By John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with To keep western children safe from being misled by Anglo-American reporters on this topic, here is a primer on what exactly the newly enacted Russian law says; what Russian public opinion thinks; what the Russian courts, judges, and lawyers have interpreted the law to mean; and what the record of enforcement so far reveals.
Adults should not underestimate the politics of this issue. Russians can see and understand the potential power of the LGBT election bloc as it is polarizing voters in the US and other western countries.
According to this just published study of the last US presidential election, LGBT identified people accounted for one in ten (11.3%) of the voting eligible population – that’s adults over 18 years of age. This bloc was “pivotal in ensuring Joe Biden’s victory in several key states—and, subsequently, in winning the Presidency. Had LGBTQ+ voters stayed home, it is likely Donald Trump would have won re-election. By 2030, one-in-seven (14.3%) voters will be LGBTQ+ identifying, representing a sharp increase from the present day. The LGBTQ+ voting bloc is projected to continue to surge in the decade following, nearing one-in-five (17.8%) voters by 2040.”
The majority of Russian voters and the Russian political consensus aim to prevent this from happening at home.
Senior Russian judges acknowledge that when there is a conflict like this one between individual, collective and political rights, and between the convictions of majorities and minorities, it is the constitutional duty of the legislature to strike a balance between them. Accordingly, the judges believe the new law reflects the current consensus, and both are lawful.
Russian pollsters add that the sharper the protests grow against the new law, especially in the West, the stronger the majority view will become and the heavier the crackdown to follow.
The statutory provisions of Federal Law 479-FZ, voted by the State Duma on November 24, 2022, and by the Federation Council on November 30; signed into law by the President on December 5
“Article 6.21. Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences, sex change
1. Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences or sex change, expressed in the dissemination of information and (or) the commission of public actions aimed at the formation of non-traditional sexual attitudes, the attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences for sex change or a distorted view of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences, or the imposition of information about non-traditional sexual relationships and (or) preferences for sex change, arousing interest in such relationships and (or) preferences for sex change, except for the cases provided for in Article 6.211 of this Code, if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act,
entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles; on legal entities – from eight hundred thousand to one million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days.
2. Actions provided for in part 1 of this Article committed among minors, if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act, entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand rubles; on legal entities – from one million to two million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days.
3. Actions provided for in part 1 of this Article committed with the use of mass media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet), if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act, entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand rubles; on legal entities – from one million to four million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days…
Article 6.211. Propaganda of pedophilia
1. Propaganda of pedophilia, expressed in the dissemination of information aimed at substantiating and (or) justifying pedophilia or the formation of the attractiveness of pedophilia, or the imposition of information about pedophilia that arouses interest in pedophilia, except for the cases provided for in Article 6.20 of this Code, if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act, entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from four hundred thousand to eight hundred thousand rubles; on legal entities – from one million to four million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days.
2. Actions provided for in part 1 of this Article committed with the use of mass media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet), if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act, entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of four hundred thousand to eight hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from eight hundred thousand to two million rubles; on legal entities – from four million to ten million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days.
3. Actions provided for in part 1 of this Article committed by a foreign citizen or a stateless person, if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act, entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand rubles with administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation or administrative arrest for up to fifteen days with administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation…
Article 6.212. Dissemination among minors of information demonstrating non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences or capable of causing minors to desire to change their gender
1. Dissemination among minors of information demonstrating non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences, including a description, image of non-traditional sexual relations and (or) preferences, or capable of causing minors to desire to change their gender, except for the cases provided for in part 2 of Article 6.21 of this Code, if these actions do not contain signs of criminal punishable act, entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of fifty thousand to one hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles; on legal entities – from eight hundred thousand to one million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days.
2. Actions provided for in part 1 of this Article committed with the use of mass media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including the Internet), except for the cases provided for in part 4 of Article 6.21 of this Code, if these actions do not contain signs of a criminally punishable act, entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles; on officials – from two hundred thousand to four hundred thousand rubles; on legal entities – from one million to four million rubles or administrative suspension of activities for up to ninety days….”
Source: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/
SUMMARY TABLE SHOWING TYPE OF OFFENCES, CLASS OF OFFENDERS, AND FINES
Source: https://journal.tinkoff.ru
Russian public opinion
May 23, 2019 – Levada Centre: “Almost half of Russians support equal rights for gays
“Sociologists of the Levada Centre asked Russians about their attitude to people of non-traditional sexual orientation. The survey showed an increase in tolerance towards homosexuals. The answers to the question of whether LGBT people should enjoy the same rights as citizens of traditional sexual orientation were divided almost equally — 47% were in favor and 43% were against.
Denis Volkov, deputy director of the Levada Centre, attributed this to a decrease in the effect of the campaign around the law on the prohibition of propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors adopted in Russia in 2013. In 2017, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized the legislation as discriminatory.
The reason for the improvement in the attitude of citizens to LGBT, political scientist Alexei Makarkin says is the refusal of the authorities to appeal to the homophobic sentiments of the population within the framework of the ‘conservative wave’. ‘This emotion has gone away, because they don’t talk about it on TV, it has returned to typical conservative subcultures. But if tomorrow they start showing people with blazing eyes again — people who will shout that someone is again corrupting the venerable moral foundations of Russia — the degree of intolerance towards LGBT people will increase again,’ the expert said.
Which social groups are the most tolerant
Almost 40% of Russians are neutral towards LGBT people; a little more than half (56%) expressed their negative attitude still. The number of people who say they know homosexuals has increased from 6% to 8% since 2016, ‘although it should not be excluded that it has simply become more comfortable for people to talk about it with interviewers. In any case, the growth of this indicator means a trend towards a slow normalization of attitudes towards LGBT people in our country,’ staff analysts of the Levada Centre report on the results.
Those Russians who have homosexuals among their friends treat LGBT people better. Among them, about 80% of respondents demonstrate a ‘neutral or positive’ attitude — significantly more than in any other group.
The greatest tolerance is shown by young people under 25 years of age (60% of neutral and positive responses in the under-25 category versus 33% among the elderly); residents of the largest cities (51% vs. 34% in rural areas); people with higher education (48% vs. 36% among those who do not have it) and a good income (49% against 32% among the poorest).
Sociologists asked what respondents would do if they found out about the homosexual orientation of one of their friends. Only 23% would not change their attitude towards this person in any way. 22% would continue to communicate, ‘not wanting to hear’ anything about the preferences of a friend or girlfriend; 18% would communicate less. That is, the majority of Russians (63%) is ready to come to terms with the homosexuality of an acquaintance to some extent; 31% of respondents would completely stop communicating.
Source: https://www.levada.ru/
On May 22 [2019], the Levada Centre also published a survey on social distance. Respondents were asked about their attitude to the circumstance that representatives of various minorities would move into the next-door apartment. As neighbours, an elderly single person, a family with a disabled person, and a single mother with a child do not cause a negative attitude in most cases. By contrast, members of a religious sect, a homosexual couple, and a dysfunctional family are regarded as the most undesirable neighbours. Potential proximity to homosexuals causes 59% of respondents to express dislike or fear.
Almost half of the respondents (45%) do not know about cases of violence against LGBT people. About a quarter of respondents (28%) are aware of this as a widespread phenomenon throughout the country or in certain regions. Isolated cases of violence — 20%. People younger than 25 were the best informed about violence against LGBT people. The older the respondent, the less awareness of cases of violence against LGBT people he demonstrates.
Sociologists asked respondents whether they believe that sexual orientation can change under the influence of external circumstances or it is an innate property. Sociologists said their reason for adding this question was the hypothesis that the negative attitude towards LGBT people is partly based on mythologized ideas that it is possible to become gay or lesbian under the influence of ‘bad influence’, ‘depraved behaviour’, leading to the need for protection, including under the state and by legislation, and to approval for the prohibition of propaganda of homosexuality. However, ‘this hypothesis needs further development and evidence,’ the Levada staff snalysts say. Only a quarter of respondents (27%) are sure that sexual orientation is an innate property which does not change under the influence of external factors; 47% believe that the orientation can change under the influence of environment, upbringing or life events.”
July 2022 – Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin’s poll
“More than 1.4 million people participated in the survey on whether LGBT propaganda should be completely banned in Russia, which State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin published on Telegram on July 10. In the comments published in the voting post, a discussion unfolded about the necessity of such a measure.
The post with the survey has gathered more than 2.7 million views. Users left more than 74,000 comments under the publication, in which they shared their opinion on whether such a ban is needed in Russia.
‘Do you consider it necessary to introduce a ban on propaganda of non—traditional values?’ asked Volodin. At the time of writing, 69% of users chose the ‘Yes’ option, 26% of survey participants felt that propaganda of non-traditional relations should not be completely banned in Russia. The remaining 5% of respondents voted for the ‘non-committal’ option.
Earlier on Monday, July 11, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Security and Anti-Corruption Alexander Khinshtein supported the proposal of the Speaker of the State Duma for a complete ban on LGBT propaganda. The deputy recalled that now the restrictions apply only to children, and such a measure, in his opinion, is not enough. He added that the discussion of this initiative in the State Duma may begin already in the autumn session.
Left, State Duma Speaker, Vyacheslav Volodin; right, Alexander Khinshtein, Samara deputy and since 2020 chairman of the Duma Committee on Information Policy – this committee had jurisdiction over the draft legislation; Khinshtein led the parliamentary debate.
Volodin on July 8 proposed to introduce a ban on propaganda of non-traditional values. ‘With the withdrawal from the Council of Europe, the demands to legalize same-sex marriages in Russia have become a thing of the past. Attempts to impose alien values on our society have failed,’ Volodin said. He also said that Russians need to strengthen the institution of the family.”Source: https://lenta.ru/news/2022/07/11/volodin/
Russian press reporting
December 7, 2022 — “Sit down and keep your head down: why the law banning LGBT propaganda was tightened.
On December 5, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a package of laws on a complete ban on LGBT propaganda. Prior to that, since 2013, there was the rule prohibiting gay propaganda only among minors. The tightening is aimed at ‘protecting our future from darkness’ – that’s how the speaker of the State Duma and one of the authors of the initiative Vyacheslav Volodin wrote in his Telegram channel.
Despite the fact that there is still no clear definition of the concept of ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations’, it will be banned in films, advertising, books, media and audiovisual services.
We do not know exactly how the innovations will be interpreted, but it can be assumed that any assistance to LGBT representatives, their associations, and their public events, which previously did not allow minors to participate in them, may now be banned altogether. And this will mean that a part of our society will become completely invisible, turned off from life. The EAN [Yekaterinburg News] tried to figure out the legislative changes with the help of lawyer Dmitri Lebedev.
What laws are being amended
Deputies considered two bills. The first one amends the federal laws ‘On Mass Media’, ‘On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection’, ‘On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Development’, ‘On Advertising’, and ‘On State Support of Cinematography of the Russian Federation’. The second bill amends the Code of Administrative Offences and clarifies responsibility for LGBT propaganda.
What is meant by propaganda?
According to lawyer Dmitri Lebedev, the term was first used in the Russian legal system under statutory articles related to the prohibition of terrorist propaganda. There, propaganda was understood as the dissemination of materials aimed at forming a belief in the attractiveness of an action or at forming an idea of the permissibility of carrying out terrorist activities.
‘Attractiveness or acceptability’, Lebedev emphasizes
As for LGBT propaganda, the Supreme Court of Russia has proceeded from the fact that the concept of propaganda implies active public actions to form attitudes and (or) stereotypes of behaviour in the mind, or activities aimed at encouraging the persons to whom it is addressed to commit actions or to refrain from committing them.
‘The prohibition of propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations does not prevent the realization of the right to receive and disseminate general, neutral information about non-traditional sexual relations, to hold public events in accordance with the procedure provided for by law, including open public debates on the social status of sexual minorities, without imposing lifestyle attitudes,’ Lebedev quotes an excerpt from the Constitutional Court ruling. He emphasizes that while this resolution is not the key one, it is necessary to focus on it.
What will change for the media?
The media are prohibited from distributing materials promoting pornography, non-traditional relationships and gender reassignment. An important role in this is played by the message with which the information is presented. ‘For example, a statement of fact is permissible: Ivanov and Petrov were in an unconventional relationship. There is no propaganda here. But it is impossible to use the information in a positive way – for instance, what a happy family Petrov and Ivanov have,’ the expert says.
What will happen to movies, books and advertising?
With works of art, the situation is more complicated. In literature and films, any information is somehow aimed at forming an ideology. “These are memes that we master – they talk about what kind of culture there should be. In practice, it is now impossible to make films about the LGBT community and its problems. In fact, now any film in which a same-sex couple appears can be recognized as propaganda,’ Lebedev claims. The situation is similar with books and advertising.
Can I be punished for a post on social networks?
A whole new concept has been introduced in the law – propaganda of non-traditional relations. This covers any dissemination of information aimed at promoting LGBT people. Data in any form is prohibited – images, descriptions. Social networks are no exception. ‘If I start posting pictures about the attractiveness of same-sex relationships in my social networks with an audience of a thousand, this is definitely going to face an administrative penalty and a fine from Rb50,000 to Rb100,000,’ Lebedev is sure.
‘No one knows how the courts will decide on LGBT propaganda. So far, we can talk only about our own interpretation. Most likely, propaganda issues will be sent by judges for expert examination. In general, I think that the law enforcement practice will go down the same track as the statutory article about discrediting the army. Only zealous violators will be severely punished,’ lawyer Dmitri Lebedev believes.
December 12, 2022 – “Russia has adopted a law on the prohibition of LGBT propaganda… how will it affect literature, cinema and other spheres…
Source: https://journal.tinkoff.ru/news/zapret-lgbt/
… The book industry is the most concerned. After the adoption of the laws in the first reading, the head of one of the largest publishing groups in Russia, Eksmo-AST, Oleg Novikov, said that vague formulations jeopardize up to 50% of the titles of books on the Russian market. Other publishers also complained about the lack of specificity in the laws. They don’t know which books might be banned.
The Russian Book Union sent a letter to the State Duma with a request to clarify whether works from the school curriculum are now banned. Alexander Khinshtein, Chairman of the State Duma Information Policy Committee, replied that the laws adopted by the State Duma prohibit ‘not mentioning LGBT as a phenomenon, but propaganda.’ But the deputy apparently did not take into account that now there is a fine for distributing information about LGBT among minors.
According to Khinstein, there is no propaganda in Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, but there is in the book Summer in a Pioneer’s Tie. But according to what criteria the latter book fell under the ban, the deputy did not specify.
Some publishers, bookstores and services already restricted the sale and release of controversial books even before the laws came into force. The publishing service Ridero sent a letter to the authors asking them to check their books for violations of the law banning LGBT propaganda. Representatives of the service provided a list of topics that should be avoided in the text, on the cover, in illustrations and other parts of the book: information about the attractiveness of non-traditional sexual relationships or preferences, information that forms a distorted idea of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, information about sex change. These are all formulations from the law.
The Labyrinth bookstore has temporarily suspended sales of some books. Representatives of the store did not publish a list of works, but Summer in a Pioneer’s Tie and The Goldfinch are now unavailable for purchase on the site.
Representatives of Litres said that the service will withdraw from sale books that may fall under the law. They asked the copyright holders to check whether their works can be recognized as a violation. Litres also suggested that the authors rewrite the text so that such books could be sold again. Popcorn Books, a publisher that specializes in topics such as identity issues, racism, sexism and attitudes to one’s own body, has warned that their books with LGBT characters will most likely stop selling….
The bans will also affect the cinema. Due to the vagueness of the wording, market participants and experts interviewed by Kinopoisk in the summer of 2022 could not answer what would happen. But these formulations have not become more precise. LGBT-themed films have been censored before. For example, in 2021, distributors cut three minutes from the picture Supernova. And in the movie Avengers: The Finale, one dialogue was revised…And there have been many such cases of self-censorship.
Now such films may simply be unable to get a screening certificate. And it will not be possible to show pictures to minors simply with a demonstration of LGBT themes. The cartoon Luka could theoretically fall under such a ban.
Online retailers also fear that due to the vagueness of the wording, it is unclear which products cannot be sold. The Association of E-commerce Companies in an appeal to the deputies asked for clarification. According to the market participants, ‘the situation with these laws is paradoxical: there is a ban on sale and liability, but there is no register of such goods or at least criteria, as well as mechanisms for evaluating goods.’ They believe that retailers themselves will have to check whether specific products violate the law. And that will take a lot of money.
Source: https://journal.tinkoff.ru/news/zapret-lgbt/
How the Russian courts interpret
June 19, 2013 – “Prohibition of propaganda of homosexuality in the light of judicial practice by Sergei Khavansky, PhD in Law, Head of the Legal Editorial Office of the Company Garant
One of the most high—profile legislative events of recent times is the consideration by the State Duma of the so—called “law on the prohibition of propaganda of homosexuality”, or rather, draft law No. 44554-6, according to which the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation is supplemented by Article 6.21, according to which “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors” is prohibited…
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation
So, it makes sense to start with the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 151-O-O dated January 19, 2010. Paragraph 3 of this decision states that the regional legislator ‘has established measures aimed at ensuring the intellectual, moral and mental safety of children, including in the form of a ban on performing public actions aimed at promoting homosexuality.’ According to the Court, ‘the prohibition of such propaganda in itself – as an activity for the purposeful and uncontrolled dissemination of information that can harm health, moral and spiritual development, including forming distorted ideas about the social equivalence of traditional and non–traditional marital relations – among persons deprived of the opportunity to critically evaluate such information independently due to age, cannot be considered as violating the constitutional rights of citizens.’
In conclusion, the Court considered that ‘such restrictions do not consolidate any measures aimed at banning homosexuality or its official censure, do not contain signs of discrimination, in their meaning do not allow excessive actions of public authorities. Accordingly, the provisions of these laws contested by the applicants cannot be regarded as disproportionately restricting freedom of speech.’
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
A year and a half later, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation spoke on this topic (Ruling of the Judicial Board for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1-APG12-11 of August 15, 2012). This judgement contains a definition of propaganda of homosexuality among minors, which ‘involves active public actions with the above-mentioned goals associated with the formation of an attractive image of non-traditional sexual orientation, a distorted view of the social equivalence of traditional and non-traditional marital relations.’ It is these formulations which formed the basis of Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation.
It follows from the Court’s understanding that not every public action can be identified as propaganda, and thus its prohibition ‘does not prevent the realization of the right to receive and disseminate general, neutral information about homosexuality, to hold public events in accordance with the procedure provided for by law, including open public debates on the social status of sexual minorities, not imposing homosexual life attitudes on minors as persons who, due to their age, are not able to independently critically evaluate such information.’
The distinction indicated above in the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation between ‘propaganda’ of homosexuality and its ‘discussion’ and ‘information’ is important in the context of the need for compliance of Russian judicial practice with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, we are talking about the Ruling of the European Court of Human Rights of October 21, 2010. According to its paragraph 84,
‘there is no ambiguity regarding the recognition by other participating States of the right of people to openly call themselves gay, lesbian or other sexual minority and to promote their rights and freedoms.’
Compilation of pending and decided cases at the European Court of Human Rights
As the European Court noted, it ‘lacks scientific evidence and sociological information confirming that the usual mention of homosexuality or an open public discussion about the social status of sexual minorities will have a negative impact on children or vulnerable adults. On the contrary, only with the help of a fair and public discussion can society address such complex issues that have been raised in this case. Such a discussion, supported by academic research, would clarify several issues that cause general misunderstanding, such as, for example, whether a person can be raised as a homosexual, is inclined to homosexuality or is lured from it, or whether he can voluntarily choose it or give it up. It was precisely such a discussion that the applicant tried to initiate in the present case, but it could not be replaced by spontaneous opinions of officials, which the latter considered popular.’
As a result, the position of the Russian Federation was recognized as violating Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950.
Based on the results of the above analysis, it can be concluded that there are at least three different concepts in judicial practice: propaganda of ‘non-traditional sexual relations’ themselves (including homosexuality); promotion of the ‘rights and freedoms of sexual minorities’; and “information’ about homosexuality and discussion of the related issues.
The positions of the courts on each of these points are as follows: the ban of the first by the Russian courts is recognized as legitimate, and the ECHR has not ruled on this issue; the second is protected in Europe and is not banned by Russian courts; the third is recognized and defended by both the Russian and international courts…”
Source: https://www.garant.ru/ia/opinion/havanskij/479268/
October 10, 2014 — “LGBT and the Law
“The Constitutional Court issued an explanation regarding the controversial law banning the dissemination of information promoting non-traditional sexual relations among minors (the common name is ‘the law on the prohibition of propaganda of homosexuality’). The reason for the clarification was the appeal to the Constitutional Court by LGBT activists Nikolai Alekseev (right), Yaroslav Yevtushenko and Dmitri Isakov: they were found guilty of an offense for holding public events in violation of this law.
The Law introduced article 6.21 into the Code of Administrative Offences — ‘Propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors’, which implies a fine of four to five thousand rubles. Alekseev and Yevtushenko became the first in the country convicted under this law — for their picketing outside the children’s library in Arkhangelsk with a poster ‘Gay propaganda does not exist. They don’t become gay, they are born gay!’ (The Arkhangelsk region was one of the first regions where this law was adopted even before its consideration in the Duma). Isakov, who held a lone picket in Kazan, received his fine due to the fact that a teenager from Arkhangelsk, Eric Fedoseev, read about this picket on the Internet and wrote a statement to the police. All three activists have filed complaints with the European Court of Human Rights.
The Constitutional Court considered the law and the article introduced in the Administrative Code and ruled that it did not contradict the Constitution. But in addition, the judge of the Constitutional Court Nikolai Bondar, commenting on the position of the court, said that the article ‘does not prevent an impartial public discussion of the legal status of sexual minorities, including by holding public events in accordance with the procedure established by law. However, minors should not be involved in the relevant activities, and the information disseminated should not be targeted at them.’
Nikolai Alekseev, one of the most active figures in the Moscow LGBT movement, has already managed to call this reasoning of the Constitutional Court a significant breakthrough in the fight for LGBT rights. Natalia Tsymbalova, coordinator of the Alliance of Heterosexuals for LGBT Equality, agrees with him: ‘The ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation seems to me a very important milestone in the struggle for the right to freedom of assembly of the LGBT community,’ she said, but added that ‘ideally, the court should have recognized the notorious law on gay propaganda unconstitutional, but agreed that “no one expected such a demarche in the current political situation.’ Nevertheless, according to her, it is important that ‘the court forbade an expansive interpretation of the law, which is often done by various political machinations and homophobes in our country. Now it is explicitly stated that the law cannot be the basis for banning public actions, discussions and other events in defence of LGBT rights.’
Nevertheless, Tsymbalova, who has extensive experience in holding actions in defence of LGBT people and negotiations with the St. Petersburg administration, noted that ‘the practice of St. Petersburg is such that our rights to freedom of assembly are often violated by the authorities but not at all on the basis of the law on gay propaganda. In St. Petersburg, this law was rarely applied. Here officials are much more likely to come up with various other loopholes to refuse to approve permits. For example, in February 2013, with the support of the Democratic Petersburg coalition, we tried to organize a rally against the law on gay propaganda, which was still a draft law at that time and was to be considered in the next reading by the State Duma. The authorities refused to authorize this rally for us at 20 (twenty!) in different places, having come up with a variety of excuses (such as repair work, the proximity of courthouses, the fact that we will allegedly interfere with passers-by and similar fictions). It is obvious that the ban on the rally was a political decision, but the law on propaganda did not appear in the refusals in any way.’
Another St. Petersburg activist, gender researcher Valery Sozaev, in a conversation with OVD-Info, also noted that, despite what the Constitutional Court says, ‘there is practical implementation on the ground.’ He said that in addition to banning the actions, some government representatives in for outright provocation to disrupt LGBT events: for example, deputy of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly Vitaly Milonov, known for his fierce struggle against LGBT people, and his assistant Anatoly Artyukh ‘constantly bring minors to our demonstrations for the purpose of provocation. Milonov comes with his own children to the actions of LGBT activists, thus provoking the guards, the police to stop these actions.’ Sozaev suspects that law enforcement practice will change little with the release of the judgement of the Constitutional Court: ‘There have been decisions of the Constitutional Court concerning regional laws — Arkhangelsk, St. Petersburg, Kostroma. LGBT activists apply these resolutions, but there is no outcome from this either.’…
Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code is still used quite rarely in the wake of past actions. In Moscow, for the first time, charges under this article were brought last year against LGBT activist Alexei Davydov, who was detained during a picket outside the Russian State Children’s Library with a poster “Being gay is normal”, and five other people detained with him (this was the only case of charges under this article noted by the Department of Internal Affairs-Info in Moscow for the year).
In this context, the decision of the magistrate of the judicial precinct No. 423 of the Tverskoy district of Moscow to pay compensation to LGBT activist Irina Fedotova, , who was sentenced to a fine for a single picket against the law of the Ryazan region on “propaganda of homosexuality”, adopted back in 2006, was unprecedented.
Events in defense of LGBT rights often become a reason for detention even without the application of the relevant article: according to OVD-Info, in 2013 in Moscow, the relative number of events on such topics where detentions occur is 7.1% (in 2012 — 0.9%), the number of detentions on them is 11.4% (in 2012 year — 1.2%). The average number of detentions per LGBT support event in 2013 is 13.9. In St. Petersburg during the same period, the share of detainees at LGBT events from the total number of detainees at mass events was 12.1%, the number of LGBT events with detentions is 7.1% of the total. The average number of detentions per LGBT event in St. Petersburg is 18.7.
Much more often, the article is used by regional authorities to refuse permits for rallies and protest meetings. As recently as October 1, the Moscow authorities banned the holding of an LGBT march for one hundred people, since “the information contained in the text of the notification about holding a public event suggests that the goals of the planned march violate the prohibitions provided for by federal laws Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation – ‘holding a public event by this group of citizens in places open to free access will cause moral harm to children and adolescents who have become unwitting witnesses, offend religious and moral feelings, humiliate the human dignity of other citizens, violate their rights and freedoms, which will cause a negative reaction of society and may provoke illegal actions by persons who do not share views their participants’; and in addition, the march ‘will interfere with the movement of pedestrians, violate the rights of citizens who do not participate in it.’…
A curious story happened with the approval of LGBT actions in Kostroma in June. The gay march on June 1 was immediately refused in connection with the celebrations of Children’s Day in the city. The march, scheduled for June 2, was unexpectedly agreed (though not in the place where the organizers wanted), but later the approval was withdrawn due to a sewer accident. After lengthy court proceedings, Nikolai Alekseev managed to obtain recognition of both refusals as illegal…
Some LGBT activists, focusing on the current legislative and law enforcement practice, prefer to move away from symbols and even words directly related to LGBT topics when holding events. As the head of the Murmansk LGBT organization Maximum Centre Sergei Alekseenko told OVD-Info, recently all their public events ‘were organized so that there were not even words with the root ‘homo’ or ‘LGBT’. ‘We try to avoid these words so that we are not accused of violating this law. We have not had a single refusal, but we do not declare actions specifically as LGBT and we often file notifications for actions against xenophobia in society in general, and not just against homophobia,’ says Alekseenko. ‘We don’t go out with rainbow flags, we don’t go out with some harsh slogans, as they do in St. Petersburg and Moscow, especially ultra-activists. We are moderate. We are not trying to create a provocation, we want people to see and think once again.’ According to him, usually the authorities do not refuse permits to hold the event…
The law on the prohibition of propaganda among minors of ‘non-traditional sexual relations’ has been repeatedly tried to be applied for prosecuting specific individuals without connection to public street events. In the Khabarovsk Territory, Alexander Suturin, the editor-in-chief of the local newspaper Young Far East, was sentenced to a fine of 50 thousand rubles for publishing an interview with geography teacher Alexander Yermoshkin, who was fired from his job for LGBT activism. Suturin was accused of violating part 2 of Article 6.21 — on propaganda through the media, which already entails a much larger fine than participation in the event. In May of this year, a Murmansk activist Violetta Grudina was charged due to the fact that minors were found in the group of the Maximum Center in the VKontakte social network, of which she is one of the administrators.
In addition, Elena Klimova, a journalist from Nizhny Tagil, the author of the project Children-404 about homosexual teenagers, was accused of creating a ‘page promoting non-traditional sexual relations’ in the VKontakte social network. The indictment for the offense was filed by the St. Petersburg deputy Vitaly Milonov. However, the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Nizhny Tagil terminated the proceedings in the case due to the fact that the administrative protocol against Klimova had been drawn up with violations.”
Source: https://ovdinfo.org/articles/2014/10/06/lgbt-i-zakon
The Yury Dud case, July 2022
“Yuri Dud was fined 120 thousand rubles for an article about ‘gay propaganda’ among children. The magistrate of the judicial precinct No. 271 in the Lefortovo district in Moscow fined journalist Yuri Dud 120 thousand rubles under the article on ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors’ (part 2 of Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code). This was reported by the Telegram channel for Moscow courts of general jurisdiction. According to the docket of the administrative case, the court issued its decision on July 7. What became the reason for the administrative case has not been specified. The head of the Safe Internet League Yekaterina Mizulina claims that the protocol against Dud was drawn up because of an interview with the artist and openly gay Fyodor Pavlov-Andreevich, which was published on the YouTube channel “VDUD” in April 2021…”
Source: https://www.currenttime.tv/a/dud-oshtrafovali-gey-propaganda/31939583.html
Left image: Fyodor Pavlov-Andreevich in interview broadcast from Brazil with Yury Dud. Right: Yekaterina Mizulina.
Enforcement statistics
Judicial practice under Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation
“According to the statistics of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in 2014 Russian courts issued a total of two decisions on the imposition of fines totaling 245 thousand rubles for ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations’ under Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In particular, one legal entity and one official were fined. In addition, cases were opened against five other people under this article, but all of them were acquitted, and the proceedings were terminated. In particular, in August 2014, in the Smolensk region, the manufacturer of the children’s game ‘Fanta’ was fined, because one of the tasks required players to portray a date for a same-sex couple. In January 2014, the editor of the newspaper Young Far East Alexander Suturin was fined in Khabarovsk for publishing the material ‘The Story of Gayography’ about the dismissal of a homosexual teacher Alexander Yermoshkin.
In January 2015, Elena Klimova was fined under Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code for creating the project ‘Children-404’ about LGBT teenagers. In October 2016, the project’s website was also listed by Roskomnadzor in the unified register of prohibited sites. Already earlier in September 2015, the social network VKontakte, at the request of Roskomnadzor, blocked the community ‘Children-404’.
According to the human rights organization “Agora”, in 2016, under Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, Russian courts considered cases against 12 people, of whom 8 were found guilty and fined an average of 50 thousand rubles. The main point of the accusation was the dissemination of media materials about LGBT people and the publication of their own posts on social networks. A total of 15 people were fined for ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” under federal law by that time.
In 2017, Evdokia Romanova, a resident of Samara, was fined 50 thousand rubles by the court for promoting homosexuality. It is clarified that the girl reposted links to articles by The Guardian and BuzzFeed about LGBT people on her Facebook page.
In March 2018 , it was reported that the website gay.ru was listed in the Roskomnadzor unified register of banned sites because of the promotion of non-traditional relationships among minors, despite the 18 years of age warning note on the site.
In August 2018, a 16-year-old schoolboy Maxim Neverov from Biysk was fined 50 thousand rubles. According to the protocol of the administrative offense, the teenager posted on his VKontakte page ‘an image of the actions of young people and their appearance (half-naked body parts), which, according to the expert’s conclusion, show signs of propaganda for same-sex relations’.
According to statistics published on the website of the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of Russia, a record number of cases under Article 6.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation was sent to the courts in 2019 — 20 in total. At the same time, only 4 people were brought to formal court proceedings in these 20 cases, with a total amount of fines, 108,000 rubles. According to Alexander Belik, a lawyer for the Russian LGBT Network, this indicates that the majority of courts is implementing the ECHR decision in the case of Bayev v. Russia, recognizing the statute on propaganda to be discriminatory.”
Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/
Left: the text of the Bayev ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, June 20, 2017 -- https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-174422%22]} Right, ECHR Judge Dmitry Dedov who issued the dissenting opinion on the 7-judge panel.
Excerpts of the Dedov opinion in the Bayev case, June 2017
“To my regret, I voted against finding a violation of Article 10. The Court has found that the legal provisions in question do not serve to advance the legitimate aim of the protection of morals, and that such measures are likely to be counter-productive in achieving the declared legitimate aims of the protection of health and the protection of the rights of others. Briefly, my reasoning is as follows.
The Court refused to accept that the interference had a legitimate aim, namely the protection of public morals, public health and the rights of others. The Court did not take into account the fact that the impugned Law sought to protect the privacy (including the dignity and integrity) of the children and the convictions of their parents as to how their children should organise their family life. In the present case the Court deals not with the conflicting views, but with the conflict of rights, namely, the right to freedom of expression and the right to private and family life. In the situation of conflicting interests in cases regarding freedom of expression the Court usually strikes a balance between conflicting rights. The Court completely refused to do that in the present case, even in the part of the judgment assigned to the analysis of the rights of others…
Needless to say, sexual identification, as well as sexual orientation, is a very intimate process, albeit influenced by social life and social relations. The international instruments, including the CRC, recognise that children should primarily consult their parents or close members of the family, rather than obtaining information about sex from the applicants’ posters in the street.
Indeed, the impugned provision of the Law pursues the primary aim of protecting the values of a traditional family. This provision could be interpreted as supporting the family and maternity. It could not be interpreted as preventing adults from engaging in same-sex relations, as it could be in a discrimination case. Fortunately, the Court has already supported the State’s duty to protect the right to family and maternity of vulnerable female prisoners in a life-sentence case
The Court has concluded that the minors who witnessed the applicants’ campaign were exposed to the ideas of diversity, equality and tolerance, and that the adoption of these views could only be conducive to social cohesion. I am not sure that that was clear enough for the children, or that they could come to such a conclusion, which requires knowledge and understanding of those high principles. The various research confirms that younger children do have difficulty in maintaining a consistent view on universal rights, expressing uncertainty about prohibiting freedom of speech[3]. It should be added that the above values have not been explicitly expressed by the applicants. Obviously, education in the context of sexual relations (a very intimate and sensitive subject) should be dispensed with great caution. Therefore, it is difficult to agree that a slogan raised on the street can satisfy any educational purposes…
Personally, I agree that children should be educated in an environment free from violence based on different sexual orientation; however, the applicants did not provide the Court or national authorities with any evidence that there was such a case (namely, a case of violence among children) in the particular school or library where the applicants held their demonstrations. Also, no such application was lodged with the Court.
The Court, in the present case, did not seriously take into account the fact that the private life of children is more important than the freedom of expression of homosexuals. It appears from the circumstances of the case that all the demonstrations were held in order to promote non-traditional sexual relations (which is not itself an issue of public interest); they were not held to express opinions on issues of public interest such as same-sex marriage or adoption. Two of the demonstrations were held in front of the school, without consultation with the teachers, and without targeting a certain category of pupils of a certain advanced age, and there was no other evidence to conclude that the purpose of the demonstration was to involve children in a discussion of social problems like tolerance. The applicants themselves acknowledged that the choice of venues and the content of the banners had been intentional to protest against the legislative acts in question (see paragraph 52 of the judgment). The applicants would like to demonstrate that homosexuality is normal and natural. However, homosexuality is not persecuted either by the State authorities or by the children of the school or their parents, and society in Russia in general is tolerant of this phenomenon. Many homosexuals are public figures who are accomplished in the arts, business and State governance. In the event of violence against homosexuals, any such case could be brought before the Court if the national authorities have failed to fulfil their positive obligations. However, there was no reason based on factual circumstances to hold demonstrations in those particular places.
The Court has concluded that the promotion of same-sex relations is not detrimental for public morals, health or rights of others, even if the opinion was expressed in direct conflict with the right to private life. The Court was satisfied that in staging their demonstrations the applicants did not seek to interact with minors, nor intrude into their private space (see paragraph 80 of the judgment). I believe that this view is completely contrary to the Court’s established case-law, because the existence of a conflict between freedom of expression and private life is not dependent on any intrusion into a private place in its literal sense, but in the present case it constitutes an intrusion into a perception of a lifestyle! “The present case is quite complex. It presents not merely a conflict between the right to freedom of expression and the right to private and family life; there is also a conflict between different forms of self-identification of a person. This issue is vital for both conflicting parties, and they will never come to an agreement…”
Leave a Reply