If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Putin's Russia: Mass Popular Fascism in Watershed moment
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Truly scarey footage today from the Beeb;
Here
The Police in Moscow are openly tolerating fascist violence; the Mayor has denounced homosexuality as 'Satanic'.
This is the moment at which elected members of the European Parliament were subjected to fascist violence and the police arrested them, but not their attackers. In full glare of the world's media.
If we aren't letting Turkey into the Union, should be not now consider Russia's membership.
Worrying trend.
Here
The Police in Moscow are openly tolerating fascist violence; the Mayor has denounced homosexuality as 'Satanic'.
This is the moment at which elected members of the European Parliament were subjected to fascist violence and the police arrested them, but not their attackers. In full glare of the world's media.
If we aren't letting Turkey into the Union, should be not now consider Russia's membership.
Worrying trend.
0
Comments
Which is why he commissioned Tsarseli (sp?), a really weird sculptor to do a 100ft statue of Peter the Great which stands on the Moscow river (conveniently forgetting the fact that Pete HATED Moscow - hence the building of St. Petersburg).
Most Russians don't pay a bit of attention to what Luzhkov thinks and the parade is his call and not Putin's.
As usual, the Auntie has put it's good-ole anti-Russia slant on things. I remember they banned a gay parade when I was in Russia and Luzhkov, in one of his apparently rare moments of lucidy, banned the march, not because he believed homosexuality to be satanic (which he may or may not do - just that it wasn't the reason he gave at the time), but rather out of concern for the protestors. It was felt that if such a parade were to take place, the skinheads would have a field day which is probably very accurate. So it was out of a concern for civil order that he banned the first one.
Agree with the Skinheads having a field day part, however I wasn't suggesting it was Putin's call. I am suggesting that the country over which he presides is experiencing a jump in nationalism that is being openly tolerated by local authority and at least passively tolerated at the national level.
Absolutely abhorrent, almost unbelievable in today's climate of tolerance that something like this could happen.
He's one of my heros.
Despite his promotion of paedophilia?
where did he promote pedophilia?
So ar as I know, he has said that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, bt I have never read anything to back up that he think sleeping with children is Ok.
Source please.
http://www.church.org.uk/resources/csdetail.asp?csdate=01/08/2001
I feel pretty indifferent towards people like Peter Tatchell. And I think that's probably true for most other young gay people who've heard of him. He's pretty much irrelevant these days. Politically and legally there isn't really much left for gay rights campaigners to campaign for in this country. Homophobia still exists and is pretty widespread, London isn't Britain and there are a lot of people with some horrible attitudes...and tbh I guess people like Tatchell don't help change those attitudes. When the self-appointed spokesman of the gay community demands the age of consent is lowered it just helps extreme right wing columnists like Littlejohn who frequently imply that homosexuality is somehow equivalent (and linked) to paedophilia...
Still, whilst gay people have it pretty comfortable in the West we shouldn't forget that others are not so fortunate...And Tatchell never does, so good on him really, even if he does come across as a bit of a twat most of the time.
So never mind he supports adults having sex with children, eh? :rolleyes:
The guy's a fucking freak. Campaigning against persecution of homosexuals is one thing...campaigning for paedophilia is another.
i'm not gay, i think peter tatchell is a knob but what's goin on in russia is a symptom of the modern world imo ie apathy allowing violent extremists to get away with things in public
Unless he's been living on the moon for the past 5 years, he is well aware of the opinion of the majority on gay people in Russia and by going over there to participate in a non-sanctioned gay parade, he's asking for trouble. By getting beaten, I guess perhaps he's acheived exactly what he wanted and thus he can point his white liberal finger at Russia and Putin about how evil and nasty they really are.
Cos Putin really listens to what the West tells him... (which I actually think is one of his major strengths)
Russia isn't really that tolerant a country and the Western climate of tolerance certainly hasn't hit Russia in any shape or form. I guess it's easy for us in this country to point fingers at places like Russia when we've had it so easy in this country compared with what Russia has had to put up with. Stalin, the utter incompetence of Krushchev and Brezhnev, the crazy arms race that bankrupted the country, Gorbachev who sold out the country to the West, Perestroika, the end of communism and a capitalism as enforced as communism had been in the 1910s and 20s, Yeltsin who was a total joke, economic crash and the Chechen conflict on top of that. No wonder shit like this happens. What comparable events have we got here since the end of WWII? Hosepipe bans? The Profumo affair? The Great Storm? There exists, in Russia, among the lower classes, disillusionment on a scale we cannot begin to comprehend owing to a string of events in a relatively short space of time whose impact we cannot begin to comprehend.
Nice non biased source you have there. The article on dirty evil lesbians trying to adopt children was a hoot.
Where has he actively campaigned for pedophilia?
(I've looked myself and not found anything outside the Bible bashing anti gay websites)
I actually admire Tatchell, I don't see why people would have an issue with him other than the fact that he has been campaigning for gay rights for years.
He went out to Russia to help with a gay rights demonstration...
Of course and people probably made similar comments to a lot of anti-apartheid activists, about people who have fought for women's rights, gay rights, civil rights for black people... I'm not sure exactly what your point is though. If you're all for equal rights of gay people, then surely you'd support the guy?
And hey, it has caused the protest to be broadcasted to the UK, so it's got it some coverage. That's always the first step, right?
So we should not allow people to demonstrate for gay rights? I don't know if what you're saying is patronising, homophobic, pointless or apathetic.
Yeah... I often wonder if Tatchell's critics ever go out of their way to do what he does. At the end of the day, he's well respected and a hero who comes under fire a lot by people who twist his words to try and put LGBT rights down. He happens to speak out against homophobia in islam and suddenly he equated to the BNP for example. I think a lot of people should look down their noses at him less and take the time to visit his website and read his articles and about his point of view on issues.
The bias of the site is irrelevent; the source is the Guardian.
Writing articles about the delights of sex between adults and children, and suggesting that people who have sex with children 'consensually' shouldn't be prosecuted, is campaigning for paedophilia.
Errr...see above!
No it isn't, it's expressing an opinion. Funnily enough, I cannot find this article in the Guardian archives... However, there was this article on the site.
In the late 90s, Peter Tatchell of Outrage!, now campaigning for lowering the age of consent for all to 14, reviewed a grotesque and shocking book, Dares to Speak: Historical & Contemporary Perspectives On Boy-Love. Tatchell wrote: "Abusive, exploitative relationships are indefensible but... [there are] many examples of societies where consenting intergenerational sex is considered normal, acceptable, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike."
Regardless, there are means to put political and economic pressure on him and the country. If he doesn't buckle he suffers. I think it's more important to show a united front on denouncing bigotry and prejudice in any way than shuffle it under the carpet and smile weakly because we want his oil.
I understand in desperate circumstances there are desperate eople, but by allowing people at the top to in effect condone the actions of fascists (especially someone as influencial as the mayor of Moscow) is sending a message of apathy. And Russia will not move forward until it has people thinking the right way at the top, that it does want to be a modern country with modern beliefs and a tolerant social structure goes with that.
However it's a question of friendly relationship with Russia who supply the gas, or voice our opinions that it is wrong and that they should sort it out. Whilst fascism exists everywhere to some degree, having the mayor of the capital openly denouncing homosexuals as 'demonic' and having the kind of police intervention we have seen (in what I presume was to be a peaceful parade - but no doubt there will be extremists on both sides) is sending a very strong message about the entire nations attitude towards it.
By being chummy we're associating ourselves with an apparently openly prejudiced and fascist country.
Are you trying to deny he's an advocate of paedophilia or providing evidence for it?
As far as I can see, Tatchell was making comment on the sexual character of relations with children in human history, which has not been always as it is now. Look up the word 'Catomite', it refers to boys who were kept for sexual purposes in Ancient Greece, but also there were rules of engagement. The care of the child and protection was expected of the older suitor, as well as guidance and the bestowing of gifts. Once the boy reached a certain age, this relationship was thought improper unless converted to philus, or the mutual love between mature male friends which was based on philosophical knowledge NOT sex.
Before you go off on one about me supporting paedophillia, I'm not, I can't possibly because I wasn't raised in Ancient Greece; what I'm arguing is context.
The Greeks saw the body in utterly different terms to us; for them it was a site of balance, and this meant bodily functions and fluids. Thus eating, drinking, defacaeting and sex were all part of the same equillibrium.
Socrates is said to have stated that; 'No-one should make frequent use of sexual congress; it is only suitable for cold, moist or flatulent persons'
Diogenes, a cynic philosopher, masturbated in the marketplace to stress that sexuality was a basic human need.
Homosexuality was practiced by frowned upon in Ancient Greece; homosexuals were depicted a poncy and vain. By contrast those who carried a relationship with a child through to the stage of philia, were assured high status. Think of it as a kind of philosophical mentoring, in a context that we can't really relate to in this day and age.
These are not mitigations for paedophilia; they are factual empirical investigations. For the sake of time and space I have not included any links or citations here, but I am happy to provide them at the reader's discretion and request.
It's not the point of whether whoever the guy is is a peadophile or not. He says some controversial things. Maybe he enjoys the controversy (indeed, attending a gay pride parade in a country where it seems expected that there will be a hostile reaction seems so), or he might just be outspoken.
Regardless, the point of the thread isn't about him, but I think the Russian authorities behaviour in this matter.
The violence there was disgusting though.
Of course! Because the Christian website that the source was really pro gay rights. It isn't homophobic then? maybe you should read its article on gay adoption.
I'm not accusing anybody of being homophobic, but we cannot ignore the fact that sexual minorities need protection. That s why I admire Peter Tatchell, yes he put himself in danger, but he is an activist and sometimes you have to do that to make a point. To say "oh poor Russians, we don't understand how they feel" is an excuse for homophobia is bollocks because it's patronising and pretty much saying that some people have an excuse to abuse people's human rights whilst others don't. I don't see why people get uptight when the word 'homophobia' is used, it hasn't been used at all as a personal attack (I'm not Blagsta you know
As for derailing the thread, Peter Tatchell was part of the headlines wasn't he? It is just beyond me how somebody can hate the guy without proving real evidence against him. I am sure that Tatchell has done more for human rights than anybody who posts on the boards, hence I am defending him. I don't see why people have to go out of their way to give the guy shit, I really don't get where it comes from. *Shrug*
I was actually referring to this..
I didn't call him homophobic, I said that what he said could be interpretted as homophobic, or undermining gay rights because "oh the poor Russians".
Why?
Would this be called racist? Would this be Ok to say? That somebody is going to point their white liberal finger at a government who is openly racist? No... It wouldn't be acceptable. The apartheid was not acceptable in South Africa, the sexual apartheid should not be acceptable in Russia.
So, change this to another country which persecutes women, Jewish people, people with disabilities. They've had it so hard, so smehow it is legit?
I understand what is being said in the idea what Russians have had it shit, but I don't see how it s Ok to criticise a human rights defender and call him a twat for going out to fight for what he believes. It really has no function in a debate (hence I defended him) to call somebody a twat. You cannot use the arguement of development to legitimise human rights violations, or say it is anymore acceptable in Russia than in the UK.
No you didn't say that, if you said that it wouldn't be an issue.
And how does
= possibly being constrewed as homophobia???
So he put himself in danger to make a point? I mean to me it just feels slightly like he went to feel righteous and so if anything did kick off he could get up on the soapbox. Of course, that's only from what I know of him in this thread. He was part of the article, but he's just one person and we should be looking at the wider picture. Whether he's a peadophile or not really has nothing to do with the original topic.
I think the point was, I said Putin should stand up to it, then it was said it's easy for me to denounce them living in a very tolerant society (at least in comparison), but they've lived in very desperate circumstances so they may do desperate things I can't comprehend. I replied with yea, they may live in desperate circumstances but it doesn't stop the people in power setting an example by getting rid of those in power who turn a blind eye to this kind of thing.
I don't think it was an excuse for homophobia though, or saying that some people may abuse human rights whilst others dont. More saying, some people do because they're desperate, so whilst it's disgusting for us, we're not in that situation and so shouldn't judge so hastily.
It was more the way you used it. Not explicitly by any means but we should remember all of us here (except the arses who end up getting banned