudly condemned by all moral citizens of the world.

The lesson here is that we should look at a nations laws in accordance with that nations people and culture and legal history and not our own

Could not disagree more. "when in Rome...." does not fly when Rome is persecuting people for an accident of birth.

 Orlanth wrote:
Russia has always had a disdain for homosexuality in public, open homosexuality is not very Russian.
It is not reasonable to assume that this is purely a scapegoat.
Also public opinion in Russia has become more conservative due to the antic of activists which offended large proportion of the Russian populace.
Yes Putin certainly profited that for example Pussy Riot trolled a church that had important symbolism to the Russian because it was rebuilt after being destroyed under Stalin.

Russia isn't a country with a long history of healthy government and political debate that just happened to have always been homophobic. It's a country with a long history of despotic regimes, pretty much all of which picked on some scapegoat or another at some time.

Note that popular support for Pussy Riot was far stronger outside Russia than inside, different cultures you see.

Note that homophobia was pretty close to universal just a generation ago. Culture changes. Russia needs to change its culture. Not just on homophobia, of course.

Rubbish, for example the US military had a policy of dont ask dont tell that worked well.

Seriously? You're claiming DADT worked well? People's careers and lives were ruined because they were spotted at gay clubs while on leave, and you think that's a good system. feth me.

Rubbish again. Societies can and do tell heterosexual people how it is appropriate to behave in public. It's called social taboo and often shapes a nations laws.

Yes, obviously. And the point is that 'you can be gay but I don't have to know about it' that gay pride opposed was that it imposed two seperate set of taboos - a heterosexual couple could hold hands and kiss in public and no-one would bat an eyelid... but if a homosexual couple were to do the same thing then it was forcing their homosexual lifestyle on to everyone else.

Once, again, this debate happened fething decades ago. You really want to grind through every bit of it again?

First up, heterosexual people doing that sort of stuff probably get arrested. The rainbow flag in these circumstances means 'society cant touch me'.

Actually public nudity is permitted in many places, and even more circumstances. Go look up naked bike rides. Not on a work computer, though, and only if you want to see the beer bellies of middle aged men and their rather sad looking junk.

But no, please do go on with how priviledged homosexuals are in our society.

http://mightygodking.com/2013/08/08/how-to-potentially-make-a-difference-re-the-olympics/#comments

 djones520 wrote:
Ever do this in public Azazel?

So thats where I was last Saturday. That'll teach me to take the Red Pill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
The only sporting event I care less about than the Winter Olympics is Hockey.

Winter Olympic Boycott craziness doesn't even register on my give a gak scale.

Russia,

Stop being a dick to the gays. Where are you going to find good home decorators if you chase them all out?

In Stalinst Russia Homes Decorate YOU!

 reds8n wrote:
http://mightygodking.com/2013/08/08/how-to-potentially-make-a-difference-re-the-olympics/#comments

Short sighted. The Olympics are todays ludi magni. These companies will gain more from games publicity and sponsoring, than they lose from activists.
Also if the companies lose sponsorship they in turn offend the IOC and potentially lose out when sponsorship is renegotiated.

So in effect what the article is saying is, because we cant hurt Putin lets hit at McDonalds because we can hurt them. It's not McDonalds fault or responsibility and it will hurt them to withdraw IOC sponsonship long after this Olympiad is over. However for this type of activism proportionality and culpability are no relevant. Its a matter of throwing a hissy fit at those they can and trying to force them to dance to your tune at their own expense.

Fortunately not enough people will be in all likelihood be bothered to go through with this unjust partisan act of pot stirring for it to make much difference. After all even activists get hungry.

But it is indicative of the larger bugbear running through this thread. Activists demanding other people pay a heavy price for their political partisan stance. Stephen Fry isn't competing, he hasnt trained for years on the ice for his one shot, its the little guy who has to 'get over it' if we withdraw our Olympic team. The guy who wrote the piece reds8n linked to doesn't have to account if McDonalds has a bad quarterly report because years ago the company signed an IOC deal perhaps even before Russia won the right to host the 2014 games.
But then again with this form of rabid activism it doesn't matter who else pays, and whether they deserve to carry the can.

 Orlanth wrote:


Short sighted. The Olympics are todays ludi magni. These companies will gain more from games publicity and sponsoring, than they lose from activists.

Possible, but unlikely given the affects of previous boycotts and protests.

But let's not let facts get in the way of rhetoric.

Also if the companies lose sponsorship they in turn offend the IOC and potentially lose out when sponsorship is renegotiated.

Good.

So in effect what the article is saying is, because we cant hurt Putin lets hit at McDonalds because we can hurt them. It's not McDonalds fault or responsibility

Yes, it is.

But it is indicative of the larger bugbear running through this thread. Activists demanding other people pay a heavy price for their political partisan stance. Stephen Fry isn't competing, he hasnt trained for years on the ice for his one shot, its the little guy who has to 'get over it' if we withdraw our Olympic team. The guy who wrote the piece reds8n linked to doesn't have to account if McDonalds has a bad quarterly report because years ago the company signed an IOC deal perhaps even before Russia won the right to host the 2014 games.
But then again with this form of rabid activism it doesn't matter who else pays, and whether they deserve to carry the can.

See the funny thing is the only people being rabid are the ones supporting Russia and it's horrifically bigoted and immoral laws.

And that's what so extra funny about taking part in such a boycott : the wonderful mindfeth it'll be for all the hardline religiofascists , as tehy justify their support for ..err. totalitarian Russia.

https://www.change.org/petitions/stand-against-russia-s-brutal-crackdown-on-gay-rights-urge-winter-olympics-2014-sponsors-to-condemn-anti-gay-laws

There's a petition doing the rounds here folks.

After all, homosexuality should stay hidden in the Chuch where it belongs!

 reds8n wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Short sighted. The Olympics are todays ludi magni. These companies will gain more from games publicity and sponsoring, than they lose from activists.

Possible, but unlikely given the affects of previous boycotts and protests.
But let's not let facts get in the way of rhetoric.

Some boycotts and protests are very successful, such as the anti-apartheid movement.
The vast majority disappear quickly.
How this one fares will remain to be seen but the odds are not good.

The vast majority of successful international boycotts, in fact all of them that I remember came because it was in the intesrest of the interbnational community to support the boycott. So when most of the black African countries told the IOC that unless South Africa is banned from the games they will not participate then the ban was imposed. From then on the anti-apartheid movement gathered steam.

Most major nation states will not want to piss off Putin, or the Russians in general. Unlike with Apartheid there is no mass movement inside Russian borders to repeal this legislation.
in all likelihood the Russians and the IOC wont back down and travelers to Russia will be warned about how local laws and customs may result in trouble if behaviour acceptable within our borders is practiced abroad. In this there is nothing new, its one of the reasons nations have consulates.

 reds8n wrote:

Also if the companies lose sponsorship they in turn offend the IOC and potentially lose out when sponsorship is renegotiated.

Good.

How is this in any way good?
Your wish to penalise innocent third parties is proof enough about how far the apple has fallen from the tree.
Where is the justice you claim to speak for if you want the innocent to pay for your political stand

 reds8n wrote:

So in effect what the article is saying is, because we cant hurt Putin lets hit at McDonalds because we can hurt them. It's not McDonalds fault or responsibility

Yes, it is.

How is it McDonalds or Coca Cola companies fault? The legislation in Russia is recent, clearly postdating the IOC decision to give the Winter Olympics to Russia or the sponsors involvement with the IOC.

Maybe you don't care and are happy for a shot at big companies. However if so stop pretending that you are on any form of moral high ground. If you want to have a go at food or electronics ghiants pick and honest issue with them.

Proof again as to why this form of activism is so abhorent and unjust. You dont care who you hurt just so long as you make your point.
This is why this form of activism is an evil to be opposed.

 reds8n wrote:

But it is indicative of the larger bugbear running through this thread. Activists demanding other people pay a heavy price for their political partisan stance. Stephen Fry isn't competing, he hasnt trained for years on the ice for his one shot, its the little guy who has to 'get over it' if we withdraw our Olympic team. The guy who wrote the piece reds8n linked to doesn't have to account if McDonalds has a bad quarterly report because years ago the company signed an IOC deal perhaps even before Russia won the right to host the 2014 games.
But then again with this form of rabid activism it doesn't matter who else pays, and whether they deserve to carry the can.

See the funny thing is the only people being rabid are the ones supporting Russia and it's horrifically bigoted and immoral laws.

I lodge protest at the following:
- The politicisation of sport.
- Ruining the life dreams of sportsmen and women who wish to participate at the Winter Olympics, noting that a sporting career at top level is usually very short and requires a huge investment of time money and energy.
- The blanket assumption that those who oppose gay activism are homophobic or 'religiofascist', even when the activist activities are selfish and damaging to third parties and can be justly opposed with good conscience.
- The failure to ackowledge that while morality is seen as subjective for the promotion of gay rights alongside others, it become absolute when those rights are established to the detriment of others.
- The failure to acknowledge the Russian peoples and states right to set their own societal standards according to their own cultural outlook.

 reds8n wrote:

And that's what so extra funny about taking part in such a boycott : the wonderful mindfeth it'll be for all the hardline religiofascists , as tehy justify their support for ..err. totalitarian Russia.

Your mask is slipping. You are supposedly calling for tolerance and freedom, but in actuality you are welcoming of cause of offense.

Totalitarian Russia concerns me a whole lot less than totalitarian England. It is worrisome and dangerous when partisan political groups cannot be opposed because to do so is assumed bigotry.

In the UK we have equality and anti-discrimination law to support people in a wide range of statuses including sexuality. This is right and good, but sadly it doesnt stop there.
Some groups post empowerment have a demand for more and can rely of accusation of bigotry as a force multiplier to allow partisan power play. Islam is a very good example of this in the UK, as is the gay lobby.

Gay groups in the UK have called for a number of measures not in any real way linked to promoting equality or gay rights. These include and are not limited to:

- Calls for closure of faith schools, though specifically CoE schools although they are the best performing in the UK. Interesting that Islamic schools are left alone, so they must of course be pro-gay.

- Interference in foreign policy. Examples by this protest and by attempts to arrest and detain Mugabe and Pinochet. (I wonder if any numbskull will assume I am a Mugabe supporter because I disagreed with the attempted arrest) The UK sometimes diplomatically hosts some unpleasant people, you can include Putin on this list. However who has authority to dictate foreign policy: the Foreign office under the auspices of the elected government and their Foreign Minister or Peter Tatchell and Stonewall?
Thankfully after the diplomatic debacle that followed the citizens arrest of Pinochet; gay militant groups were prevented from arresting Mugabe or the Pope.



I don't want to see anyone suffer, not disappointed atheletes, not our business interests in Russia, or the Russian gay community. But some groups when given inch take mile and advocate for themselves at the expense of any cost to anyone else. After all Stephen Fry didn't demand a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics though China has many unresolved human rights issues, it just isn't a priority to him as it wasnt a gay rights issue.
Does this mean that if a nation oppresses minorities then go ahead business as usual, but if gays are targeted demand a boycott.

Putin is not stupid, he can see the way the gay activist lobbies move. They have already come at him and haven't cared a jot who they offend in the process. The Pussy Riot protest in a Moscow church was directed at Putin and inflamed mainstream sensibilities in Russia (not just religious ones as the church involved was a symbol of the memory Stalins purges). However the activist community at home and internationally didn't give a feth.
So why would he want to open such a powderkeg?

In true Russian style his response is too far the other way, but between telling the gay community to practice what they do behind closed doors only (the new laws actually stop well short of banning homosexual behaviour in private) and opening the door to an activist community that respects no boundaries it is difficult to find which is the better long term option. At least Putin wont have to handle gay activists demanding that he withdraw the Russian team from the 2016 Rio games if Brazil somehow does something to upset the international gay community.

Again, when or where did gay activists attempt to arrest Pinochet?

Proof of this event should be exceptionally easy to provide.

Are you suggesting they tried to pinch Pinochet?

 Orlanth wrote:

Some boycotts and protests are very successful,

So yes, I'm right. Thanks.

How is this in any way good?
Your wish to penalise innocent third parties is proof enough about how far the apple has fallen from the tree.
Where is the justice you claim to speak for if you want the innocent to pay for your political stand .

. God, clutch at those straws more. please.

I think it's good as I don't want sporting events/similar sponsored by companies like these at all.

In fact I'd rather the Olympics was always staged in Greece, for a fair few reasons none of which are really relevant to this conversation.

How is it McDonalds or Coca Cola companies fault? The legislation in Russia is recent, clearly postdating the IOC decision to give the Winter Olympics to Russia or the sponsors involvement with the IOC.

If those companies say to the IoC " we don't want the event held in a country that does/does not do X/Y/Z" then it won't happen.

They didn't, so they're cool with it.

This is their fault.

Therefore I won't be giving them my money.

Maybe you don't care and are happy for a shot at big companies. However if so stop pretending that you are on any form of moral high ground. If you want to have a go at food or electronics ghiants pick and honest issue with them.

Proof again as to why this form of activism is so abhorent and unjust. You dont care who you hurt just so long as you make your point.
This is why this form of activism is an evil to be opposed.

No, it's you and yours who who don't care about justice and people and don't have any moral high ground here.

Silly.

Your the one who doesn't care who gets hurt as, hey, they're only gay/whatever after all.

I lodge protest at the following:
- The politicisation of sport.
- Ruining the life dreams of sportsmen and women who wish to participate at the Winter Olympics, noting that a sporting career at top level is usually very short and requires a huge investment of time money and energy.
- The blanket assumption that those who oppose gay activism are homophobic or 'religiofascist', even when the activist activities are selfish and damaging to third parties and can be justly opposed with good conscience.
- The failure to ackowledge that while morality is seen as subjective for the promotion of gay rights alongside others, it become absolute when those rights are established to the detriment of others.
- The failure to acknowledge the Russian peoples and states right to set their own societal standards according to their own cultural outlook.

Sport and politics have been entwined since we've had international events.

Would this include the openly gay sportspeople who run the risk of arrest/similar if they go ?
Plenty of other sporting events they could compete in.
The activists activities are not selfish and damaging to third parties, especially when compared to the demands and temper tantrums from those who oppose them.
Morality is indeed subjective -- that's why religions are wrong, well done -- and is why it's terrible form to use this as the basis for legislation.
No, the right is acknowledged fully. What they're not free from is the consequences of their actions. That's the cost of freedom.

Your mask is slipping. You are supposedly calling for tolerance and freedom, but in actuality you are welcoming of cause of offense.

No, once again you're mistaking me for you.

You're the on supporting bigotry and hatred remember ? It's your mask that has slipped.

To the shock of all no doubt.

Totalitarian Russia concerns me a whole lot less than totalitarian England.

Don't vote Tory then

I find it amusing that Russia has so much of an issue with homosexuality, when their leader insists on releasing photographs of himself like this: