Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Moscow warned to allow gay rights protest – or face Eurovision boycott

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 May 2009
WHEN Russia took the Eurovision Song Contest crown for the first time last year, the whole country basked in its musical success, promising a show in Moscow for the 2009 finals that would eclipse everything that had gone before.


But only a few days before this weekend's grand finale, things have turned ugly, with official homophobia and a boycott threat casting a shadow over the entire event.

Russian gay rights groups have said they will defy a ban from city authoriti
es and go ahead with a demonstration in central Moscow on the day of the final in an effort to draw attention to the discrimination and violence they say the country's gay people face every day.

Two years ago, a similar demonstration in Moscow resulted in human rights campaigners being attacked by a mob of neo-Nazis. The police eventually intervened – but only to arrest gay activists.

Already, one Eurovision contestant has said he will walk out of the competition if violence flares at the proposed demonstration.

"If we get to the final and the demonstration is suppressed by force, I will refuse to get on that stage in Moscow," Gordon, the singer and songwriter from the Dutch group De Toppers, told Dutch television. "If my kind of people are discriminated against in any way, then there is no reason for me to be here; I'll be on the first plane home."

Prominent British gay activist Peter Tatchell, who was assaulted and arrested at the demonstration in 2007, has added his weight to the campaign by announcing that he will attend Saturday's march, despite a ban on him travelling to Russia.

"I am joining the parade to show my support for the courageous Russian gay campaigners," said Mr Tatchell, who is the human rights spokesperson for the Green Party.

"All year round they risk arrest, imprisonment and queer-bashing attacks. These men and women are absolute heroes. I salute them."

Sergei Tsoi, a spokesman for Yuri Luzhkov, the mayor of Moscow, said the city had originally banned the march as gays "not only destroy morals within our society, but consciously provoke disorder".

In the past, Mr Luzhkov has described homosexuality as a "satanic practice".

Despite such official disapproval, gay right campaigners have also said they will try to persuade Eurovision participants to wear badges to demonstrate support for their cause.

The prospect of activists turning the Eurovision Song Contest – and the huge media ensemble that surrounds it – into a platform to showcase Russia's shabby record on protecting gay rights will come as an acute embarrassment to Moscow.

Despite the contest's being famed for its camp and sequined performers, Russia had hoped that its ability to put on a grand and spectacular show would overshadow any protests from the homosexual community. But this objective appears to be in danger of floundering in a growing wave of publicity concerning gay rights in Russia.

Human rights groups have long complained that gay people in the country have become the target of a campaign of violence and discrimination, which has united such disparate forces as neo-Nazis, Communists and radical Orthodox Christians.

Gay activities have also protested over the state's alleged complicity in their discrimination, despite their rights being enshrined in the constitution.

Last year, Mr Luzhkov said he favoured a ban on what he called the "propaganda of the views of sexual minorities", while gay rights campaigners have taken the Moscow city authorities to the European Court of Human Rights seeking 1.7 million (£1.5 million) in compensation for the 155 demos and meetings they claim the city has banned.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 May 2009 10:01 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Eurovision Song Contest
 
1

2dogs in D.C.,

14/05/2009 01:07:23
Well, that ought to do it then. Take that,Russia.
2

,

14/05/2009 03:08:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Jim A,

14/05/2009 04:17:08
#1 Doubledog, the T90's are oot on the streets of Mosocow kickin up hell even as we speak. Russia is threating war if this prestigious event is taken from them. (typed with a straight face)
4

Jim A,

14/05/2009 04:17:54
Mosocow, where's that? Moscow silly.
5

Sally Rhodes,

14/05/2009 04:32:43
Russia should not back down just because of the terrorist threats.
6

Sally Rhodes,

14/05/2009 04:34:21
Obama & Hillary Clinton are against Gay marriage, along with most of the democrats in the House and Senate.
7

Mashimaro,

China 14/05/2009 05:04:44
oh oh I feel another gas row coming on...

Good job Russia, keep the gays out/in
8

GibsonAustralia,

Sydney 14/05/2009 07:24:05
Russia is wise to stand against this immoral threat. If the Holy Bible says no! to homosexuality then God means it... and will Judge people for it.
Homosexuality has been a major part of the decline of the great western society since the 60's.
It needs to be spoken against by strong moral people lest it pollute another generation.
9

James (1),

14/05/2009 08:19:45
It is a rubbish show anyway.
Let's hope Russia does what we don't have the bottle to do.
10

Mashimaro,

China 14/05/2009 09:43:34
#8 Holy Bible says no to gays but is a okay with rape, eh? Where does it say no to gays?
11

Duncan in Edinburgh,

14/05/2009 11:07:48
#5 What terrorist threats? You think a peaceful march is terrorism? Or do you just think anyone whose views you disagree with is a terrorist?
12

,

14/05/2009 11:12:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Duncan in Edinburgh,

14/05/2009 11:13:12
#8 The "holy bible" does not mention homosexuality, nor does it mention sexual orientation, since the concept was only conceived of in the late 19th century. The bible mentions various behaviours as being against god's laws, including eating pork, wearing clothes of mixed fibres, adultery, sex with a menstrual woman, and a man being a receptive partner in sex with another man.

If you condone the violence perpetrated by the Moscow authorities against peaceful demonstrators then you are no Christian.
14

,

14/05/2009 11:15:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

danbob,

14/05/2009 11:31:08
13# Duncan I am curious. You say this. (The "holy bible" does not mention homosexuality) then quote this (and a man being a receptive partner in sex with another man.) Can you tell me the difference?

16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

14/05/2009 11:53:40
#15 No problem. My point is that Leviticus condemns specific acts - quite a wide range of them - not sexual orientations. Plenty of gay people do not have an@l sex. Gay-bashers who like to justify themselves using the bible do not distinguish between gay people who have an@l sex versus those who do not - they like to pretend that the bible's condemnation is of *gay people*. But it isn't. The concept simply didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Hope that helps.
17

Davy,

14/05/2009 12:26:23
Aye the good old Ruskies now the old iron curtain has been torn down, they are more powerful than ever. The west because of greed corruption and morals is now in decline. Who are we to say they are wrong, as in Rome as the saying goes.
18

Carolyn 1,

14/05/2009 12:39:07
Russia's stance is better than the Muslim countries who hang people who are gay.
(While the western world watches.)

What are the chances the 'new' human right council will say anything to Iran, or Russia?
Zero, zip, nada.
19

Tartan Viking,

14/05/2009 12:44:52
#18. Too scared, that's why.
20

Mashimaro,

China 14/05/2009 13:01:38
As far as I know it was Genghis Khan in the Yassa Code who first banned homosexuality. Until then it was okay. Who says Christians have to accept homosexuality anyway? YOu know, Christ was seen with murderers and thieves but you don't condone that too. A crime is a crime is a crime. It should be treated like it is in China. Do what you want to behind closed doors but don't get in my face about it.
21

Duncan in Edinburgh,

14/05/2009 14:16:14
#20 Gay people exist. Acceptance or otherwise will make no difference to that. Why should it be a crime to love?
22

,

14/05/2009 14:19:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

,

14/05/2009 14:22:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Mashimaro,

China 14/05/2009 16:40:36
#21 murderers and rapists exist too, doesn't mean I have to love them. Like I said, I don't really care what you do in your home, just don't shove your parvarted lifestyle in my face or bring it near my children.
25

,

14/05/2009 17:41:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

,

14/05/2009 17:47:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

,

14/05/2009 17:50:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

FTH22inarow,

14/05/2009 19:52:21
Who gives a rats ass?
29

Media at One,

14/05/2009 20:48:15
People need to be allowed to express themselves. Homosexuality is not easy for those born into it. Who would chose a world of turmoil in which guilt and unexplained emotions are a constant for years? Who would want to deal with the pressures of telling their parents?
Homosexuals have the right to live without prejudice! For to long they have suffered at the hands of ignorant communties who didnt know any better - All the way back to biblical times we can trace homosexuality - Groups of men living side by side and travelling together wearing robes and sandles and sporting long hair with a meek and mild approach to life - all the way to the streets of San Fransancisco and Edinburgh gay people have suffered - Russia needs to come to terms with the fact that gay people are not going away.
30

2dogs in D.C.,

14/05/2009 22:37:38
Like I've said how many times before-I got no dogs in this race.Media 1,that was probably the most reasoned and thought out post on this article.
31

,

15/05/2009 00:19:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Mashimaro,

China 15/05/2009 00:56:25
#27 Yes. It's called normal, healhty, right, best for the species. Thouands of years of experience has taught us that it's best for us to have a wife and give children a mother and a father. Of course you people wouldn't know too much about that with more than 50% of your kids being born out of wedlock. Then you wonder why your society is so dysfunctional.
33

Mashimaro,

China 15/05/2009 01:09:27
#27 All the way back in history we've had murderers, rapists and child molesters. We had men in armour who bravely went off to fight wars with little boys at their sides to satisfy every whim. We've had men who love children, who want to be with them and have sex with them. We've had men who can't help the urge to brutalise and kill people for sexual gratification. Yet we don't accept them.
One could argue that a serial killer is "born that way". Sorry mate, people make choices. Just like the dirty old man makes the choice to molest the little girl (or boy), the serial killer makes the choice to strangle or stab his victims. If they are "unable" to make that choice then they are legally insane and should be removed from society.
As I say... do it behind closed doors. Dress up funny, talk funny, make a spectacle of yourself and you incur my contempt. Gay behaviour is unnatural and not acceptable. It breaks the traditional family and the traditional family is the best model of a stable, harmonious and happy society.
Yet, if you look at the west, everything seems to be done to break that down - make money more important, make selfishness and greed things to be actively pursued, portray women who choose to stay at home and look after their children as losers. Glorify the woman who shuns the idea of marriage and children for power and multiple lovers, teach her to be a corporate whare rather than a mother. Allow pornography which makes unnatural and disrespectful acts seem commonplace so that your women feel obliged to cater to them, even though they have a long-term negative effect of their bodies. Lose so much perspective that only women who have been surgically enhanced engender a sexual response from you... You people are being socially engineered and you don't even know it.
34

,

15/05/2009 02:27:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Selgovae,

Scottish Borders 15/05/2009 08:07:25
#33

One difference between all the unacceptable behaviours you list and homosexuality is that your list involves abuse of an non-consenting individual or child.

Also your pro-family rant attacks the glorification of sexuality in general. All in all, you sound a bit of a prude. I suggest you move to Lewis where straight and gay couples can live together quietly, and the flaunting of either kind of sexuality is disapproved of.
36

Ifan Har,

Scotland 15/05/2009 14:21:13
Why is it that everyone in the world must be forced to accept homosexuality as a normal activity???

Why are people not permitted to hold a different view??

Why are only members of the pro-homosexual populace allowed to voice their opinion???????

Why are our school children being indoctrinated to accept homosexuality as natural behaviour???

Why is one forced to agree with the pro-homosexual lobby??????

Why is freedom of thought not permitted on this subject??????
37

Ifan Har,

Scotland 15/05/2009 14:33:05
Post #33 Mashimaro

When you describe the natural family consisting of a male and female of the species as being "Traditional" you make it appear that nature gave us a choice here!

Nature did not, male and female are clearly nature's design and does not result from any adoption of a tradition in any remote way, they are a natural family as was intended.

If that were not so then the species would not perpetuate itself, that is how nature eliminates any faulty genetic programming.

No reproduction equals mistakes are not replicated so mistakes result in a sterile union!

Sex is a natural vehicle performing the natural function of reproduction unless artifcially inhibited!
38

,

15/05/2009 14:51:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

,

15/05/2009 18:16:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 21/05/2009 23:19:20
#25, #26.
You raise difficult points. Either you write off some or all of these passages of the Bible as nonsense or you accept them. If you accept them, then how do you make sense of difficult passages like those you mention? What is a possibility is that scholarship has got it wrong on these passages since the reformation and that there may be interpretations out there that do justice to both the literature and to people's desire for an interpretation that is relevant and applicable. The danger is that in writing off the Bible as a whole on account of these difficulties, we lose some of the most wonderful and excellent literature in the Western world. That, I would argue, for the sake of a few difficult passages, is not a price worth paying on this issue. However, with Voltaire, I will still defend people's right to be completely wrong.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.