Big Bad Bears - Russia and Putin

[Spudulika]

Just a question(s) on posters views on the current situation. I've been outside of Russia twice in the last 12 months and have been subject to 2 sides of media (Irish/British/US - Russian). In the Summer it seemed like a full on invasion was about to happen in Ukraine, the "western" media had a field day and the Russian media were full of pomposity.

The situation here is not great and getting not greater (okay, worse) daily. As the price of oil sinks, and buckwheat flies off the shelves, and EU holidays are cancelled, I feel further and further from outside input. The vocal "liberal" groups have all but vanished and people who marched against Putin and co now hail him as a hero.

What are your opinions on what's happening?

[Mr A]

Putin has had too much power for too long and that makes him very dangerous indeed, as outlined here: https://theconversation.com/putins-contempt-for-the-world-must-not-be-appeased-24507

Ian Robertson's blog can be found here- http://professorianrobertson.wordpress.com/blog/ I find it very interesting. We can only hope that as the sanctions and oil prices start to bite Putin doesn't do anything too mental.

[Spudulika]

Going to have a good look at that blog - thanksMr A!

I know it's easy to see Putin as the main man, but there is a grouping around him, all ex-KGB/FSB or current officers who infest the government and main companies. THe biggest milk cows - Gazprom, Sberbank - are secret services beasts. Putin does seem to have gone a mad ott, leaving his wife was a surprise, even though he'd been shacked up and had a kid with Kabaeva, but he almost lost his biggest constituency (or a very large part) by doing that. He hasn't shown up in public with a new squeeze and there is no rag like the Indo or Sun here (who go after protected sources), and anything that comes from outside Russia is dismissed as hate.

If the economy continues it's tumble (with the euro expected to hit 73 rbs this week), then we'll see what will happen. On Friday I looked at one of my old payslips, from June last year, and compared it with June this year. 41 rbs = 1euro, to 43 rbs, now we're ove 70rbs for a euro.

[DannyInvincible]

I came across this on Salon the other day, which might be of interest; 'These are lies the New York Times wants you to believe about Russia': http://www.salon.com/2014/12/11/these_are_lies_the_new_york_times_wants_you_to_bel ieve_about_russia/

[Spudulika]

Thanks Danny. The point about people making out like bandits is dead right. The "entente" between Russia and Ukraine came about when the election for President was won by Poroshenko. Why did he spend his dwindling reserves on the campaign? Because his company's main trading partner is....Russia! Russia banned Ukrainian products at the turn of the year and his company, Roshen, were gone. So he wins the presidency, keeps the oil and gas moving and looks for peace.

The Salon article is very interesting, makes you think.

[passinginterest]

Interesting article from John Pilger here (http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda) which takes a different angle on the Ukraine crisis.

Many in the western media haves worked hard to present the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.

What the Russian president has to say is of no consequence; he is a pantomime villain who can be abused with impunity. An American general who heads Nato and is straight out of Dr. Strangelove - one General Breedlove - routinely claims Russian invasions without a shred of visual evidence. His impersonation of Stanley Kubrick's General Jack D. Ripper is pitch perfect.

[Spudulika]

Just on that last piece, from Pilger (who is a great journalist and documentarian), I think but I could be wrong, weren't the Yanks caught discussing ways to overthrow/realign the Ukrainian government because they didn't like the way the people elected Yanukovich? I thought it very funny when the big love-in for Timoshenko went on and on, she was and is a crook and what is very sad, is that those at the top of Ukranian power (from any ethnic background) are all "business people" who benefit massively from doling out contracts to themselves.

One great yoke to look up, and who would make our Jackie Healy Rae look like a paragon of virtue, rock of sense and daycent fella, is Vladimir Zhirinovsky! Google the name, sit back and be shocked!

[Spudulika]

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/russia-ups-key-interest-rate-to-17-in-middle-of-night-surprise-1.2038955

This happened on "Siberian time". Getting a tad worrying! Just FYI, mortgage interest rates (with a 20-30% deposit) range from 10-14%, think Ireland in the 1980's!

[Spudulika]

3 Russian premier clubs are in serious trouble, and a 4th has filed for "protection". Amkar, Rostov and Torpedo are in serious debt with players unpaid and problems with stadia. Mordovia are the worst off but are trying to hang on. Big problems for clubs with foreign players as they are losing massive amounts having on forex. Interesting that last week the FA made a big deal of trying to force limits of foreigners. Not an issue as such as all local players (down to 2nd division) negotiate their contracts against the dollar or euro.

[mypost]

Just a question(s) on posters views on the current situation. I've been outside of Russia twice in the last 12 months and have been subject to 2 sides of media (Irish/British/US - Russian). In the Summer it seemed like a full on invasion was about to happen in Ukraine, the "western" media had a field day and the Russian media were full of pomposity.

The vocal "liberal" groups have all but vanished and people who marched against Putin and co now hail him as a hero.

What are your opinions on what's happening?

The marchers may have gone home, but that doesn't mean they love Putin. Russia is not a free country, so while he is popular, I don't take his official poll ratings as gospel.

4,000 people have been lost in Ukraine in one of the most stupid wars I've ever heard of. More people have been killed there in one year than the entire war in NI. The Irish and British media are more concerned though about his advocacy of traditional family friendly policies than his influences in Ukraine, and every time a debate is had in this country about Putin, that subject raises it's head. It dominated the build up to the Sochi Olympics, rather than those who fell during the Kiev revolution. However I fully support his policies in that regard, as do most Russians.

Russia tried a fully fledged open democracy in the 90's, which saw all the old certainties torn up. They didn't like it very much so they elected Putin, a strong firm leader to make them relevant again. He's going to be there for another 10 years, so whether they like him or not, the West is going to have to get on with him.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Putin is the biggest threat to European peace since Adolf Hitler & Slobodan Milosevic.

Putin's desire is too restablish the old borders of the USSR.

[Spudulika]

The marchers may have gone home, but that doesn't mean they love Putin. Russia is not a free country, so while he is popular, I don't take his official poll ratings as gospel.

4,000 people have been lost in Ukraine in one of the most stupid wars I've ever heard of. More people have been killed there in one year than the entire war in NI. The Irish and British media are more concerned though about his advocacy of traditional family friendly policies than his influences in Ukraine, and every time a debate is had in this country about Putin, that subject raises it's head. It dominated the build up to the Sochi Olympics, rather than those who fell during the Kiev revolution. However I fully support his policies in that regard, as do most Russians.

Russia tried a fully fledged open democracy in the 90's, which saw all the old certainties torn up. They didn't like it very much so they elected Putin, a strong firm leader to make them relevant again. He's going to be there for another 10 years, so whether they like him or not, the West is going to have to get on with him.

You have hit the nail on the head - all the talk about freedom etc, and there is a full scale war going on! What irked me about the media here and outside is the fact that while it was clear (from communications and then open rhetoric) that the US had advocated and pushed for a coup in Kiev, the Russians quickly prepared to support the "breakaway" group.

I do not like the local media being quite reticent in questioning fully, but as in Ireland there are lone voices which most of the population ignore. Yesterday he got away with an amazingly funny/arrogant statement on salary. Asked about the levels of compensation for officials and whether they're worth it, he answered very correctly, but began with "I don't know how much I'm paid, the money arrives in my account and I don't check it." It was funny, it was dodgy, but how much dodgier is it than Bertie claiming he didn't know how to open a bank account or his magic safe; or Tony Blair and George Bush saying it wasn't (after all) important that there were no WMD's; or any other list of remarks that go unchallenged.

It is a sad fact that Putin inherited a mess that was a combo wet dream of dodgy locals and "innovative genii" from the West, they bankrupted the country and Putin has picked up (and pocketed parts of) the pieces. His social policies are in line with the overwhelming majority of Russians and if he is to do something right he will remove backing for the crooks in East Ukraine. As for Crimea, the locals voted and left - Kosovo ring a bell?

[Spudulika]

Putin is the biggest threat to European peace since Adolf Hitler & Slobodan Milosevic.

Putin's desire is too restablish the old borders of the USSR.

Jinxy, don't agree with the first part - what about Stalin, Bush GW, Blair, the Saudi Royal family, the Qatari Emirs......and on and on. It was the US eejits who forced things over the top in Ukraine:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/17/nato-ukraine-dr-strangelove-china-us
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/28/obamas-dumbest-plan-yet/

I do agree he is looking to bring back some sort of USSR, at least with those places worthwhile (with natural resources). But Russia is more afraid of breaking up from within. The catastrophic demographics are an issue, as is the growth of radical Islamism and shortage of labour.

I'd love to see things get better, but it's looking worse.

[Spudulika]

http://www.ketchum.com/about

Just a small aside, this crew advise Putin and the Russian Government on PR etc. Makes you think! :-)

[bennocelt]

Remind me how the billions invested in the snooze fest that is the winter Olympics benefited Russia. Surely that looks like a colossal waster of money now?

[Spudulika]

Remind me how the billions invested in the snooze fest that is the winter Olympics benefited Russia. Surely that looks like a colossal waster of money now?

Benno, I agree (that it was boring), I watched maybe 1 minute of hockey and 2 Irish athletes, that's it. As with the World Athletics tickets were being given (and travel paid) to the games. There was a boost for infrastructure, lots of people made money (including many international companies) and the country were happy it was a success. But it was "just" a snow games things.

Waste of money, I don't know. It made this summer better for domestic tourism and for the forseeable future too - as locals can't afford to shell out for euros! Regardless, it was an ego trip and "taking the place on the world stage" thing. Like the Germans trying to rejoin the human race in the 1970's, Cold War battle 1980-4, Blair and the bankers 2012, Coke and Turner 1996, etc etc.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Jinxy, don't agree with the first part - what about Stalin, Bush GW, Blair, the Saudi Royal family, the Qatari Emirs......and on and on. It was the US eejits who forced things over the top in Ukraine:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/17/nato-ukraine-dr-strangelove-china-us
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/28/obamas-dumbest-plan-yet/

I do agree he is looking to bring back some sort of USSR, at least with those places worthwhile (with natural resources). But Russia is more afraid of breaking up from within. The catastrophic demographics are an issue, as is the growth of radical Islamism and shortage of labour.

I'd love to see things get better, but it's looking worse.

My omission of Stalin was an oversight but according to the times they were it was claimed he was the lesser of 2 evils.

The issue in the eastern Ukraine and the Crimea stinks to me of the German Anschluss in 36 in and the repatriation of the Sudetenland in 37. Russia is a police state, it's not democratic and does not enjoy freedom of expression.
Even their laws against homosexuality should of brought sanctions sooner. This would of been done if the laws were against Black's, Jews etc

[mypost]

You have hit the nail on the head - all the talk about freedom etc, and there is a full scale war going on! What irked me about the media here and outside is the fact that while it was clear (from communications and then open rhetoric) that the US had advocated and pushed for a coup in Kiev.

Sorry, have to stop you there.

That line from the Kremlin has fooled many of their own citizens, there's no need to fool you too. America didn't push for any coup in Kiev. America doesn't push for coups. What America demands is that people are able to air their voices on whatever given issue in an open, free country. In Kiev, people gathered around Nezhaleshnosti to protest that their President sign their EU Association agreement. His response was to get the police to beat them up, just as the protest was about to break up.

Things rapidly went downhill from there, and soon enough the protesters wanted him to resign and call early elections. Ukrainians are not Irish protesters that turn up with a few placards, hand in a letter of protest, hit the boozer and go home. When they protest, they get out in the frost and the snow, set up camp in Nezhaleshnosti Square and don't shift until their demands are met. 10 years ago they drove Yanukovich out of office. This year they did it again, while America looked on and left the people there to their own fate, however it ended up, as they do now.


As for Crimea, the locals voted and left - Kosovo ring a bell?

No. In Crimea, however rigged the vote was, they consulted the people. Kosovo didn't even bother doing that. They just declared their independence without any consultation/negotiation with their own people or neighbours, hence I do not recognise their declaration. Those that do, are merely out to kick the Serbs for their involvement in previous Balkan conflicts, no other reason.


Even their laws against homosexuality should of brought sanctions sooner.

There are many nationalities and countries across the world that hate it and have zero tolerance of it. By comparison, Russia's (and Ukraine's) approach to it is mild. If you're going to start sanctioning one country for it, you have to sanction them all, and that isn't going to happen.

[Spudulika]

My omission of Stalin was an oversight but according to the times they were it was claimed he was the lesser of 2 evils.

The issue in the eastern Ukraine and the Crimea stinks to me of the German Anschluss in 36 in and the repatriation of the Sudetenland in 37. Russia is a police state, it's not democratic and does not enjoy freedom of expression.
Even their laws against homosexuality should of brought sanctions sooner. This would of been done if the laws were against Black's, Jews etc

Eastern Ukraine was a manufactured situation, it suited a lot of businesses and was wrong, is wrong. I don't know if it can be compared to 1936, as Russian troops did not invade, however there were/are"volunteers", but they arrived on both sides, including some of the real slime of the earth from Croatia and Canada.

About the police state, not as much as we'd think, but it has less freedom than the locals have sought, at least the majority. That sounds a bit pedantic, but there is a large and vocal minority who don't see freedom as having much to recommend it, for whatever reasons.

laws against homosexuality - no such laws exist, unlike in countries where the west and US happily do business. It was funny last evening hearing about Hozier (I only heard his name last week on a Joe Duffy show) and his drum beating 20 odd years too late. Apparently his video, shot in Clare, was in support of gay rights in Russia, can only say Guinness and Immy Sommerville did it way better, and earlier, and with better music.

You are right about laws against jews or blacks - such as those against jews in the Middle East (and christians for that matter), however sanctions are far from the minds of the businesses and government doing business there. We kind of need balance.

[Spudulika]

Sorry, have to stop you there.

That line from the Kremlin has fooled many of their own citizens, there's no need to fool you too. America didn't push for any coup in Kiev. America doesn't push for coups. What America demands is that people are able to air their voices on whatever given issue in an open, free country. In Kiev, people gathered around Nezhaleshnosti to protest that their President sign their EU Association agreement. His response was to get the police to beat them up, just as the protest was about to break up.

Things rapidly went downhill from there, and soon enough the protesters wanted him to resign and call early elections. Ukrainians are not Irish protesters that turn up with a few placards, hand in a letter of protest, hit the boozer and go home. When they protest, they get out in the frost and the snow, set up camp in Nezhaleshnosti Square and don't shift until their demands are met. 10 years ago they drove Yanukovich out of office. This year they did it again, while America looked on and left the people there to their own fate, however it ended up, as they do now.

Mypost - I was not fooled by the recordings of US diplomats discussing who who should be in power (I listened on NPR as well as from alternative sources), nor by the US fronts who got into the rage machine. I saw it first hand in Croatia and experienced it in Serbia at what they can get up to, though the public sentiment in Euromaidan was real, until it was taken over by real vested interests who were bought and paid for. Ukraine has been governed by klepto's (although I will give an honourable mention to Yuschenko - despite his being in the pocket of Poroshenko), and any objectivity went out the window as soon as the locals were not given a chance to decide for themselves. It woudl be simple to believe that it was all simple, however the country was, and is, a playground for powr players.

No. In Crimea, however rigged the vote was, they consulted the people. Kosovo didn't even bother doing that. They just declared their independence without any consultation/negotiation with their own people or neighbours, hence I do not recognise their declaration. Those that do, are merely out to kick the Serbs for their involvement in previous Balkan conflicts, no other reason.
Agreed on the rigged vote, though it is throwing up all maner of problems now with returning/disgruntled Tatars who have rights to much of the prime resort land in the region. Kosovo was a great win for many countries who buried their secrets there, the recent CIA torture report added to the list of "useful things" Kosovo provided. Add to that profits for tobacco and drug companies (inlcuding a large Russian player) and it is the best little country in the Balkans.


There are many nationalities and countries across the world that hate it and have zero tolerance of it. By comparison, Russia's (and Ukraine's) approach to it is mild. If you're going to start sanctioning one country for it, you have to sanction them all, and that isn't going to happen.[/QUOTE]

[DannyInvincible]

However I fully support his policies in that regard, as do most Russians.

Just to be clear, you fully support the discrimination of LGBT groups and individuals (a direct and inevitable consequence of the law against the display and dissemination of material and gestures perceived to be promoting "non-traditional" families, relationships and values)? Why exactly?


America doesn't push for coups. What America demands is that people are able to air their voices on whatever given issue in an open, free country.

That's nice... Sounds like something straight out of a CIA propaganda manual though. Shady US involvement in numerous attempted and successful coups around the world since the end of the Second World War is both well-documented and self-admitted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions ). The US has been directly or indirectly involved on a very frequent basis in the destabilisation and overthrow of multiple foreign governments, some even democratically-elected, down through the years where it has had absolutely no legal mandate whatsoever to be involved.

It's exceptionally naive (or intentionally pig-headed) to assume, think or claim that a driving motivation of US foreign policy might be the charitable and humanitarian. When such concerns are raised by the US, they serve to act as a facade or necessary illusion to conceal and justify via the manufacturing of public consent the pursuance of the real interests, which are so often played down or not explicitly mentioned at all. In fact, the US hasn't had any qualms with helping install or consolidate the power of despots, fascists, drug lords and paramilitary groups either from time to time - its interference has aided the rise of plenty - so talk of transparency and freedom has long worn thin. When the US purports to care about the plight of those in foreign countries, it is because purporting to be concerned about the plight of such people will prove beneficial to the grubby interests of the US.

[Spudulika]

Just to be clear, you fully support the discrimination of LGBT groups and individuals (a direct and inevitable consequence of the law against the display and dissemination of material and gestures perceived to be promoting "non-traditional" families, relationships and values)? Why exactly?
Danny, I think you're being a little unfair. It is not as simple as that and people are allowed to feel as they wish - otherwise it is as bad or worse than the thought/feeling controlled states that we all abhor. Mypost is very correct that the ovewhleming majority here do not wish to have such legal additions as same sex marriage etc, instead there has traditionally been a toleration of the old school style and a very active gay community. However with the external foment of "rights for all", the gay community has been pushed more underground and allowed for opportunists (like the great hero Navalny) to jump into the space and create fear. Navalny is completely opposed to lgbt rights, yet the liberal west hailed him as a hero. He is also overtly racist (Russia for Russians) and opposed to Caucasians, yet he received support from twits in the west, despite him being KGB/FSB and on the government payroll. So it is not a simple situation, however people should be free to live their lives as they choose without fear of idiots chasing them in the streets.

Actually, one funny point is the subliminally gay attitude in Russian culture (especially amongst the Caucasians). Now that the New Year pukefest is launching on our tv screens, we will be treated to endless hours of flamboyant performers in scenes that even Little Britain couldn't dream up. You have big local stars who are beyond doubt gay (Filip Kirkorov, Dima Bilan) but in fine George Michael, Ricky Martin style are kept in the closet so that they continue selling records.



That's nice... Sounds like something straight out of a CIA propaganda manual though. Shady US involvement in numerous attempted and successful coups around the world since the end of the Second World War is both well-documented and self-admitted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions ). The US has been directly or indirectly involved on a very frequent basis in the destabilisation and overthrow of multiple foreign governments, some even democratically-elected, down through the years where it has had absolutely no legal mandate whatsoever to be involved.

It's exceptionally naive (or intentionally pig-headed) to assume, think or claim that a driving motivation of US foreign policy might be the charitable and humanitarian. When such concerns are raised by the US, they serve to act as a facade or necessary illusion to conceal and justify via the manufacturing of public consent the pursuance of the real interests, which are so often played down or not explicitly mentioned at all. In fact, the US hasn't had any qualms with helping install or consolidate the power of despots, fascists, drug lords and paramilitary groups either from time to time - its interference has aided the rise of plenty - so talk of transparency and freedom has long worn thin. When the US purports to care about the plight of those in foreign countries, it is because purporting to be concerned about the plight of such people will prove beneficial to the grubby interests of the US.[/QUOTE]

We're experiencing the legacy of the Bush II regime with billions sent into Ukraine to "bring them closer to Europe". What I think is missed out with what happened in Ukraine, is that it was a coup. The legally elected government was chased out of office and now in its place is something as corrupt.

What is it that was said by a US lawmaker - "he may be an s.o.b. but he's our s.o.b."

If we're being honest, we haven't a clue what is really going on. I was listening a little earlier to a clown on the George Hook variety hour (some professor from London), spouting on about Russia being dangerous etc and the Germans being bad. He claimed that Putin and Russia were responsible for the destabilisation off Eastern Europe and Europe. That it is worse than islamist terrorism. Almost dropped my mug of tea. He mentioned the Saudi's only in relation to oil, but nothing about their promotion of terrorism from Palestine to the UK to Canada to Australia. Nothing about the relationship of UK illegal ventures into the MIddle East as destabilising the World. Seems that the agenda needs only certain "facts".

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, I think you're being a little unfair. It is not as simple as that and people are allowed to feel as they wish - otherwise it is as bad or worse than the thought/feeling controlled states that we all abhor.

I agree completely; he's entitled to his view, appears willing to express it (which is a good thing in a free and open society, even if I disagree with it in substance) and so he/we can discuss it without fear of suppression, which is why I invited him to clarify his position and offered him the opportunity to explain why he feels that way, if he indeed wishes to do so. :) I'd be interested in hearing a rational defence of what I think is a discriminatory law. Would anyone argue that it isn't discriminatory in nature?


instead there has traditionally been a toleration of the old school style and a very active gay community.

What is the old-school style exactly? Do you mean the school of "traditional family values"? If so, why would there traditionally be a tolerance of a very active gay community along with this, or do you mean that there are these old-school values and then there is a very active gay community separate from those and in direct political conflict with those who possess these values?

[Spudulika]

It is both easy and hard to explain. So I'll do it so that I can understand it myself.
1. There are no gays in Russia - it's a foreign thing.
2. Those lads who act a bit "queer" on the telly are just gas.
3. That unmarried male/female relative who loves their Mammy just is, well, different.

I am being entirely flippant during this season of goodwill, but it is so in Russia. I pointed out to my ex that her female friend's "boyfriend" was most definitely gay, and that his friends were also gay. She was in shock when her friend told her I was correct and that later, at a house party at which I was the only straight male, there was a very active and influential group of gay men from all walks of life. Some of these guys were married but said that in their cases they had to do so to keep their families happy.

So what I mean by old school, is that it is like the UK or Ireland from the 1960's-70's, and that society tolerates (a terrible word) or accepts (a better word) it as long as it's not shoved in their faces.

The confusion between gay-paedo and gay = bad parent, and gay = unmasculine, comes out in the word used to describe gays/lesbians in Russia - "unnatural". Once there was a build up of pressure from outside Russia on this situation, the society quickly rallied around to the idea that their values (or whatever they are) is under attack. Which made life more difficult for the gay community in Russia.

I will conclude with this - Putin goes around striking massively gay poses, in ways that a Western male leader would never think of doing - yet here it is manly. Go figure.

[mypost]

The constant promotion of non-traditional relationships via our media means that it is more socially tolerable to the public, as long as it doesn't actually involve themselves. No matter how tolerant they claim to be, every parent wants their adult offspring to form traditional relationships and would be deeply outraged and upset if they were told it was not possible. Putin has implemented family friendly legislation so that people can form traditional relationships in the future and so not endure a lifetime of public comment and discrimination.

Russia is a wonderful, yet complex country that most Westerners don't understand, but many western countries, Ireland included, should take a good look in the mirror when attacking Putin over what is a mild rule in a conservative country with far more serious issues on it's hands.

America wanted a pro-western government in Kiev. Nothing wrong with that. It was the people in Kiev though who had to go and get one, at a very heavy cost.

In both countries, December 25 is a normal working day. Their christmas is in the new year. Putin has cancelled his cabinet's holiday plans though, in solidarity with the people in light of the growing economic crisis. If only it happened over here, we might not have had the extent of the economic crisis we did have. But you can't cancel an Irish minister's holidays. A Dail TDs christmas holidays last 3-4 weeks while the rest of us try to put food on the table.

[osarusan]

Putin has implemented family friendly legislation so that people can form traditional relationships in the future and so not endure a lifetime of public comment and discrimination.

What discrimination would people forming traditional relationships endure in the future?

[peadar1987]

The constant promotion of non-traditional relationships via our media means that it is more socially tolerable to the public, as long as it doesn't actually involve themselves. No matter how tolerant they claim to be, every parent wants their adult offspring to form traditional relationships and would be deeply outraged and upset if they were told it was not possible. Putin has implemented family friendly legislation so that people can form traditional relationships in the future and so not endure a lifetime of public comment and discrimination.

Bullsh*t. Don't presume to speak for everyone. Perhaps some people get a little upset at the prospect of not having grandkids, but if we're going down that road, you're going to have to make laws against straight people who can't find a nice wife, or those who aren't interested in children.

Saying that straight couples will face discrimination if gay people are allowed to hold hands in public is homophobic paranoid delusion of the highest order.

[DannyInvincible]

What discrimination would people forming traditional relationships endure in the future?

Maybe I'm misreading him, but I think he means that, instead of getting into same-sex relationships, homosexual people, guided by the "family friendly" legislation, can form happy "traditional" relationships in order to avoid a life of hardship and ridicule for being gay. So, really, Putin is looking out for these poor misguided folks who need to be protected from themselves and their potential homosexual desires... :rolleyes: Pretty insulting nonsense whichever way it's to be interpreted.

[peadar1987]

Maybe I'm misreading him, but I think he means that, instead of getting into same-sex relationships, homosexual people, guided by the "family friendly" legislation, can form happy "traditional" relationships in order to avoid a life of hardship and ridicule for being gay. So, really, Putin is looking out for these poor misguided folks who need to be protected from themselves and their potential homosexual desires... :rolleyes: Pretty insulting nonsense whichever way it's to be interpreted.

Ah, I see, because gays are happiest when shamed into the closet. Good thing they have Putin looking out for them so!

[jinxy lilywhite]

The constant promotion of non-traditional relationships via our media means that it is more socially tolerable to the public, as long as it doesn't actually involve themselves. No matter how tolerant they claim to be, every parent wants their adult offspring to form traditional relationships and would be deeply outraged and upset if they were told it was not possible. Putin has implemented family friendly legislation so that people can form traditional relationships in the future and so not endure a lifetime of public comment and discrimination.

Russia is a wonderful, yet complex country that most Westerners don't understand, but many western countries, Ireland included, should take a good look in the mirror when attacking Putin over what is a mild rule in a conservative country with far more serious issues on it's hands.

America wanted a pro-western government in Kiev. Nothing wrong with that. It was the people in Kiev though who had to go and get one, at a very heavy cost.

In both countries, December 25 is a normal working day. Their christmas is in the new year. Putin has cancelled his cabinet's holiday plans though, in solidarity with the people in light of the growing economic crisis. If only it happened over here, we might not have had the extent of the economic crisis we did have. But you can't cancel an Irish minister's holidays. A Dail TDs christmas holidays last 3-4 weeks while the rest of us try to put food on the table.


The orthodox christian Christmas differs from the Roman Catholic one.

What is a traditional family though? Who gets to decide that? Should the state be that heavily involved in dictating what a family should be.

Homosexuality is as much about life choice as the choice of the color of your skin.

[Charlie Darwin]

No matter how tolerant they claim to be, every parent wants their adult offspring to form traditional relationships and would be deeply outraged and upset if they were told it was not possible.
Aha! Following the roaring success of his spaceship fleet, mypost has moved into the business of mind-reading. Classic foot.ie.

[Spudulika]

Before we all hammer mypost, I'll speak a little on his behalf, and as a parent of 2 (girl and boy) I'm going to be brutally honest. When my eldest was about to be born I wondered "What if she has some disability." After a moment I realised, I don't give a hoot, she's my girl and that's that. With my wee lad I thought, what if he chooses to be gay, and I thought of my daughter - if she decides to be lesbian. What was my reaction? Worry. That the world would be tough for them. That they might not find a good partner. That they might not find happiness. Not once did I think of grandkids, or what others would think of me. And then i realised - what would face them is the same as is they were straight. But no matter what they are my kids and I would defend them to the last.

In some societies (including our own), something like sexuality, or TB, or TV, or Downs - is seen as an inherent weakness in the gene pool. Can anyone say they haven't heard of tales from the TB times? The sufferer shunted down the garden to the coalshed and the family keeping it a secret in case the neighbours found out? Now remember that in Russia you have 99% of the population still in this mode. We can count ourselves lucky that we can discuss it.

For the legislation, we have all bought into the slam Russia (as they're not flavour of the year) propaganda. The law that was passed was far more wideranging and far more useful that 1 small clause. The full law was to protect youth from undue influence and it borrowed from EU, US and WTO guidelines. It removed advertising of alcohol from public areas, websites, newspapers, tv and radio. It reinforced the law preventing alcohol sales from kiosks (a major source of underage drinking). It reinforced an amendment for age appropriate warnings on advertisements, shows and movies. It further strengthened age appropriate ratings on news articles (something that was decried in the liberal world - because native advertising would be decimated). Western companies, especially video/net game producers, alcohol producers and media suppliers (especially the big US and German syndicates) went mental. They paid local PR companies to campaign against this law, and the nail they hammered - the prevention of promoting alternative lifestyles. It was the only one that flew as if the full facts were known, I think many countries, bar Ireland, would be less exercised.

Putin is only one of a large group, but some of what he does makes sense. A little, but it does.

[mypost]

Perhaps some people get a little upset at the prospect of not having grandkids, but if we're going down that road, you're going to have to make laws against straight people who can find a nice wife, or those who aren't interested in children.

Saying that straight couples will face discrimination if gay people are allowed to hold hands in public is homophobic paranoid delusion of the highest order.

That's not what I said at all.

But that "some" you speak of is in the billions. As I said before, the issue is simply taboo in most of the world. In extreme cases, marriages are arranged by parents. They are all in traditional format. I don't see the outrage by the west towards countries where such a practice is rife. Just pick on Russia. :(


What is a traditional family though? Should the state be that heavily involved in dictating what a family should be.

In this country, it is. Marriage is part of the Irish Constitution. We're a catholic nation, and our religion is deeply conservative on marriage.


Homosexuality is as much about life choice as the choice of the color of your skin.

Your skin colour is determined by your parents ethnicity. In order to keep the human race going, men and women are naturally attracted to each other, so if you choose a different path, you have to be prepared for the consequences as a result.


I''m going to be brutally honest. When my eldest was about to be born I wondered "What if she has some disability." After a moment I realised, I don't give a hoot, she's my girl and that's that. With my wee lad I thought, what if he chooses to be gay, and I thought of my daughter - if she decides to be lesbian. What was my reaction? Worry. That the world would be tough for them. That they might not find a good partner. That they might not find happiness. Not once did I think of grandkids, or what others would think of me. And then i realised - what would face them is the same as is they were straight. But no matter what they are my kids and I would defend them to the last.

Yes you would defend them and in a very conservative society, you would have a lot of defending to do. If they follow the natural path they're designed to, your life and theirs would be much easier.


For the legislation, we have all bought into the slam Russia (as they're not flavour of the year) propaganda. The law that was passed was far more wideranging and far more useful that 1 small clause. The full law was to protect youth from undue influence and it borrowed from EU, US and WTO guidelines. It removed advertising of alcohol from public areas, websites, newspapers, tv and radio. It reinforced the law preventing alcohol sales from kiosks (a major source of underage drinking). It reinforced an amendment for age appropriate warnings on advertisements, shows and movies. It further strengthened age appropriate ratings on news articles (something that was decried in the liberal world - because native advertising would be decimated). Western companies, especially video/net game producers, alcohol producers and media suppliers (especially the big US and German syndicates) went mental. They paid local PR companies to campaign against this law, and the nail they hammered - the prevention of promoting alternative lifestyles. It was the only one that flew as if the full facts were known, I think many countries, bar Ireland, would be less exercised.

Putin is only one of a large group, but some of what he does makes sense. A little, but it does.

And amidst his economic issues, his Ukraine issues, his geopolitical issues, where people are literally dying by/from his influence/actions, it's his homo policy that our media are most bothered about.

Occasionally our broadcast media produce what initially look like credible documentaries on Russian life and culture. Russia is the biggest country in the world with incredible contrasts in people, lifestyles, cultures and fantastic attractions from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok. However many docs are almost exclusively an unchallenged pro-homo propaganda parade, and it's just ruined. Putin will be re-elected just before the next World Cup, and like the build up to Sochi, all the western media discussion before it will be about one issue. And it won't be about people losing their lives and loved ones by the thousands in Ukraine, as it should be.

Priorities priorities.

[osarusan]

so if you choose a different path


If they follow the natural path they're designed to, your life and theirs would be much easier.

Homosexuality is a choice?

Homosexuality is unnatural?



Just when we thought you couldn't get any worse...

[Spudulika]

Homosexuality is a choice?

Homosexuality is unnatural?



Just when we thought you couldn't get any worse...

Osarusan, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, albeit one brought about by many, many influences. I do not believe that people are "born this way", that is until a DNA code is produced to prove me wrong. However, like God and Santa (until age 11) I will believe in what is unseen as it cannot be explained away by science. However, I do believe it is a choice and I do not believe or feel it is wrong. And by science/nature, we are designed to procreate, at least supposed to. So this is a natural choice. But...in the 1970's the natural choice was for me to be forced to choose between Liverpool, Arsenal or (maybe at a stretch) Leeds or Arsenal. But I chose Dundalk (by family influence) and West Ham (through fate). Nothing wrong with any of that.

On a choice point - I have a perfect example. A well known tennis player was abused by a male coach at a very young age (11-15), at 16 she was approached at a tournament by an older female player/coach who (apologies) "turned" her. From 16 to retirement she was an avowed lesbian. Then on retirement promptly married, a man, and told me to my face "It was more convenient being lesbian when I was on the tour." I can name 4 players who did the same, including a double gold winner from the USA (90's). I do not discriminate against her as she had a right to do what she wanted. I do have issues with her still coaching former male coach and the predatorial older pro, who is still coaching.

And Mypost is right, the world will forget about the trouble in Ukraine, the murderous regime in Saudi, the Chinese slave labour camps and the Mexican murderfest while there is something more fun and sexy to write about.

[bennocelt]

In this country, it is. Marriage is part of the Irish Constitution. We're a catholic nation, and our religion is deeply conservative on marriage.


.

So if we are not catholic or deeply religious we have to follow the dictates of the state or the people?
They can f off:)

[Spudulika]

So if we are not catholic or deeply religious we have to follow the dictates of the state or the people?
They can f off:)

Now you will get an agreement. :-) Though our dear leader claims to be spiritual, most lizard people are!

[peadar1987]

That's not what I said at all.

But that "some" you speak of is in the billions. As I said before, the issue is simply taboo in most of the world. In extreme cases, marriages are arranged by parents. They are all in traditional format. I don't see the outrage by the west towards countries where such a practice is rife. Just pick on Russia. :(

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Billions of people are wrong, and have no right to have their opinion forced on others.

And you're seeing what you want to see. There is plenty of outrage about arranged marriage and persecution of homosexuals (and other groups) all over the world. You're choosing to ignore it just now because it doesn't fit your current narrative of those against the Russian laws being some sort of hypocrites. And even if we were hypocrites, and only cared about the Russian laws while ignoring places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, it still wouldn't make the Russian position right.




In this country, it is. Marriage is part of the Irish Constitution. We're a catholic nation, and our religion is deeply conservative on marriage.

It's not my religion, and Ireland is not a "catholic nation". This is a weak argument used by religious conservatives. Ireland is a secular republic, and there is separation of church and state. Laws are not, and should not, be decided on the basis of religion.



Your skin colour is determined by your parents ethnicity. In order to keep the human race going, men and women are naturally attracted to each other, so if you choose a different path, you have to be prepared for the consequences as a result.

That argument would be a better one if we didn't have 7 billion humans and counting. We're not in danger of running out of babies on account of a few homosexuals.

And homosexuality is not a choice for most people. Of course you're going to hear of people who successfully repressed their sexuality, or who were bisexual. Their testimony is irrelevant to any case except their own. As you ans Spud have said, life is difficult for gay people. Why would you choose that life if it was as easy as people make out? Can you choose who you are attracted to? I know if I had the choice, I would make myself immensely attracted to overweight, ugly people. It would really expand my dating pool. Being attracted to slim, beautiful women tends to limit your options.



Yes you would defend them and in a very conservative society, you would have a lot of defending to do. If they follow the natural path they're designed to, your life and theirs would be much easier.


If you're concerned about making people's lives easier, having an official state policy of discrimination is not the best way to go about it.

What really gets me is that the people who are most against homosexuality are the very same people who think that if you let a little bit of the gay into a country, it will be so fabulous that before long everyone will be into musical theatre and rimming.

[jinxy lilywhite]

I reckon millions of homosexuals would love their sexual tendencies to be a choice. I am sure they majority of us here never choose the one we love. It just happened

Pigment in your skin also determines what color your are. There are plenty of albino blacks around the world. Though some tribes in Africa do kill them.

I have a 15 month old and yes I do worry about almost every life threatening disease and disability although I have never thought of what if she's a lesbian. Tbh I really couldn't care less once she is true to herself and her partner. I am always of the opinion that the truth will always set you free. To keep your sexual identity locked up in the closet is the worst case scenario.

Before folk start harping on about Ireland being a catholic country, the church have little or no influence in Irish society anymore. The catholic church may have a mention in the constitution but doesn't the constitution recognize all religions and the freedom to practice your religion.

[Spudulika]

Peadar, there is no discrimination in law against homosexuals in Russia - unlike in the other countries you mentioned. There are a select number of high profile people who are out, but others (especially in sport and showbusiness) stay hidden as it would be financial suicide to come out - the same as in Ireland, UK, USA, Germany etc. Like the question in football, it is not the abuse from terraces, or from other pros, but the potential loss of earnings. Ricky Martin was every girl's dream, but when he had no market left, he came out. As in the USA, there is no official state policy of discrimination should Dima Bilan want to come out in Russia), but it would mean losing a lot of fans and money.

Jinxy, I don't think anyone wakes up gay, nor do they wake up liking the colour red, nor wake up bisexual, or lesbian, or any other non-gentically coded disposition. If it is the case, that people are "born gay", and it is encoded in DNA, the next superbillionaire is the person who patents that gene and it's removal (I'm not science oriented, so that soudns odd to me). How many parents, if told they could have a simple gene therapy to remove a certain list of things from their DNA, would they be so liberal as to allow a gay gene slip through? I cannot answer as I cannot even contemplate the choice.

In other news, oil is back under $60 a barrel, I saw a grandmother and grandfather lugging a Gorenje fridge along the street. People are spending big in case of a devaluation. Our regional Toyota has no cars left in their showroom, ditto Opel, Skoda, but the Chinese showroom is fully stocked!

[Charlie Darwin]

You don't have to be born gay for it to be natural and homosexuality doesn't need to be hard-wired in your DNA to be innate.

[Spudulika]

You don't have to be born gay for it to be natural and homosexuality doesn't need to be hard-wired in your DNA to be innate.

Charlie, I agree with both points of yours, and reasonably both points are the same. It can be a natural disposition or more attractive. It could be the result of sexual abuse as a child. It could be the result of your first sexual experience being with a member of the same sex, or a terrible experience with a member of the opposite sex. it could be from warped parenting, or any number of other nurture reasons. I find it offensive when it is "born this way". It is wrong on many levels. That, ridiculous standpoint, forces those who feel that they may actually prefer a same sex relationship like they are somehow wrong. That since they didn't come out earlier that their feelings are wrong.

[Charlie Darwin]

Well, with all due respect, I don't think you're really in a position to be finding that offensive. Especially when you are speculating that they might be gay due to sexual abuse or warped parenting, which I think the vast majority of people would perceive as being far more callous, insulting and offensive than people having the temerity to be gay and, in your words, "shove it in your face".

[Spudulika]

Well, with all due respect, I don't think you're really in a position to be finding that offensive. Especially when you are speculating that they might be gay due to sexual abuse or warped parenting, which I think the vast majority of people would perceive as being far more callous, insulting and offensive than people having the temerity to be gay and, in your words, "shove it in your face".

Did I write this? Shove it in your face? If I did it was a mistake, if not..I cannot find it anywhere on my posts related to homosexuality in Russia or elsewhere.

Charlie, so I have no right to find something offensive? Hmm, not very liberal, then again. If it is not hardwired in DNA, or be born that way, can you please explain it? I gave reasons that have been given by well known (and some less well known) people for their choice. Regardless of their choice, they are entitled to be happy in their relationships as we all should be. Anyone who would try to deny this must look at themselves and see why they would wish to prevent someone else from being happy.

I don't believe what I wrote to be callous, just a search for an explanation. I believe that spouting "I was born this way" to be an almighty offence to humanity, but if it makes them happy, I am glad for them. I can always choose to change channels or walk away.

[Charlie Darwin]

It's on the last page - granted you're not expressing it as your own opinion but it's hard not to interpret it that way.

I never said you had no right to find something offensive, I said you're not really in a position to be taking offence over somebody's views on why they as individuals are the way they are, particularly when you are expressing much more strident opinions yourself.

No, I can't explain biologically why people have different sexualities, nor have I suggested I can. I would say that it's not necessarily inconsistent to suggest that sexuality is inborn but that people are still able to make certain choices or be conditioned to feel certain ways during their life. I'm not sure who you're accusing of preventing people from being happy.

If you don't recognise the callousness of suggesting somebody could become gay because they were abused, then I suppose nothing I say could change your mind.

[Spudulika]

It's on the last page - granted you're not expressing it as your own opinion but it's hard not to interpret it that way.

I never said you had no right to find something offensive, I said you're not really in a position to be taking offence over somebody's views on why they as individuals are the way they are, particularly when you are expressing much more strident opinions yourself.

No, I can't explain biologically why people have different sexualities, nor have I suggested I can. I would say that it's not necessarily inconsistent to suggest that sexuality is inborn but that people are still able to make certain choices or be conditioned to feel certain ways during their life. I'm not sure who you're accusing of preventing people from being happy.

If you don't recognise the callousness of suggesting somebody could become gay because they were abused, then I suppose nothing I say could change your mind.

Charlie, I know it is pedantic, but I could not find "my words" anywhere. You may have interpreted someone else's words, or even mine, but I didn't write "shove it in your face".

Is someone telling me that science is wrong mean that I cannot question it? If I take it to another level. A person tells me - "I was born better/worse than you." I'd be offended by that in both cases as I do (maybe naively) believe we are all born equal. Again, I do not believe sexual choice (apart from the obvious deviant elements) between two consenting adults to be wrong or immoral, nor do I believe that same sex couples should be prevented registry office weddings (or if their church allows weddings between same sex couples), to each their own. Again, if a person's right to be offended is removed because they have an opinion, then we have leapt 5 steps backwards.

Charlie, you say "biologically", does emotion or psychology not come into it? If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong. If you find one reason offered to be callous, then it is best to just close the windows and put our heads in the sand. It is interesting to know when/why people felt more attracted to the same sex, or wished to change their gender, just writing off such influences or incidents leave us less able to understand and help.

[Charlie Darwin]

Charlie, I know it is pedantic, but I could not find "my words" anywhere. You may have interpreted someone else's words, or even mine, but I didn't write "shove it in your face".
Here:


So what I mean by old school, is that it is like the UK or Ireland from the 1960's-70's, and that society tolerates (a terrible word) or accepts (a better word) it as long as it's not shoved in their faces.

You didn't put it in quotation marks or anything so I can only assume you think it's a legitimate position.


Is someone telling me that science is wrong mean that I cannot question it?
Well I didn't tell you couldn't question it. I said your taking offence at somebody else's understanding of their personal sexuality is questionable.



If I take it to another level. A person tells me - "I was born better/worse than you." I'd be offended by that in both cases as I do (maybe naively) believe we are all born equal.
That's not analogous because they've made a comparison rather than make an extrapolation based on their own circumstances. If somebody is gay and every aspect of their life's experience tells them that their sexuality is innate and not learned, then I honestly can't fathom what would personally offend you about them saying it.


Again, I do not believe sexual choice (apart from the obvious deviant elements) between two consenting adults to be wrong or immoral, nor do I believe that same sex couples should be prevented registry office weddings (or if their church allows weddings between same sex couples), to each their own. Again, if a person's right to be offended is removed because they have an opinion, then we have leapt 5 steps backwards.
Again, nobody mentioned taking away rights except you. Nobody's impeding anybody's ability or freedom to say homosexuality is a choice or an abomination or whatever.


Charlie, you say "biologically", does emotion or psychology not come into it? If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong. If you find one reason offered to be callous, then it is best to just close the windows and put our heads in the sand. It is interesting to know when/why people felt more attracted to the same sex, or wished to change their gender, just writing off such influences or incidents leave us less able to understand and help.
I'm not sure I follow your reason with the first two sentences. In terms of being callous, you don't really seem to understand how awful that sounds. There's no direct analogy I can make because it's a pretty weird statement to make, but I can make a much tamer comparison... I understand your (former) partner was Russian. I imagine if one of her peers asked her "what are you doing with that pasty streak of ****, were you raped by a Paddy or something?" one or both of you would take some offence, if you weren't laughing at the utterly pathetic reasoning.

Even your last sentence betrays your opinions. You think homosexuality is something that can be "helped." I find that completely abhorrent and, honestly, small-minded.

[peadar1987]

Charlie, you say "biologically", does emotion or psychology not come into it? If not, then biology would rule against same sex pairings, at least in pure science, though I could be wrong. If you find one reason offered to be callous, then it is best to just close the windows and put our heads in the sand. It is interesting to know when/why people felt more attracted to the same sex, or wished to change their gender, just writing off such influences or incidents leave us less able to understand and help.


There are a few interesting theories about why homosexuality is selected for. There is some evidence that the female relatives of gay people are more fertile than females with no gay relatives, so there could be some sort of genetic component that is passed on preferentially through the female line. There is also a theory that gay people in small family groups improve the chances of the children of their relatives surviving by taking care of them, and the genes get passed on that way.

[Spudulika]

Here:



You didn't put it in quotation marks or anything so I can only assume you think it's a legitimate position.


Well I didn't tell you couldn't question it. I said your taking offence at somebody else's understanding of their personal sexuality is questionable.



That's not analogous because they've made a comparison rather than make an extrapolation based on their own circumstances. If somebody is gay and every aspect of their life's experience tells them that their sexuality is innate and not learned, then I honestly can't fathom what would personally offend you about them saying it.


Again, nobody mentioned taking away rights except you. Nobody's impeding anybody's ability or freedom to say homosexuality is a choice or an abomination or whatever.


I'm not sure I follow your reason with the first two sentences. In terms of being callous, you don't really seem to understand how awful that sounds. There's no direct analogy I can make because it's a pretty weird statement to make, but I can make a much tamer comparison... I understand your (former) partner was Russian. I imagine if one of her peers asked her "what are you doing with that pasty streak of ****, were you raped by a Paddy or something?" one or both of you would take some offence, if you weren't laughing at the utterly pathetic reasoning.

Even your last sentence betrays your opinions. You think homosexuality is something that can be "helped." I find that completely abhorrent and, honestly, small-minded.

You took what I wrote and changed it - putting it into quotations to try legitimise your pov, but thanks for at least drawing attention to it. And it is strange that I am not allowed to be offended yet others can be. Is that not wrong? Is that not imbalanced? A person who is offended by people drinking alcohol (a muslim for example) is entitled to feel as they are and express the same, their feeling is legitimate for them.

I mention "biologically" because you directly said it. I do not believe a persons sexual orientation or lifestyle choice is something that can be "helped", if you believe this is the case then you need to ask yoruself questions, though you are entitled to believe so, if you bring it up, though I don't go along with it. To each their own. The peers of my former partner were largely undereducated and evolved so something as intelligible as that would be hard to imagine. Though if they felt that, what can I do? You have chosen to pick just one reason, which is odd. It doesn't make sense why you would chose just one.

[Spudulika]

There are a few interesting theories about why homosexuality is selected for. There is some evidence that the female relatives of gay people are more fertile than females with no gay relatives, so there could be some sort of genetic component that is passed on preferentially through the female line. There is also a theory that gay people in small family groups improve the chances of the children of their relatives surviving by taking care of them, and the genes get passed on that way.

Now that is interesting! I am trying to recall a study of rats where they basically implode with decreasing births and a whole section of beautiful rats who move on from mating with opposite sex and even same sex, with the community dying out.

I'm trying to remember the name of the writer who wrote about sexuality being flexible. It was from a comparative study and I am almost certain it had some angle on the LPGA. I could be wrong to say a Dr. Black. But one of the points she made was that some people are able to adapt to environments, that we have predispositions rather than predeterminations.