Today finishing this piece from VZGLIAD about the gay couple, Pavel and Evgeny, who attempted to test a loophole in Russian law, in order to get their same-sex marriage (registered in Copenhagen) re-registered in Russia. But all they succeeded in doing was inciting a backlash that cost the jobs of two civil servants and brought down public anger upon their own silly heads.
As I mentioned before, Russia is not exactly Saudi Arabia. It’s more like the USA pre-Stonewall. Homosexuality per se is legal, and Russia even has a gay subculture, especially in the bigger cities. There are gay bars and nightclubs, the usual stuff, especially in Moscow. Pavel and Evgeny could have rented a flat together, hung out with their friends, contented themselves with many sources of socialization and entertainment available. I reckon they wanted more than that, they wanted to flash their big diamond rings at the people, and have the people applaud them back. But they can’t do that in Russia. Not in the forseeable future, and possibly not ever. Yet their personal adventure — you could call it a prank, a stunt, or — more nobly, an activist gambit — is less important than the issues it raises about Russia’s relationship with Europe. Which leads us to geo-politics, and the question that reporter Petr Akopov poses: What happens when Russian law conflicts with international law? Akopov:
This is not simply a legal issue, it is a question of Russia’s self-determination. Part 4, Article 15 of our Constitution stipulates that: “Generally accepted principles and norms of international law, and the international agreements of the Russian Federation constitute the main part of our legal system. If rules are established according to international treaty which differ from [Russian] law, then the international rules take precedence.” Despite which, we now live in a world where Russia’s sovereignty is not under any doubt, neither by the government, nor society as a whole. Therefore Part 4, Article 15 does not present any threat, neither to our state sovereignty, nor to the code of values of Russian civilization.
Yes, of course, Akopov continues, the norms of international law constitute a part of our legal system; but the only agreements that can take precedence over our own laws are the ones that we ourselves signed. That is to say, we take upon ourselves certain obligations. And if we decide we don’t like them any more, then we have the right to change our minds. If Europeans wish to implement same-sex marriages or euthanasia, that is their right, but they have no right to try to impose those standards on us. And yet, what is going to happen if international laws all start to go in that direction? Are we supposed to bow out of all international organizations?
Who Is To Blame?
Akopov goes on to argue that “international laws” should be just that — international. Europe is not the whole world.
Granted, that Europe, in recent centuries, has become the author of “International Law”. At first it was just Europe, and then “Atlanticism” (including America). And the West formulated the international world order as a way to gain leadership over the world, and to use the world, for its own interests and purposes. Even when the West was forced to recognize the independence of Asian and African nations, they still insisted that Western law was identical to international law.
The Golden Rule: He who has the Gold, makes the Rule.
The West never considered that non-Western countries should have any say in the matter. When the USSR in 1945 won a seat at the table, the Anglo-Saxon Globalizers had to grit their teeth and endure this setback. But once the USSR disappeared, the West decided that, well, now there are no serious impediments on the road to Globalization.
Hence, Russia’s recent rebellion against the World Order came as a surprise to the West. And the U.S. now openly calls Russia a “revisionist force” in the world. But Russia is not alone. Nations like China and India are also considered revisionist. People are rebelling, not just against Western “values”, but against the power of the Dollar, Western military bullying, and the “New Morals”. Akopov, who represents a typically Russian conservative point of view, sees an alliance forming of Russia, China, India, and the Islamic world. He calls for a new construction of “international law” that takes into account these various civilizations and their endemic values.
What Is To Be Done?
I end this piece with my own personal (unsolicited) advice for Russian homosexuals:
- Un-demonize yourselves! Create a positive image.
- Tone down the sex, and don’t march around dressed like idiots.
- Dis-own and distance from the pedophile movement.
- Dis-own and distance from pro-Western pro-NATO propaganda.
- In general, de-couple from politics, especially geo-politics.
- Be loyal and patriotic to Russia. (Well, unless you’re not, I can’t tell you what to believe in…)
- Forget about gay marriage, settle for civil unions, and even that is a stretch.
- Be patient: Social change takes many decades, and there are no guarantees!