Should Cruise Lines Boycott Russian Ports of Call?

[ONT-CA]

... Given what's happening to gay and pro-gay visitors to Russia, the next time you disembark in St. Petersburg, what do envision doing that would improve the lot of queer Russians? .

Not unlike the rainbow handkerchief we wear in the pocket of our tuxedos aboard ship, we wear rainbow triangle pins when in our travels. It’s a statement, granted small but it’s our behavior that accompanies them that makes the point. Acting Out as demonstrated has never achieved anything but negative headlines. But at the moment perhaps the best assistance I could render the gay community in Russia is to concur with your personal decision to never pay them a visit.

[whw]

Thank you. We here in America have made a lot of progress, and the situation here is not even remotely comparable to what is going on in Russia, but we still have a long way to go.

 

That is the point that I am trying to make. Russia has a lot of development to make with human rights in general. It is going to take time and much education to bring about change. I do not think that gay rights are going to make it to the top of the list. Would be wonderful if they did but unrealistic. The change has to happen from within as it did in Canada, the US, Spain etc.

 

Is there anyone out there suggesting that China should be boycotted. No, but the human rights abuse are likely far worse since they are not target at just one segment of society.

[shepp]

And in how many states is your marriage recognized?

 

Having just been married myself, I can answer that.

 

In thirteen states, as of now, which account for, I believe, something like a third of the U.S. population. More crucially, of course, our marriage is recognized by the federal government, and it seems, according to various rulings, that many of our federal rights will apply even in states that don't - yet - recognize SSM. Depending on how court cases go, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution may mean that all states have to recognize SSMs performed in other states.

 

I'm sensing this odd thing here, though, a reductio ad perfectum - that Americans shouldn't do anything about Russia until we've achieved full rights here at home. So back in the apartheid days, there was also institutional racism in the USA. Does that mean that Americans should not have boycotted South Africa? During WWII, there was certainly anti-Semitism in America, so should we have cleaned up our own house before criticizing Germany? Women still don't have full economic equality in the USA, so should we give Taliban a free pass for the time being?

 

And, yeah, there's gay-bashing here. But it doesn't have the imprimatur of the power structure, nor the force of law. It certainly doesn't have the smirking approval of the head of state.

Edited September 24, 2013 by shepp

[shepp]

Not unlike the rainbow handkerchief we wear in the pocket of our tuxedos aboard ship, we wear rainbow triangle pins when in our travels. It’s a statement, granted small but it’s our behavior that accompanies them that makes the point. Acting Out as demonstrated has never achieved anything but negative headlines. But at the moment perhaps the best assistance I could render the gay community in Russia is to concur with your personal decision to never pay them a visit.

 

Thank you for your reply.

[whw]

My point which I do not seem to be able to get across is that this forum is so focused on one issue and one issue alone - Gay rights. I think if we concentrate on human rights in general first the second will follow. I don't believe that you achieve one without the other. I honestly do not believe that staying off a cruise ship is going to have one iota of difference at this point. I do not think even having the cruise refuse to go to Russia would make any difference.

[Blazerboy]

Having just been married myself, I can answer that.

 

In thirteen states, as of now, which account for, I believe, something like a third of the U.S. population. More crucially, of course, our marriage is recognized by the federal government, and it seems, according to various rulings, that many of our federal rights will apply even in states that don't - yet - recognize SSM. Depending on how court cases go, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution may mean that all states have to recognize SSMs performed in other states.

 

I'm sensing this odd thing here, though, a reductio ad perfectum - that Americans shouldn't do anything about Russia until we've achieved full rights here at home. So back in the apartheid days, there was also institutional racism in the USA. Does that mean that Americans should not have boycotted South Africa? During WWII, there was certainly anti-Semitism in America, so should we have cleaned up our own house before criticizing Germany? Women still don't have full economic equality in the USA, so should we give Taliban a free pass for the time being?

 

And, yeah, there's gay-bashing here. But it doesn't have the imprimatur of the power structure, nor the force of law. It certainly doesn't have the smirking approval of the head of state.

 

Shepp, I adore you!

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Forums mobile app

[shepp]

Shepp, I adore you!

 

Thanks, darlin'.

 

But we can't go on meeting this way.

[Austcruiser84]

Russia is an incredible place and I'd most definitely revisit.

 

What disappoints me with the gay rights agenda is too often those leading the charge opt for an all or nothing approach. It's us vs them, it's black or white, it's our way or no way.

 

So, Putin and his followers want to illegalise homosexuality. He doesn't speak for all Russians. He doesn't define public sentiment on all matters. No leader of a democratic nation does or can.

 

Boycotting a whole country for the actions of its government is like saying 'let's boycott the US because George Bush invaded Iraq.'

 

It's an immature response.

 

Besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I see heterophobic behaviour in Sydney, Australia. It's not uncommon to hear things like 'Oxford Street is ours' and that straight people should stick to their own area.

 

The vandalism of Sydney streets with rainbow chalking after the rainbow crossing at Taylor Square was removed after Mardi Gras this year was another example of this reverse discrimination.

 

In a nutshell: don't let Putin deter you from visiting Russia or put you off Russia altogether. It's a wonderful place full of rich culture. But, like visiting any country, be conscious of their customs and their laws.

 

Remember that we expect others to abide by our rules and ways of life when in our countries. As a guest of another nation, we should reciprocate.

 

In no way am I advocating a stance of not speaking out. By all means, voice an opinion on this issue. Just don't do it while on holiday. It's not the time or place for political statements.

[whw]

Russia is an incredible place and I'd most definitely revisit.

 

What disappoints me with the gay rights agenda is too often those leading the charge opt for an all or nothing approach. It's us vs them, it's black or white, it's our way or no way.

 

So, Putin and his followers want to illegalise homosexuality. He doesn't speak for all Russians. He doesn't define public sentiment on all matters. No leader of a democratic nation does or can.

 

Boycotting a whole country for the actions of its government is like saying 'let's boycott the US because George Bush invaded Iraq.'

 

It's an immature response.

 

Besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I see heterophobic behaviour in Sydney, Australia. It's not uncommon to hear things like 'Oxford Street is ours' and that straight people should stick to their own area.

 

The vandalism of Sydney streets with rainbow chalking after the rainbow crossing at Taylor Square was removed after Mardi Gras this year was another example of this reverse discrimination.

 

In a nutshell: don't let Putin deter you from visiting Russia or put you off Russia altogether. It's a wonderful place full of rich culture. But, like visiting any country, be conscious of their customs and their laws.

 

Remember that we expect others to abide by our rules and ways of life when in our countries. As a guest of another nation, we should reciprocate.

 

In no way am I advocating a stance of not speaking out. By all means, voice an opinion on this issue. Just don't do it while on holiday. It's not the time or place for political statements.

 

 

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I just could not say it as well as you have.

[shepp]

Russia is an incredible place and I'd most definitely revisit.

 

What disappoints me with the gay rights agenda is too often those leading the charge opt for an all or nothing approach. It's us vs them, it's black or white, it's our way or no way.

 

So, Putin and his followers want to illegalise homosexuality. He doesn't speak for all Russians. He doesn't define public sentiment on all matters. No leader of a democratic nation does or can.

 

Boycotting a whole country for the actions of its government is like saying 'let's boycott the US because George Bush invaded Iraq.'

 

It's an immature response.

 

Besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I see heterophobic behaviour in Sydney, Australia. It's not uncommon to hear things like 'Oxford Street is ours' and that straight people should stick to their own area.

 

The vandalism of Sydney streets with rainbow chalking after the rainbow crossing at Taylor Square was removed after Mardi Gras this year was another example of this reverse discrimination.

 

In a nutshell: don't let Putin deter you from visiting Russia or put you off Russia altogether. It's a wonderful place full of rich culture. But, like visiting any country, be conscious of their customs and their laws.

 

Remember that we expect others to abide by our rules and ways of life when in our countries. As a guest of another nation, we should reciprocate.

 

In no way am I advocating a stance of not speaking out. By all means, voice an opinion on this issue. Just don't do it while on holiday. It's not the time or place for political statements.

 

A few responses.

 

First - and I already posted this link - if public opinion matters to you, and it seems to, then it's worth noting that Russians are in fact disproportionately anti-gay compared to the rest of the West. Even heavily Catholic Poland is way ahead of Russia, so it's not like Putin isn't in tune with the vast majority of his citizens. I'm not saying that ignoring this to make your case is "immature," merely denial of facts. Sorry, but for now most Russians are homophobic, period. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/05/russias-anti-gay-laws-in-line-with-publics-views-on-homosexuality/

 

I've already addressed the "we have to be perfect before we criticize others" shtick, too. Your home country has treated its aboriginals shabbily. Does that mean that during apartheid, it would somehow have been morally wrong for you not to break the boycott South Africa? Until Sydney bans its gay parade for 100 years, Dutch filmmakers are thrown in an Aussie jail for interviewing a teenager, visitors are denied Australian visas for merely being pro-gay, and gangs of thugs break up LGBT demos while the Adelaide police stand by and do nothing, relax; I think you're still safely on the moral high ground.

 

Or are you saying that nobody should stage a boycott of anything until they're beyond reproach themselves? No Olympic boycott of the USSR for invading Afghanistan? No boycott of South Africa, of Burma? I'm hoping you're consistent, at least.

 

Since you come down on "gay activists" and dredge up some phony moral equivalence re: heterophobia, I must confess to being curious about your background, as in, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" I'd be happy to tell you the same about me, so what's your history of queer activism? In what ways have you put yourself on the line for gay rights? (Oh, and please don't use some variation on the phrase "Gay Agenda" if you want to retain any cred whatsoever.)

 

Because at a time when the eyes of the world are upon Russian gays are being shoved deep into the closet, being forced into silence, I find the notion of us foreign gays defying a boycott and self-closeting so we can see the Hermitage and then comfortably clambering aboard our cruise ships again to be pretty dubious.

 

Actually, very dubious.

 

I'm sure Russia is a lovely place to visit. I'd like to do it myself someday. But hey, it's not the only tourist spot in the world. There's always Uganda. All you'll have to do is butch it up in Kampala.

Edited September 25, 2013 by shepp

[ONT-CA]

The first known homosexual political organization in the U.S. was the Mattachine Society, founded in November of 1950 in Los Angeles . This underground emancipation movement was the brainchild of Harry Hay, a young musicologist who had honed his organizing skills in the ranks of one of the most underground political movements in America in this century, the Communist Party. As Hay well knew, persecution of homosexuals was rampant. Police constantly entrapped and brutalized gay people. Public disclosure of homosexuality was enough to get most people fired from their jobs and ostracized from families and communities. By early 1953 under President Eisenhower, homosexuality became by executive order a necessary and sufficient reason in itself to fire any federal employee from his or her job. Most defense industries and others with government contracts followed suit, and the U.S. Postal Service aided these industries by putting tracers on suspected homosexuals' mail in order to gather enough evidence for dismissal and possibly arrest.

 

The Mattachine Society drew tremendous support after one of its founders, Dale Jennings, was arrested for "lewd and dissolute behavior" in February 1952. Jennings took the unheard course of acknowledging his homosexuality in court while pleading innocent to the charges against him, thus forcing authorities to draw a distinction between being homosexual and being guilty of illegal activity. The jury was deadlocked and a retrial ordered, but the DA's office dropped all charges. Publicizing this victory was not easy, however. There was a news blackout on all the information regarding homosexuality; no press releases were accepted by any newspapers, magazines, or radio stations. The Mattachine Society was forced to circulate information solely through postings and flyers distributed in areas where homosexuals were believed to congregate. Nevertheless, the event drew tremendous, if quiet, support, and membership in the Mattachine Society grew by several thousand in succeeding weeks.

Edited September 25, 2013 by ONT-CA

[jamessemaj]

To suggest that the situation in Russia is the same as that in Uganda is absurd, ridiculous.

I won't say more, this discussion has gone off the cliff, beyond reason.

[keithm]

And there are some ports that present a double-whammy to queer Jews like me.

 

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-new-russian-anti-semitism/480498.html

Yeah, not too many places in the mideast I'd go to.

[keithm]

And in how many states is your marriage recognized?

I'd guess about 12. Give or take. True it's not Canada. We're from NH. Montreal is not too long a trip for us. Never any issues going up(well, you know..we have to leave our guns,smokes, booze & cigarettes at home). Coming back, the US border guards seem to be quite nosey. Every time a car with "blacks" was in front of us, well, they got pulled over for "closer" inspection. Gee, I wonder what THAT'S about!

[shepp]

To suggest that the situation in Russia is the same as that in Uganda is absurd, ridiculous.

I won't say more, this discussion has gone off the cliff, beyond reason.

 

It's no more absurd than to suggest because not all the United States have legalized same-sex marriage, Americans have no moral right to criticize other countries' homophobic legislation. No more absurd, really, than the idea that a few random gays complaining about straights in their Australian neighborhood is some "heterophobic" sin that disqualifies stone-casting action against oppressive Russian government policy.

 

And honestly, if you're going to fret about "reasonable discussion," it might be helpful if, when you're proven wrong about things like foreigners being arrested or the extent of support for anti-gay laws in Russia, you acknowledge that and move on, instead of focusing on one little admittedly snarky little joke about Uganda.

 

Once again...there are plenty of other places in this world to cruise to. Plenty. There is a well-founded movement to make Russia a pariah state on this issue. So I find the whole "I'm an independent-minded gay man, and nobody else is going to tell me where I should go on holiday" to be less than inspiring. And while I confess that on this particular issue I haven't done much positive stuff, I've yet to hear anybody else here suggest any action whatsoever beyond wearing a discreet rainbow pin and closeting ourselves when we visit Russia.

 

Cripes, even Cher is a fiercer fighter for our rights than some of us are.

 

Plus, she still looks fabulous.

[Austcruiser84]

So I find the whole "I'm an independent-minded gay man, and nobody else is going to tell me where I should go on holiday" to be less than inspiring. And while I confess that on this particular issue I haven't done much positive stuff, I've yet to hear anybody else here suggest any action whatsoever beyond wearing a discreet rainbow pin and closeting ourselves when we visit Russia.

 

It is up to the Russian people to decide what kind of society they want.

 

Why should there be action taken against Russia? While you think you are going to hurt the government, you actually end up hurting the ordinary people.

 

Not the best way to garner internal support in my view.

 

As for your lack of inspiration from independent gay travellers, that's just too bad. I'd wager that most people make travel choices based on their tastes and desires rather than on your political views.

 

I don't have any studies to support that, but I am sure I'm on the money :)

 

I get why you're angry about this issue, but the whole forcing others to accept homosexuality is not the way to go about it.

 

In fact, independent gays have done more for equality than flag waving gays. The 'normalisation' of gay culture through mainstream media in the last decade has helped push a view that 'gays are like us' for heterosexuals (particularly straight men). Sit-coms and televised drama in particular have shown gay men and women to live ordinary lives, have ordinary needs etc.

 

The move away from the gay scene as a way of representing gay people has helped bridge the divide in my view. Much in the same way that environmentalists gained significant ground in the last 15 years politically across the West by shunning the kumbaya attitude, donning suits and speaking in ways that average people can understand.

 

I think you'll find that as Russia grows closer to the EU and more Russians travel abroad as the economy grows richer for the middle class that public sentiment will be far less hostile to homosexuality (not that I think Russians are fiercely homophobic as a people).

 

Exposure to gay normalcy is far more potent that political activism. While activism worked in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, a far more gentrified approach is what works best today.

[shepp]

The first known homosexual political organization in the U.S. was the Mattachine Society, founded in November of 1950 in Los Angeles . This underground emancipation movement was the brainchild of Harry Hay, a young musicologist who had honed his organizing skills in the ranks of one of the most underground political movements in America in this century, the Communist Party. ]

 

"Hay had strong opinions and never pandered to popular opinion when he voiced them — whether he was attacking national gay organizations for what he saw as their increasingly conservative political positions ("The assimilationist movement is running us into the ground," he told the San Francisco Chronicle in July 2000) or when he condemned the national gay press — in particular, the Advocate — for its emphasis on consumerism.

 

Hay's uneasy relationship with the gay movement — he reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability — didn’t develop later in life. It was there from the start. In 1950, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society — technically a "homophile group," since the more aggressive idea of gay rights had yet to be conceived — his radical vision was captured in a manifesto he wrote stating boldly that gay people were not like heterosexuals. Indeed, Hay insisted, homosexuals formed a unique culture from which heterosexuals might learn a great deal. This notion was at decisive odds with the view put forth by many other Mattachine members: that homosexuals should not be discriminated against because gay people were just like straight people. By 1954, the group essentially ousted Hay.

 

From Hay’s point of view, silencing any part of the movement because it was disliked or hated by mainstream culture was both a moral failing and a seriously mistaken political strategy. In Harry’s eyes, such a stance failed to grapple seriously with the reality that there would always be some aspect of the gay movement to which mainstream culture would object. By pretending the movement could be made presentable by eliminating a specific "objectionable" group — drag queens and leather people were the objects of similar purges in the 1970s and 1980s — gay leaders not only pandered to the idea of respectability but betrayed their own community."

 

- Michael Bronski

Edited September 26, 2013 by shepp

[Austcruiser84]

A few responses.

 

First - and I already posted this link - if public opinion matters to you, and it seems to, then it's worth noting that Russians are in fact disproportionately anti-gay compared to the rest of the West. Even heavily Catholic Poland is way ahead of Russia, so it's not like Putin isn't in tune with the vast majority of his citizens. I'm not saying that ignoring this to make your case is "immature," merely denial of facts. Sorry, but for now most Russians are homophobic, period. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/05/russias-anti-gay-laws-in-line-with-publics-views-on-homosexuality/

 

I've already addressed the "we have to be perfect before we criticize others" shtick, too. Your home country has treated its aboriginals shabbily. Does that mean that during apartheid, it would somehow have been morally wrong for you not to break the boycott South Africa? Until Sydney bans its gay parade for 100 years, Dutch filmmakers are thrown in an Aussie jail for interviewing a teenager, visitors are denied Australian visas for merely being pro-gay, and gangs of thugs break up LGBT demos while the Adelaide police stand by and do nothing, relax; I think you're still safely on the moral high ground.

 

Or are you saying that nobody should stage a boycott of anything until they're beyond reproach themselves? No Olympic boycott of the USSR for invading Afghanistan? No boycott of South Africa, of Burma? I'm hoping you're consistent, at least.

 

Since you come down on "gay activists" and dredge up some phony moral equivalence re: heterophobia, I must confess to being curious about your background, as in, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" I'd be happy to tell you the same about me, so what's your history of queer activism? In what ways have you put yourself on the line for gay rights? (Oh, and please don't use some variation on the phrase "Gay Agenda" if you want to retain any cred whatsoever.)

 

Because at a time when the eyes of the world are upon Russian gays are being shoved deep into the closet, being forced into silence, I find the notion of us foreign gays defying a boycott and self-closeting so we can see the Hermitage and then comfortably clambering aboard our cruise ships again to be pretty dubious.

 

Actually, very dubious.

 

I'm sure Russia is a lovely place to visit. I'd like to do it myself someday. But hey, it's not the only tourist spot in the world. There's always Uganda. All you'll have to do is butch it up in Kampala.

 

When posting statistical information it is always useful to know the parameters and method used to collect data. For example, what was the sample size, at what time of day were respondents called, how were respondents selected, what questions were they asked, what types of questions were they asked, etc.

 

I see that the survey quoted by you only received data from 37,000 people across 39 countries. Combined, those countries represent well over half a billion people.

 

That's a very small sample and I'm not convinced of its accuracy as a consequence.

 

With regards to the whole 'those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' issue, I stand by my belief in respecting the sovereignty of other countries up to a point. The situations you allude to (like the Dutch filmmaker being arrested and pro gay activists being denied visas) are cases where people from outside Russia have deliberately sought to enter the country with the sole purpose of breaking Russian laws. They knew what they planned to do was illegal, yet they did it anyway. I see no moral ground to be had by such people.

 

As I've recently posted, I say let the Russian people decide what they want. In time, I am confident their growing exposure to the West will help to change perceptions of those who are against homosexuality. As I also stated in my most recent post, boycotts (like trade embargoes) don't work. In fact, they often hurt people you want on side.

 

To answer your question on my history of 'queer activism' (does that not in itself imply a gay agenda? I would think so) I don't consider myself a gay man first and foremost. I'm an Australian first and foremost and my political discourse and involvement takes shape around what is best for my country. Yes, I'm gay, but it is not what defines me as a person. I see my nationality, my family, my friends, my career as more dominant characteristics of my life. I've spoken on gay issues and even crafted policy on this area (i found more acceptance within political circles than I did from gay activist groups who rejected my offer to volunteer several times - once based on my failure to live amongst my 'own kind', which i find absurd, and because I disagreed with their in-your-face brand of activism).

 

If you want to make change, you need to be within the walls of government and have the ear of those who have the legislative power to make change. Chalking rainbow flags in front of people's homes who don't want their street vandalised does not help gay men and women.

 

I think travelling the world is a healthy pursuit. I love to travel and have clocked many countries to date - some of which do not tolerate homosexuality. I often travel with airlines that belong to countries with governments that do not tolerate homosexuality. I think you'll find that if you wanted to stand up and boycott countries based on their governments' treatment of others on every occasion you'd have nowhere to go on holidays!

 

By all means, say your piece and get involved with international discussion on the issue of equality. But putting physical pressure on Russia will only have the opposite effect to what you're hoping to achieve.

[shepp]

It is up to the Russian people to decide what kind of society they want.

 

Why should there be action taken against Russia? While you think you are going to hurt the government, you actually end up hurting the ordinary people.

 

Not the best way to garner internal support in my view.

 

 

So, simple questions:

 

Assuming you were around during the apartheid era, did you support breaking the boycott of South Africa? Do you think that no pressure should be put on Muslim societies to end the popular practice of female circumcision? If you'd been around in the 1930s, how would you have felt about the democratically elected government of Germany? After Tienanamen Square, did you think the rest of the world should have just shut up and let China be China?

 

Do you feel we have no responsibility to the queer folks in Russia who are asking for the help of the rest of the world beyond being closeted tourists?

 

Oh - and I'm simply dying to ask this - in what way is putting chalked rainbows on Sydney streets "reverse discrimination?"

[Austcruiser84]

So, simple questions:

 

Assuming you were around during the apartheid era, did you support breaking the boycott of South Africa? Do you think that no pressure should be put on Muslim societies to end the popular practice of female circumcision? If you'd been around in the 1930s, how would you have felt about the democratically elected government of Germany? After Tienanamen Square, did you think the rest of the world should have just shut up and let China be China?

 

Do you feel we have no responsibility to the queer folks in Russia who are asking for the help of the rest of the world beyond being closeted tourists?

 

Oh - and I'm simply dying to ask this - in what way is putting chalked rainbows on Sydney streets "reverse discrimination?"

 

I don't agree with boycotting any country over their political decisions. However, there is a limit to this. For example, the German government in the 30s and 40s committed genocide and invaded peaceful countries. That cannot be allowed to happen.

 

I do not see Russian gays being hauled into railway carriages and shipped off to camps for extermination.

 

In fact, the new law relates to what is described as the dissemination of propaganda to minors. It's illegal to advertise homosexuality to young people. Technically, this isn't banning homosexuality. I think you'll find that similar laws apply to most American states. I believe a number of education authorities refuse to educate students about homosexuality.

 

I'm not saying that this will be the end of it. However, to liken this law to the genocide of the Germans is grossly out of proportion. Should the lives of gay men and women be threatened physically then my stance would change.

 

With regards to the rainbow chalking, I ask you to consider whether you would appreciate someone chalking your street or footpath (sidewalk) with a flag to which you disagree - perhaps the Confederate flag? Vandalism is vandalism if the person doesnt want it there, whether it be a gang tag or a rainbow flag.

[IslandExplorer]

Russia is an incredible place and I'd most definitely revisit.

 

What disappoints me with the gay rights agenda is too often those leading the charge opt for an all or nothing approach. It's us vs them, it's black or white, it's our way or no way.

 

So, Putin and his followers want to illegalise homosexuality. He doesn't speak for all Russians. He doesn't define public sentiment on all matters. No leader of a democratic nation does or can.

 

Boycotting a whole country for the actions of its government is like saying 'let's boycott the US because George Bush invaded Iraq.'

 

It's an immature response.

 

Besides, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I see heterophobic behaviour in Sydney, Australia. It's not uncommon to hear things like 'Oxford Street is ours' and that straight people should stick to their own area.

 

The vandalism of Sydney streets with rainbow chalking after the rainbow crossing at Taylor Square was removed after Mardi Gras this year was another example of this reverse discrimination.

 

In a nutshell: don't let Putin deter you from visiting Russia or put you off Russia altogether. It's a wonderful place full of rich culture. But, like visiting any country, be conscious of their customs and their laws.

 

Remember that we expect others to abide by our rules and ways of life when in our countries. As a guest of another nation, we should reciprocate.

 

In no way am I advocating a stance of not speaking out. By all means, voice an opinion on this issue. Just don't do it while on holiday. It's not the time or place for political statements.

 

This is not denial. This is looking away, pure and simple. Ignoring the cries for help in the street.

 

It is basically a selfish impulse: "I don't care about the persecution of gay Russians. It's not my concern. I don't want to get involved. I want to do what I want to do."

 

Take about an immature response. This view is the wailing of a two-year old who can't get his way.

 

As gay people, human rights do matter. But what matters much, much more -- specifically and urgently -- is rights for our minority group. No-one else will ever stand up for us. If we don't stand up for Russian gays, who is next? Half the world looks to Russia as a moral leader.

 

Symbolic statements do matter.

 

Gay-friendly decisions by big money definitely do matter. (As Visa goes, so goes the Olympics.)

[IslandExplorer]

To suggest that the situation in Russia is the same as that in Uganda is absurd, ridiculous.

I won't say more, this discussion has gone off the cliff, beyond reason.

 

It was a joke.

 

But the situation is Russia is worse than some of you seem to know.

 

Russian gays are persecuted. There's no doubt about that. Many are being granted asylum in every country in the West.

 

Persecution is persecution. There's no point in discussing degrees.

 

This thread presents an interesting view point though: the rich gay man who wishes to travel uninhibitedly without having to worry about the misery around him. Elysium comes to mind...

[IslandExplorer]

I don't agree with boycotting any country over their political decisions.

 

Yes, it's inconvenient, isn't it.

 

Especially when you want to visit the country on an excursion perfectly scheduled between the breakfast buffet and the formal dinner hour.

 

You can do it, you know. Russians have made clear how you are to behave during your visit. Don't wear your Dorothy pin on shore; don't show to much interest in the antiques; and for chrissakes don't stand too close to the love of your life.

[shepp]

I'm growing pretty weary of this discussion.

 

But here, I guess, is the thing. Maybe because I grew up both queer and Jewish, I'm predisposed to identify with the lot of the oppressed and suffering. And maybe because I cherish the good things my outsider status bestowed on me, I'm not much of an assimilationist. Yeah, I just got married. But not because I want to be the same as straight people. Because I want the same rights as straight people, a not insignificant distinction. And ever since Stonewall, I've been out on the streets for LGBT rights - early Gay Liberation, helping organize the San Francisco parade, ACT UP, Queer Nation, against Prop 8 - though not enough, and I'm getting lazy with age. Not that I'm nostalgic for some radical Good Old Days, but neither do I love the sense of bourgeois privilege some anti-activist types evince. So that's where I'm coming from.

 

I'm self-centered in a lot of ways, but I do feel solidarity with others, and that can transcend the nation-state. Had I been alive in the 1930s, I hope I would have identified with German Jews (and gays) rather than a US government that severely restricted immigration of Jewish refugees, with the Spanish Republicans rather than a US government that stood by and did nothing to oppose Franco's rise. You may view this as hopelessly romantic. But given the choice, I'd rather err on the side of too much idealism. Sue me.

 

A good while ago, I traveled in Burma, at a time when some Burmese were urging a tourist boycott, others hoping that visitors would come and keep communication with the outside world open, providing money to individual Burmese while avoiding as much as possible funding the government. I did the latter, and still have mixed feelings about it.

 

But as far as I know, there are no Russian queers urging us to get on cruise ships and head on over. None. As I've said many times, there are other places in the world to go. Sure, some of them are thoroughly distasteful; hell, I visited Syria under Hafez al-Assad, and maybe I shouldn't have. But there was no boycott in place, and while my not going might have made me feel better, it would have had no symbolic meaning. Breaking an ongoing boycott of Russia does have symbolic meaning.

 

I'm agnostic about an Olympic boycott, hoping that the Games will provide some ground for positive action. But not being a tourist in St. Petersburg? Easy one. If Cher and Wentworth Miller can stay away, so can I. Travel can be many things. But tourism, which is what we're talking about here, is self-indulgent entertainment.

 

I've been accused of being anti-Russian. It's a country where 5 out of 6 citizens are anti-gay, where even the leading queer spokesman just turned out to be a raving anti-Semite. I know the Russians suffered a lot, especially during WWII, when they fought the ****s, who were, of course, anti-gay and anti-Semitic. So pardon me if I'd rather, stereotypically speaking, admire the Dutch spirit rather than the Russian soul. You know, the Dutch, who hid away Jews from the ****s and famously scrawled defiant graffiti that read, "Whose dirty Jews? OUR dirty Jews." The Dutch, who right in the middle of Amsterdam have a monument to gays killed in the Holocaust. The Dutch aren't perfect either, but there it is. And Amsterdam is awfully nice this time of year.

 

I'd rather defer my desire to see the Hermitage, maybe even finally get off my butt and do more than go to a demo at the Russian consulate, than be sitting in my cruise ship cabin, headed for St. Petersburg, and thinking, "There's nothing wrong with Russia that more re-runs of Glee can't fix."

 

Whose dirty Russian queers? OUR dirty Russian queers.

 

And I have a cruise to leave for in a few days. I'm done with this thread for now.

[Blazerboy]

Bon voyage, Shepp. This has gotten wearying.

 

For what it's worth, I've always been an "Inside-the-halls-of-government activist, but I learned long ago that my progress was sped up by all the street activists- that both types are necessary for change to occur.

 

As for not being 'political' on vacation, isn't that the same as saying "go, enjoy, and leave your conscience behind?"

 

Andrew

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Forums mobile app