Russia not Suspending "Anti-Gay Propaganda" Law for 2014 Olympics

[Andara Bledin]

I want to know what world you live in that hundreds of people not visiting a city make no impact on that city's profits.

[HYHYBT]

Good point; Olympics may often be a net loss for the host, but most of the *expense* has happened already or is by now unavoidable. It makes quite a lot of difference whether the people you expect to offset that by spending money show up or not.

The tickets may be sold, but the local economy gets the benefit from, for example, hotel stays, food, souvenirs (possibly not Olympic-specific ones; I don't know), transportation.... pretty well anything anyone attending spends while there. It's a substantial effect.

[Dakhur]

Buttons should be pushed. Sometimes gently, sometimes whaled on with both fists.

This is one of those 'belting it until it jams' moments.

And before anyone says "oh, but the Nazi Olympics went ahead", well yes they did. And THAT was wrong too! It's supposed to be about bringing all mankind together, not creating barriers to seperate them.

If this was about racial issues, if they were claiming that people were excluded because of their parentage, we'd have been deafened by the roar. But because this is about sex, and therefore not spoken of in polite company, everyone's pretending it doesn't matter.

It's wrong. If you can't play with the rest of the children in the sandpit, you don't get to play at all.

One race -- Human. One planet -- Earth. One future. Everything else is just icecream flavouring.

[Kheldarson]

And...the IOC just took the worst stance ever:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...penly_gay.html

[Ginger Tea]

It's ok if no one knows you are gay, you can slip under the radar as long as you don't make a fuss, I don't think it's right.

But what about athletes or anyone else going to Russia now or in the future that is known world wide as being gay?
Would Elton John be denied entry to the country, arrested at passport control? assuming he chose to still play whatever hypothetical gigs were arranged prior to this law coming into effect.

I can only name Bolt, cant remember how his first name is spelt without Google, all other athlete's names escape me, in all sports not just Olympic aside from a few F1 drivers.
And of those that are knocking around I do not know or care if they like the same sex or not, I am less and less interested in the outside lives of celebrities from all forms of sports and entertainment.

When someone is running, rowing, horse racing or singing, acting or painting, I really do not care who or what they love as long as they do the job they are meant to do.
So although it sucks to be told to keep quiet about it, it's a shitty compromise in order to compete, vs be outspoken and OUT and denied entry or possible arrest at the airport.

The links mention of people perhaps using being gay as a political agenda is effing odd, in all my years I don't think I ever heard of a gay pride event during the games, gay athletes were athletes who just happened to be gay, end of.
It's only a political agenda because Russia made it one, but they made this ruling after securing the games, if they were doing this long before their bid, I would hope they would have been shown the door at the earliest opportunity.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Are the Sochi games expected to get their attendance from the West though? Wouldn't the expected demographics for a Russian games be Russia, China, and Eastern Europe? We're talking Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, and probably more Middle Eastern States in proximity than France. Sure the West would have shown up, but I certainly haven't heard from any of my travel buddies or sports buddies who were burning up the telephones to get there.

So when we assume the games are going to lose tourist dollars, the question is going to be how much and what was the expected Western attendance assuming a 100% boycott. Again, I just don't see a huge swing of red for Russia other than the loss they're going to take on one event venues that won't get used after this year accounting wise. I do see NBC getting hurt (they paid for the contract but won't see the ratings), I see athletes getting hurt (a boycotted games means any great stories won't lead to short term endorsements), and I see local russian vendors probably taking a hit (but not sizable). Russia itself might see less tax revenue, but they were never in it for that in the first place.

I should also add, an American boycott would probably play well with the Russian public in favor of the Government which already has roughly 75% support for the ban. So, if one actually... you know gives a shit about what GLBT people in Russia think, you might actually want to think twice about what message will actually get sent by this. We're talking a country which is prone to the occasional demagogue and really doesn't need sexuality becoming a nationalist anti-west issue if your goal is a change in laws. GLBT advocacy loses if that happens. So whom are we trying to help right now?

Shouldn't Russian GLBT groups be leading this charge? Again, how is this not lazy advocacy? What goals is it achieving? Is it about raising awareness in Russia (again, 75% approval) or scoring points in the West? I really, really get the impression its the latter. Fixing Russia's homophobia is the same long game it was in the US in the 70's. It won't happen tomorrow. It won't happen at all if it's seen as a nationalist plank against the West.

Update: Russia has at least told the President that no one participating or attending the games will be targeted. Take that with as many grains of salt if you like.

Also also also also, if you're interested in what the Olympics actually stand for, I'd Wiki it. The Olympics have always been more about transcending nationalistic barriers for sport than it has ever been about righting social wrongs. It tries to keep to international sports (and the occasional bribery scandal.) However, historically the games have been used politically by countries and people for about as long as it's existed. I don't find this any different.

BTW... if anyone is curious why it takes me forever to reply... my work shifts have become ungodly and I only get around once in a while because I'm so tired. So sorry for the late replies.

[hinakiba777]

Despite my personal feelings toward the law in Russia, I don't feel that the IOC's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy about homosexuality makes sense. Rule 50 does state that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” While LGBTA rights are actually a human rights issue, making a display at the Olympics will come off as being more of a political stand.

My concern for the athletes is that in the modern information age with paparazzi and the internet, it might be hard to protect themselves. The media is obsessed with outing celebrities, and the Russian law states that if you are suspected of being Gay or a Gay rights supporter, you can be arrested. So it becomes lest of an issue of athletes not being Open about their sexuality at the games, which while unjust is not an impossible demand, and more about protecting their image leading up to the games. It is impossible to define what a "supporter" is under the wording of the law. It's the ambiguity that is scary.

Also, regarding the Orgy state that is the Athlete's Village, no one is going to get arrested for that. The Russian Law is about protecting minors from being exposed to "homosexual propaganda". What happens behind close doors, so long as the doors remain closed is not something the Russian government cares about. So, so long as the athletes don't release any same sex photos or videos from the Athlete's Village until after the games, they should be fine.

I have to agree with those people who have said that the Sochi Olympics are a good thing because it has brought the knowledge of this law onto the world stage. I also agree that that too much push back on the issue could result in backlash towards the West. Considering the amount by which the the law passed, it might be good to approach the issue with kid gloves. The issue hasn't even been full solved in Western Countries yet, so we can't really be too harsh in our criticism of Russia, despite how sickening nature of the law.

Finally, I have to agree that throwing away a lifetime of training might be too much to ask many of the athletes competing. There are very few athletes who qualify for more than one Olympic games, despite a lifetime of preparation. It would be like ceasing to run at 99m during the 100m dash despite being a front runner. It's a choice the athletes should make for themselves, and I hope that that choice isn't made for them.

Again, I more concerned that the athletes' past actions, or actions before the games will come to bite them. It's one thing to ask someone not to be open during the games, but not everyday leading up to the event. To borrow the guest metaphor, it would be like attending someone's home where they have a strict dress code, and then getting kicked out because one of the other guests recalls a time they saw you in sweat pants at the YMCA. If you are following the rules while you are there, it shouldn't matter what you did in other places.

[Kelmon]

Despite my personal feelings toward the law in Russia, I don't feel that the IOC's "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy about homosexuality makes sense. Rule 50 does state that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” While LGBTA rights are actually a human rights issue, making a display at the Olympics will come off as being more of a political stand.

There is a huge difference between "making a display out of it" and, say, thanking your same-sex partner when asked who to thank just like any heterosexual person might do.

I'm pretty sure no one would argue it would be a political statement regarding "traditional marriage" if some male athlete says thanks to his wife and kids.