Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Putin's Russia: Mass Popular Fascism in Watershed moment

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    (I'm not Blagsta you know :p).

    Oh look, a personal attack in the guise of not making personal attacks.

    :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    some people are really taking this thread off topic...... and doing a good job it seems....

    has anyone whose posted here not seen the full videos put out with the police ignoring blatant aggression against gay rights people
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    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.

    What exactly was the point in replacing the word 'gay' in my posts with the word 'black'?

    And anyway, who decides whether it's acceptable or not for people to be entitled to their opinions on homosexuality? I'm not condoning something like apartheid and I'm not going to condone Russia's homophobic inclinations but at the same time, since when was there some international standard regarding the views and opinions people are allowed to have?
    Namaste wrote: »
    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 wasn't conding it. I was explaining it. Please read my posts before getting up on your Fair Trade soap box.
    Namaste wrote: »
    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.

    I will call him a twat for going to a clearly dangerous situation and making it worse. If he wants to campaign for gay rights then that's fine. But attending a banned march is not the way to do it. That is tantamount to a declaration of war and unless he's a total idiot which I suspect, then surely he knows that fighting and confrontation never solved anything. If he really wants to do anything about the situation for homosexuals in Russia then he'd be better off doing it through the political process and lobbying groups. However, I have a feeling his motivation was emotional blackmail. He went over there in full knowledge of what was very likely to happen to him. It happened and now the whole Western media jumps on his bandwagon and hey presto. Job done.
    Namaste wrote: »
    You cannot use the arguement of development to legitimise human rights violations, or say it is anymore acceptable in Russia than in the UK.

    Again your use of such totally intangible and largely meaningless concepts such as human rights is quite baffling. Human rights is a very relative concept that varies from country to country, from culture to culture. If you think that everyone in the world should abide by some etheral legislation laid down by a court in Strasbourg or Brussels, then you really need to wake up to the real world. Because I really don't think human rights comes into the Russian skinhead's mind when he's beating someone up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    some people are really taking this thread off topic...... and doing a good job it seems....

    Agreed but in my defence i thought it was important to point out the fallacy that 1) Tatchell was a paedophile and 2) that this by implication should lessen our sympathy for the ridiculous and scary violence in Moscow.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Agreed but in my defence i thought it was important to point out the fallacy that 1) Tatchell was a paedophile and 2) that this by implication should lessen our sympathy for the ridiculous and scary violence in Moscow.

    oh exactly what i mean you've stopped the ruining of this debate thread by pointing out the fallacy of where some people were trying to lead it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What exactly was the point in replacing the word 'gay' in my posts with the word 'black'?

    And anyway, who decides whether it's acceptable or not for people to be entitled to their opinions on homosexuality? I'm not condoning something like apartheid and I'm not going to condone Russia's homophobic inclinations but at the same time, since when was there some international standard regarding the views and opinions people are allowed to have?
    I don't understand your point at all. Do you mean that right and wrong are entirely relative? That there is no international standard as to how LGBT people should be treated? And what?

    In this case, whilst there are no international human rights instruments covering LGBT people, but there are covering people's right to freedom of expression and Russia is signed up to one of them (ICCPR).

    There is also a difference between having an opinion on sexuality and a blatantly prejudiced government which allows people to be assulted for peaceful protest and then arrests people.

    I will call him a twat for going to a clearly dangerous situation and making it worse. If he wants to campaign for gay rights then that's fine. But attending a banned march is not the way to do it. That is tantamount to a declaration of war and unless he's a total idiot which I suspect, then surely he knows that fighting and confrontation never solved anything. If he really wants to do anything about the situation for homosexuals in Russia then he'd be better off doing it through the political process and lobbying groups.
    I think you should look at how many civil rights movements relied so heavily on the assembly of people and political protest. What are people supposed to do, pray?

    Protesting is a form of lobbying, I mean how else are people supposed to do it? The fact is that it gets media coverage, which is something that allows for more safety for activists whilst they get their message accross (in theory, think about how the media was watching,especially with more famous people involved). Journalists can disappear, or have their material banned, people working directly with the government can but a rally of people and good media coverage gets them seen.

    What other suggestion do you have for how they could achieve anything in LGBT rights?
    However, I have a feeling his motivation was emotional blackmail. He went over there in full knowledge of what was very likely to happen to him. It happened and now the whole Western media jumps on his bandwagon and hey presto. Job done.
    Do explain further?

    What media bandwagon? The equal rights bandwagon? Of course we live ina more liberal country, I am sure Tatchell and other campaigners attended so it would get media attention and be broadcasted to the UK amongst other countries. If it weren't then the outcome could have been worse.

    Again your use of such totally intangible and largely meaningless concepts such as human rights is quite baffling. Human rights is a very relative concept that varies from country to country, from culture to culture. If you think that everyone in the world should abide by some etheral legislation laid down by a court in Strasbourg or Brussels, then you really need to wake up to the real world. Because I really don't think human rights comes into the Russian skinhead's mind when he's beating someone up.
    Again, I don't understand waht you're getting at. International human rights law deals with states, not indivduals. What we had in Moscow was two things, the first being a violation of human rights by the state and the second being anti gay attitudes of people. The concept of human rights is not meaningless, it is the reason we can all debate on message boards like these. I think that you should be proud and embrace how many human rights you have in this country (you are British? American? Aussie?) and recognise that people in other countries have less. Maybe you are taking a cultural relativist side to the arguement, but personally I'm taking the universalist side of the arguement...

    That people universally should be treated as equal by the state (who should also intervene to make sure people are not hurting each other imo), they should he freedom of information, freedom to self-determination, freedom from torture, freedom of expression ect ect

    It is all very easy sitting in our computer rooms saying that human rights is a relative concept when we live in cushy societies where we can say and do pretty much what we want. But imagine the love of your life is murdered for their sexuality and the state refuses to do anything, how would you feel? I think I would feel gutted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Discussing or researching the history of relations between children and adults in a sexual context is NOT paedophillia. On your logic you'd have to lock up Plato, Aristotle, Sigmund Freud, Jean-Paul Sartre, Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault and almost every single Gender & cultural studies academic in the country.

    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.

    So when Tatchell campaigns for the lowering of homosexual consent to 16 as "only the start", suggests prosecution isn't necessary for adults who have sex with children, co-authors books supportive of paedophilic practices and proclaims the delights of shagging 9 year olds, he is merely "researching the history of relations between children and adults in a sexual context"?

    LOL.
    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.

    What you're arguing is nonsense which utterly misses the point of what Tatchell actually advocates.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    oh exactly what i mean you've stopped the ruining of this debate thread by pointing out the fallacy of where some people were trying to lead it

    Debate? You mean everyone agreeing it's out of order?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    evidence? all I've seen is one dodgy article so far, far from convinced.
    What you're arguing is nonsense which utterly misses the point of what Tatchell actually advocates.

    the comment you are referring to here was used to contextualise an example, and if you read it in the context of my post its perfectly clear; for arguements sake I will restate it.

    There is a legitimate debate to be had about the sexual relationship of adults and children, particularly in an Historical and Sociological context. AS FAR AS I CAN SEE (which is what I said originally) this is what he is advocating; give me some evidence to the contrary and I might well decide that he doesn't fall into this catagory.

    However the category itself is sound, and if you think its nonsense tell me which part of it is illogical.

    EDIT: The only thing I can see at the moment which you could possibly have interpreted in this way, was the 1996 OutRage! press release in which he suggested that there should be no prosecutions for sexual relations between partners with three years or less difference in age.

    If you've got something credible to add to this I'd be happy to see it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "To end this absurd, grotesque criminalisation of the under-16s, the age of consent should be reduced to 14 for everyone - gay and straight ? and consensual sex involving people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing there is no more than three years difference in the partners ages."

    In other words, a 16 y/o and a 12 y/o shagging a 13 y/o and a 9 y/o respectively is okay to Tatchell.


    http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/14%20gay%20boyfriend.htm
    Lee is 14. He's been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee's partner is a paedophile and Lee is a victim of child abuse. That's not, however, the way Lee sees it: "I want to have a boyfriend. It's my choice. No one's abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?".


    How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent? Lee admits: "The really young ones can't. But I was 12 when I first had sex with an adult man. I knew what was happening. The other boys I know who had sex with men were in their early teens. They understood what they were doing".

    And what do you think about paedophiles in general? "It depends on what kind of paedophiles", says Lee. "Those who have sex with little kids should be strung up by the bollocks. The paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn't pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it's fine. If you don't, it's not".

    All of which is uncomdemned by Tatchell. And, interestingly, no mention of the ancient Greeks!

    I wonder, does he even really believe in a 3 year maximum age difference? Or this merely a useful tactical device, much like the BNP's switch from compulsory to voluntary repatriation, concealing the true strategy?

    Hmmm...I wonder indeed!


    ETA: And given all this, straight from the cunt's website, I really don't see any reason why the Guardian source should be disputed...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "To end this absurd, grotesque criminalisation of the under-16s, the age of consent should be reduced to 14 for everyone - gay and straight ? and consensual sex involving people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing there is no more than three years difference in the partners ages."

    Its a bit of arbitrary age cut-off I grant you, and from what you've presented he doesn't appear to give an account of any 'cut-off' for this age limit. Yet as your own example shows us (Lee), it is never an unilateral subject. I don't agree with Tatchell's conclusions because I think there is too much scope for children to be harmed. But I think you can disagree with the quality of what he is saying (i.e: how the law should be reformed) but also see the principal of what he is getting at. His arguement for the opening up of sexual relations and the body is something that I think a lot of good could result from in society.

    Point about the Greeks; he doesn't have to mention it directly, the whole debate and discourse takes place against the backdrop of an historical context; if I didn't make this clear at the outset i apologise, however it was there to give context to the debate (i.e: this isn't something recent or a phenomenon of modern societies).

    I think what your examples bring up is the point that sexual development is a very personal process, and people will develop differently according to a combination of biology and environment. Unfortunately we need some kind of legal basis in order to give protection to the young, so the question really is how do we implement that.

    I think 14 is too young to have as a legal baseline, but I would favour discretionary prosecutions as opposed to automatic ones, if it can be proved that the two persons involved were causing no harm.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have I missed something?

    When did it become acceptable for law enforcment officers to stand back and let a voilent mob attack a peaceful march?

    Oh, and IMHO Tatchell is a twat who does as much harm as good...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its a bit of arbitrary age cut-off I grant you, and from what you've presented he doesn't appear to give an account of any 'cut-off' for this age limit. Yet as your own example shows us (Lee), it is never an unilateral subject. I don't agree with Tatchell's conclusions because I think there is too much scope for children to be harmed. But I think you can disagree with the quality of what he is saying (i.e: how the law should be reformed) but also see the principal of what he is getting at. His arguement for the opening up of sexual relations and the body is something that I think a lot of good could result from in society.

    Point about the Greeks; he doesn't have to mention it directly, the whole debate and discourse takes place against the backdrop of an historical context; if I didn't make this clear at the outset i apologise, however it was there to give context to the debate (i.e: this isn't something recent or a phenomenon of modern societies).

    I think what your examples bring up is the point that sexual development is a very personal process, and people will develop differently according to a combination of biology and environment. Unfortunately we need some kind of legal basis in order to give protection to the young, so the question really is how do we implement that.

    I think 14 is too young to have as a legal baseline, but I would favour discretionary prosecutions as opposed to automatic ones, if it can be proved that the two persons involved were causing no harm.

    Way to the miss point. We ain't talking merely about sexophobia here.

    If Tatchell really believes in a 3 year limit, why no condemnation of the adults having sex with a child of primary school age, even worse a clearly vulnerable child who had ran away from a home? You don't think that's absolutely reprehensible? 'Coz Tatchell doesn't think so! At least sick freaks like Ginsberg admitted their perversion openly...

    His agenda is clear, and I think you're deliberately ignoring it on the grounds that because someone is fighting for 'egalitarianism', they are above criticism - something which I've noted when engaging others in the past.

    It's worth noting that a 16 y/o having sex with a 13 y/o is, by definition, paedophilia. And, while some 13 y/o's may be 'ready' for sex, many are not and exploitation IS inevitable from the 3 year limit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Right this is off topic - want to strt a thread about consent do so, but don't use this thread to do it. To turn a thread about homophobia violence into a thread about paedophilia is unacceptable. Start your own thread if that's what you want to debate but from now on comments that aren't related to the results of this march will be removed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    fair enough; Spliffie, reply is in the new thread.

    Back on topic; what this reveals is an institutional bias towards nationalism and aggression in Russia at the level of Structures of local government and law and order bodies. That is the worrying watershed moment I'm getting at.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Things in Russia could hardly be worse at the moment. They're not even pretending to have any resemblance of justice or fairness. Not even in front of the international media cameras.

    It melts your heart when you see enemies join forces to fight a common enemy doesn't it... Commies, neo-nazis and religious conservatives all together to fight the common enemy: the evil homosexual.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what's more important? That we retend it didn't happen and make nice with Putin, or TB (and since he's not got long left anyway he's got nothing to lose) lays into him and tells him what the deal is. But look at Iraq, Iran etc. - we happily took their money for weapons we knew they were going to use on civilians. The government needs to grow a backbone.

    I don't know whether it will change what happens in Russia or not, but regardless - can we be chummy with a country that openly shows no care for breaches of human rights; to the extent that their authority figures can denounce a whole band of people as 'demonic' in something that is pure prejudice and even hate.

    Back 'in the day', even before he came to power (1932 I think), Winston Churchill made very very clear what he thought of Nazis. Are we (the government) so afraid of upsetting other nations now we won't stand up for what we believe? Unless of course, in the case of Iraq, there is nothing to lose because we can invade anyway and ensure the supply of oil to the world economy is kept stable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As it has been made clear by the disgraceful BAE bribes scandal in Saudi Arabia (one which some people here actually defended), wherever there is a buck to be made or the risk of some profit being lost this government will happily look the other way to all sorts of shit.

    In the case of Putin, he sleeps at night with one hand in the 'off' switch for the gaspipe and that is enough to make various governments to jump through hoops for the nasty little shit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Meanwhile in Poland...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6698753.stm

    While this news might just seem amusing the background is rather more worrying. The evil twins act that controls Poland are turning out to be every bit as nasty and bigoted as Putin.

    It would seem, yet again, that the one thing that unites bigots everywhere, be commies or rightwingers, atheists or theists of any given denomination, is their common hatred by homosexuals.

    I really, really don't understand what the fixation with it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Back 'in the day', even before he came to power (1932 I think), Winston Churchill made very very clear what he thought of Nazis. Are we (the government) so afraid of upsetting other nations now we won't stand up for what we believe? Unless of course, in the case of Iraq, there is nothing to lose because we can invade anyway and ensure the supply of oil to the world economy is kept stable.

    Yeah but he wasn't in the government then, in fact he was criticised for being a mad old warmonger for his criticism of Hitler... the government of the day was pretty much equally reluctant to criticise other nations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But Churchill himself was one of the architects of appeasement (or rather the policies that led to it) as he'd been senior in the Governments which had cut military spending.

    When Hitler began to rearm and enter the Rhineland the British had cut their military expenditure to such a degree that they couldn't do much more than protest loudly.

    Chamberlain, despite all the criticism of him, worked out the obvious truth that Britain wasn't strong enough to opposse German militarily and that moral posturing, whilst appealing to the man on the street, actually makes no difference. The UK had two options, increase military spending or try and deal with Germany by diplomacy.

    Whilst some of the critics of appeasement called for tougher diplomacy and having something to back it up with, many called for tougher diplomacy and further cuts to defence spending, which may be laudable, but is also laughable. Hitler recognised the weakness of the Western democracies and happily rearmed.

    It was only after the breakdown of Munich that serious attempts were made to rearm. If this had been done in the early 30s, we might be living in a world which didn't have WW2 or one where the British and French could have defeated Germany without Soviet help.

    I'm with Roosevelt 'Speak softly and carry a big speak' - speaking up for what we believe makes no difference.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hitler was within his right really to have troops in the rhineland though, yes he werent allowed under versailles but the rhineland was part of germany and thus he was within his right really to put troops there, even if in the show he actually just used uniformed coppers etc
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As one of the largest economies in the world, and certainly one of the most heavily involved with international trade, we've also got the power of trade embargos. It doesn't have to come down to guns and such.

    I don't envision a media spectacle though, rather it would be nice if we saw some sign from this government, that governments that practice intolerance and hate are not good friends to have.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and here's a video done by either soemone who love to use irony Ali G style or is a bigotted bastard, strangely enough it' shows how stupid it's got in russia

    look at the clip at the end, it makes you worry about the far right in russia
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry that video is clearly homophobic, I'd suggest finding video links that don't use homophobic terms or spread hate - and I'd suggest taking a look at the rules on what is acceptable to be posted again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here's some of the same video without the bigotry -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LM9XEVf8HE&mode=related&search=

    sadly nothing can be done about the repugnant scum posting comments though
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Here's some of the same video without the bigotry -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LM9XEVf8HE&mode=related&search=

    sadly nothing can be done about the repugnant scum posting comments though

    thanks i had some troubles finding a normal one yesterday, though one could pick out the actual news footage amongst the neo-nazi crap in it
Sign In or Register to comment.