A few days ago, the school newspaper published an article about Russia's anti-gay laws. It was a piece defending Russia's anti-gay laws. Since it's a school that prohibits even expressing personal approval for marriage equality, a few have pointed out that it shouldn't surprise me. It doesn't really, but it will never stop disappointing me. Almost equally upsetting to me, is that others have expressed a sentiment of apathy, saying that it "doesn't matter that much."
I beg to differ.
Why, exactly, does it matter that much?
1) Because it is in favor of the law.
Some have pointed out that the article is not an op-ed, and thus provides facts and quotes, but doesn't come down on either side of the issue. While it's true that the author has not provided a statement of her personal opinion, the slant of the piece is painfully obvious. The article opens by informing readers of a statement in support of Russia's anti-gay law which was signed by numerous organizations. This is a cold, hard, fact. The opinions presented throughout the rest of the piece, however, are anything but neutral. In the end, the article offers a one-sided defense of Russia's policy.
The only people quoted are (the infamous) Stephen Baskerville and this man, chairman of this Russian organization. Baskerville's quotes range from praising the "strong morality" found in Eastern Europe to proclaiming Russia's "right" to protect its children, while Parfentiev compares the LGBT community to a "dictatorship," argues that freedom of expression only encompasses freedom to express his views of what constitutes a family, accuses Western media of exaggerating Russia's anti-gay attitudes, and states that the west is living under a "false definition of freedom," in which the Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals.
The treatment given to the other side is found in two statements which reference Western criticism of the policies. The first merely mentions that it has been criticized, and then moves on to the quote explaining the "dictatorship in the LGBT." The second reads, "But although the law is specifically geared towards protecting children and their 'moral formation,' many Western opponents view the law as a human rights violation of the freedom of speech." Immediately following this is Baskerville's statement in defense of of Russia's "right," which concludes that it is "harmful to treat that as an issue of freedom of speech." Instead of an explanation of the basis of these criticisms, both statements are immediately followed by an explanation of why the criticism mentioned is wrong.
2) Because human rights are a big deal.
PHC and HSLDA never fail to raise a fuss when they perceive the rights of Christians (domestically, or abroad) to practice their beliefs, speak in public, or assemble, to be threatened by the goverment. This standard, it seems however, is reserved for them. The anti-gay propaganda law in Russia deprives citizens of these same rights. According to Article 6.21 of the law, “propaganda” is the act of distributing information to minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive 3) equates the social value of traditional sexual relations with that of nontraditional sexual relations; or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations." This broad definition leaves the courts much room for interpreting just what might "create an interest in nontraditional sexual relations, and prior regional versions of the law have been used to silence activists and disperse protest groups. (See this report.) And yes, the law also contains a clause targeting foreign citizens, which has caused quite a stir regarding the 2014 Olympics. Though we have yet to see just how the Russian government will choose to enforce the law, there is speculation that one activist who was recently charged for displaying a sign which declared that "being gay is normal" could be the first to be convicted under the law.
Another worrying effect of the law is that it gives legitimacy to the often violent anti-gay sentiment in Russia. Violent crimes against gays have dramatically increased from previous years, in which the anti-gay attitude was not so strongly endorsed by the federal government. (See here and here.) As a conservative institution, PHC should regard anyone's rights to free speech and association as worthy of protection, and as a Christian institution it should condemn a culture of hatred for any group of people. Sadly, it has opted instead to defend the Russian government as it continues its miserable record of human rights violations.
Am I surprised?
Given PHC's history (especially recently), no.
Disappointed?
Yes. Because we've failed to live up to who we should be. Because what we believe, and what we say does matter.
I beg to differ.
Why, exactly, does it matter that much?
1) Because it is in favor of the law.
Some have pointed out that the article is not an op-ed, and thus provides facts and quotes, but doesn't come down on either side of the issue. While it's true that the author has not provided a statement of her personal opinion, the slant of the piece is painfully obvious. The article opens by informing readers of a statement in support of Russia's anti-gay law which was signed by numerous organizations. This is a cold, hard, fact. The opinions presented throughout the rest of the piece, however, are anything but neutral. In the end, the article offers a one-sided defense of Russia's policy.
The only people quoted are (the infamous) Stephen Baskerville and this man, chairman of this Russian organization. Baskerville's quotes range from praising the "strong morality" found in Eastern Europe to proclaiming Russia's "right" to protect its children, while Parfentiev compares the LGBT community to a "dictatorship," argues that freedom of expression only encompasses freedom to express his views of what constitutes a family, accuses Western media of exaggerating Russia's anti-gay attitudes, and states that the west is living under a "false definition of freedom," in which the Christians are being persecuted by homosexuals.
The treatment given to the other side is found in two statements which reference Western criticism of the policies. The first merely mentions that it has been criticized, and then moves on to the quote explaining the "dictatorship in the LGBT." The second reads, "But although the law is specifically geared towards protecting children and their 'moral formation,' many Western opponents view the law as a human rights violation of the freedom of speech." Immediately following this is Baskerville's statement in defense of of Russia's "right," which concludes that it is "harmful to treat that as an issue of freedom of speech." Instead of an explanation of the basis of these criticisms, both statements are immediately followed by an explanation of why the criticism mentioned is wrong.
2) Because human rights are a big deal.
PHC and HSLDA never fail to raise a fuss when they perceive the rights of Christians (domestically, or abroad) to practice their beliefs, speak in public, or assemble, to be threatened by the goverment. This standard, it seems however, is reserved for them. The anti-gay propaganda law in Russia deprives citizens of these same rights. According to Article 6.21 of the law, “propaganda” is the act of distributing information to minors that 1) is aimed at the creating nontraditional sexual attitudes 2) makes nontraditional sexual relations attractive 3) equates the social value of traditional sexual relations with that of nontraditional sexual relations; or 4) creates an interest in nontraditional sexual relations." This broad definition leaves the courts much room for interpreting just what might "create an interest in nontraditional sexual relations, and prior regional versions of the law have been used to silence activists and disperse protest groups. (See this report.) And yes, the law also contains a clause targeting foreign citizens, which has caused quite a stir regarding the 2014 Olympics. Though we have yet to see just how the Russian government will choose to enforce the law, there is speculation that one activist who was recently charged for displaying a sign which declared that "being gay is normal" could be the first to be convicted under the law.
Another worrying effect of the law is that it gives legitimacy to the often violent anti-gay sentiment in Russia. Violent crimes against gays have dramatically increased from previous years, in which the anti-gay attitude was not so strongly endorsed by the federal government. (See here and here.) As a conservative institution, PHC should regard anyone's rights to free speech and association as worthy of protection, and as a Christian institution it should condemn a culture of hatred for any group of people. Sadly, it has opted instead to defend the Russian government as it continues its miserable record of human rights violations.
Am I surprised?
Given PHC's history (especially recently), no.
Disappointed?
Yes. Because we've failed to live up to who we should be. Because what we believe, and what we say does matter.
