Russias Supreme Court bans LGBTQ activism in landmark ruling –

Russia’s Supreme Court bans LGBTQ+ activism in landmark ruling – The Associated Press

TALLINN, Estonia (AP) — Russia’s Supreme Court effectively banned LGBTQ+ activism on Thursday, marking the most drastic step against gay, lesbian and transgender rights advocates in the increasingly conservative country.

In a statement announcing a lawsuit filed with the court earlier this month, the Justice Department argued that authorities had detected “signs and manifestations of an extremist nature” in an LGBTQ+ “movement” operating in Russia, including “incitement to social and religious discord,” , although it provided no details or evidence. In its ruling, the court declared the “movement” extremist and banned it in Russia.

The hearing took place behind closed doors and without defendants. Several human rights activists have pointed out that the lawsuit was directed against the “international civil LGBT movement,” which is not an entity but rather a broad and vague definition that would allow Russian authorities to crack down to take action against any person or group considered to be part of the “movement”. Movement.”

“Despite the fact that the Ministry of Justice is demanding that a non-existent organization – the ‘international LGBT civil society movement’ – be designated as extremist, in practice it could happen that the Russian authorities will enforce this against LGBTQ+ initiatives in light of this court ruling .” “I consider them part of this civil movement,” Max Olenichev, a human rights lawyer who works with Russia’s LGBTQ+ community, told The Associated Press before the hearing.

Some LGBTQ+ activists said they wanted to join the lawsuit, arguing that it affected their rights, but were rebuffed by the court. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court ruling is the latest step in a decades-long crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights in Russia that began under President Vladimir Putin, who made “traditional family values” the cornerstone of his rule.

In 2013, the Kremlin passed the first law restricting LGBTQ+ rights, known as the “Gay Propaganda” law, which bans any public support of “non-traditional sexual relationships” between minors. In 2020, constitutional reforms pushed through by Putin to extend his rule for two more terms also included a provision banning same-sex marriage.

After sending troops to Ukraine in 2022, the Kremlin sharpened its statements about protecting “traditional values” from what it called the “degrading” influence of the West, which human rights activists saw as an attempt to legitimize the war. That same year, authorities passed a law banning the propaganda of “non-traditional sexual relationships” between adults, effectively banning any public support of LGBTQ+ people.

Another law passed earlier this year banned gender reassignment procedures and gender-affirming care for transgender people. The law banned any “medical procedure intended to change a person’s sex,” as well as changing gender in official documents and public records. In addition, the Russian Family Code was amended to list a change in gender as a reason for annulment of a marriage and to add those “who had changed their gender” to a list of people who cannot become foster or adoptive parents.

“Here, in our country, in Russia, do we really want to have ‘Parent No. 1, No. 2, No. 3’ instead of ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’?” Putin said in September 2022. “We really want to “that perversions are introduced into our schools from the elementary grades onwards that lead to humiliation and extinction?”

Authorities have rejected allegations of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. Earlier this month, Russian media quoted Andrei Loginov, a deputy justice minister, as saying that “the rights of LGBT people in Russia are protected by law.” Loginov spoke in Geneva while presenting a report on human rights in Russia to the UN Human Rights Council, arguing that “restricting the public demonstration of non-traditional sexual relationships or preferences does not constitute a form of censure for them.”