|
English Language Page At the same time, it is the legally binding documents of Council of Europe (first and foremost the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with attached protocols) and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights that are directly applicable to Russia, who is a member–state of the Council of Europe. Also, directly applicable are recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, etc. It should be noted, nevertheless, that all those standards at times lack consistency (3). No direct mention of sexual minorities is made in the European Convention, but the convention does regulate their legal position by means of judicial decisions setting precedents in specific cases. The very first cases relating to violations of sexual minorities’ rights were initiated in the second half of the 1950s. At that time, however, the Human Rights Commission upheld a restrictive approach to sexual minorities’ rights; in particular it allowed for the possibility of criminal prosecution of homosexuality within member-states of the Council of Europe. 1981 saw the first case won by a homosexual (Jeffry Dudgeon vs. the UK) , when it was ruled that criminalization of voluntary homosexual relations between persons 21 years of age is a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention (right to private life). As of today, the European Court (European Human Rights Commission) has heard many case on the rights of sexual minorities. This supreme judicial authority of the Council of Europe considers inadmissible criminal prosecution of voluntary homosexual relations between persons of minimal age of consent. The European court deems it necessary to standardize the age of consent irrespective of sexual orientation, and it prohibits discrimination of people on the basis of sexual orientation (with certain restrictions). We should stress again that the above-mentioned requirements are mandatory for all member-states of the Council of Europe. But these requirements are the only firm standards of the Council of Europe related to legislation concerning sexual minorities. Even today, the European Court does not recognize the rights of homosexuals to a family life and related issues. Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are characterized by a large degree of recognition of the rights of homosexuals, having more than once addressed this issue (in 1981, 1983, 1993, 2000). In 2000, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted two basic recommendations: “ The Situation of Gays, Lesbians and Their Partners With Regard To Shelter and Immigration in the Council of Europe Member-States” (Recommendation ¹1470) and “The Situation of Lesbians and Gays in the Council of Europe Member-States” (Recommendation ¹1474). These position papers were prepared on the basis of reports of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography and the Committee on Legal Issues and Human Rights. The first document expresses concern of the Parliamentary Assembly regarding discriminatory immigration policy against homosexuals by the Council of Europe member-states and confirms that the Council of Europe upholds the opinion that homosexuals who have solid reasons to fear prosecution in connection with their sexual orientation fall under the definition of refugees, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions as members of a certain social group. They thus have the right to shelter, and immigration rules must not be differently applied towards them. The second recommendation contains several points. De-criminalization of voluntary homosexual relations between adults is confirmed as a precondition for Council of Europe membership. It also recommends that the Committee of Ministers add the term “sexual orientation” into the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in national legislation. It also recommends the cancellation of any provisions that criminalize mutually agreed homosexual relations between adults and the introduction of a standard minimal age of consent for sexual relations, regardless of sexual orientation. It also recommends taking measures to suppress homophobia and intolerance in education, armed forces, law enforcement, judicial and advocacy structures, ensure equal treatment of homosexuals in the work place, adopt legislation on registered homosexual partnerships and recognize homosexual prosecution as a ground for granting asylum. Issues of adoption and access to artificial conception technologies were not included in the final version of the recommendation because of great disagreements on these issues. In 2001, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe responded to the Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation ¹1474. The Committee supported the concern of the Assembly regarding discrimination and violations of rights of homosexuals; it stressed reassessment of all forms of discriminatory regulation, within the Council of Europe, underscoring the significance of Protocol 12 to the European Convention. The Committee rejected the proposal to include the term “sexual orientation” into Protocol 12 and Article 14 of the European Convention, stressing that homosexuals are under the protection of the Convention in accordance with the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, and underscored the necessity of taking measures to counter homophobia in education and vocational training. Within Europe, national legislation differs greatly in terms of recognition of rights of homosexuals (3). Criminal sanctions, for instance, for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as for making hate-propaganda and insulting people in connection with sexual preferences, have been introduced in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg and several other countries (with varying restrictions and applications). In Finland and in the Netherlands, discrimination of sexual minorities is prohibited constitutionally as well. A ban on discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation is contained in the labor legislation of Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland (specific forms differ from country to country). Differences in legislation are especially great in the area of family and civil law — the most controversial legislation area in respect of sexual minorities’ rights. The Netherlands is the only country in the world whose legislation provides for a marriage for homosexual couples. Another matter are registered homosexual partnerships. They exist in Denmark, the Netherlands (along with civil marriage), France, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Hungary. The right of joint adoption of children by homosexual couples is codified only in Dutch legislation (and in three provinces of Canada). Granting immigration rights to foreign homosexual partners is provided for in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and — with significant restrictions — in Belgium, Finland, UK and France. Elsewhere around the globe there is much greater variability in laws regarding sexual minorities — ranging from criminal prosecution and absolute rejection (as in many African and Asian countries) to acceptance on par with the most liberal European countries (as in Canada). It should be noted that legislation addressing recognition of homosexual’s rights started to rapidly develop in recent years. However, this trend lacks uniformity. It is difficult, therefore, to assess the observance of the rights, since there are no clear-cut legal standards. Whenever such standards have not yet been determined, we proceed from the principle of complete equality with regard to sexual minorities. The year 2001 failed to bring about any changes in the position of sexual minorities in Russia — either positive or negative. Such a situation may be assessed as ambiguous. Russian legal framework as a whole does not contain elements that could be seen as directly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. At the same time, the law makes no mention of the rights of sexual minorities, which in itself must be regarded as indirect discrimination of this group. This discrimination stems from a lack of legal regulations (primarily in the area of family and civil law), rather than from a presence of discriminatory legislation (5). The absence of any legal mechanism for protection of sexual minorities from discrimination is yet another serious problem (6). In conjunction with arather high level of intolerance towards gays and lesbians in the Russian society, this combination of factors results in their rights’ violations and abuse in the area of law enforcement. Key features of Russian legislation regarding sexual minorities had taken shape by 1998 (7). Since then — and the year 2001 has been no exception — legislators and other power bodies have taken no measures whatsoever to enhance the effectiveness of legal protection of the rights of gays and lesbians (8). The Constitution of the Russian Federation recognizes that “Man, his rights and freedoms have supreme value” and that “Recognition, observance and protection of rights and freedoms of Man and Citizen — is the obligation of the State” (Article 2). Also, the rights and freedoms stated in international law are guaranteed by the RF Constitution (Article 17). The state also guarantees equality of rights and freedoms in the face of a number of factors, the list of which is not exhaustive (Part 2, Article 19). Sexual orientation is not mentioned directly, but falls under the definition of “other circumstances.” In 1992, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in commenting on the open list for prohibited discrimination grounds noted that “discrimination of persons is illegal not only in connection with attributes directly mentioned in the RF Constitution, but also in connection with other factors.” “The RF Constitution does not limit the list in accordance with which discrimination is ruled out, but on the contrary, implies its consequent specification in both legislation and law enforcement (9)”. The RF Criminal Code does not criminalize private, mutually consensual homosexuals relations with a person who has reached the age of consent. Only forcible homosexual actions (like forcible heterosexual actions) are subject to criminal prosecution (10) (Article 132, 133). The age of consent for sexual relations is 14 years, the same for all, regardless of sexual orientation (Article 134). Article 136 of the RF Criminal Code punishes violations of equality of rights and freedoms according to a number of indicators, sexual orientation not being one of them. Consequently, sexual minorities are not directly protected against discrimination. It should be added that lawyers note (11) a contradiction in the text of this article; an action may be regarded as a crime if the violation of equality of rights and freedoms is associated with an infraction against the rights and legitimate interests a citizen of the Russian Federation. Neither promotion of hatred nor propaganda accusing persons of being inferior because of their sexual preferences is punishable. The RF Criminal Code does not punish for promoting hatred and defamation based on sexual orientation. The RF Constitution guarantees all people the right to “work in conditions which meet safety and hygiene standards, to receive pay without discrimination and no lower than the minimal wage set by the federal law, and to be protected against unemployment” (Part 3, Article 37). Prohibitive grounds for discrimination are listed in Part 2, Article 19 of the RF Constitution. This list does not include sexual orientation but, as was mentioned above, the latter does fall into the category of “other circumstances.” The RF Labor Code prohibits unjustified refusal to hire and discrimination in granting of rights or introduction of privileges in connection with, because of a number of criteria not related to the professional qualities of the person seeking a job (Article 16). Sexual orientation is not one of the defined criteria, but falls into the category of “other circumstances.” In summary, labor legislation does not contain provisions that are discriminatory against sexual minorities, but it lacks clauses protecting sexual minorities against discrimination in professional advancement and against being fired from a job. It must be noted that Russian judicial practice to date has not included cases related to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the area of labor relations. This does not imply that no such discrimination exists, but that discrimination in the workplace is very hard to prove, given the low legal awareness of Russians (including gays and lesbians), their lack of confidence in the effectiveness of protective mechanisms, and a frequent reluctance to reveal homosexuality (12). According to Federal Law “On Police,” “police protect rights and freedoms of citizens regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, ownership of property, status, residence, religion, convictions, memberships in public organizations, and other circumstances” (Article 5). Sexual orientation, therefore, again falls under “other circumstances,” although not directly mentioned. The law, however, does not directly ban discrimination during law enforcement activities. This may lead to discrimination against sexual minorities in refusals to help as well as to degrading treatment and abuse, resulting in reluctance on the part of homosexuals to turn to law enforcement agencies for help. Due to lack of proper legislation regarding family and civil life, gays and lesbians most frequently suffer indirect discrimination in this realm (13). The only legal family union in Russia is marriage, defined as “a union between a male and female” (Part 3, Article 1 of the RF Family Code). The fact that Russian legislation fails to recognize relations between homosexual partners results in a great number of violations of equality in the sphere of the civil law (14). According to some lawyers (15), a homosexual partner is not recognized as a legitimate heir, and can inherit property only if designated in a will. The rights of homosexual partners are infringed upon when it comes to paying taxes on inherited property. The only privilege homosexual partners can enjoy is the right to inherit a dwelling without paying taxes if they have lived there together on the day of opening the heritage (Clause 13 of the Instruction of the State Taxation Service of the Russian Federation, May 30, 1995, ¹32). If property is gifted, taxation for homosexual partners is also discriminatory. If partners cease living together, their personal and co-owned property rights are not regulated by legislation. In order to bridge this gap, some lawyers (16) propose an alternative to the institution of marriage or homosexual partnership, e. g., the establishment of a civil simple companionship, under Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. This article states that “under an agreement of simple companionship (an agreement on joint activities) two or several individuals (companions) undertake to pool their contributions and operate jointly, without the formation of a legal entity whose purpose would be to generate a profit or otherwise contradict the law.” It should be noted that today “the area of ownership of property is the only sphere in which homosexual partners may get some degree of recognition (17).” In respect of homosexual unions’ legal non-recognition in Russia, it should be also noted that, accordingly, Russian legislation does not extend any privileges in granting multiple visas, residence permits, or citizenship for foreign homosexual partners of Russian citizens. Joint adoption of children by homosexual partners is out of the question, though legislation does permit one of the partners to adopt (Article 127 of the RF Family Code). Homosexuality de jure is not an obstacle for adoption of children. But in reality, because a legal guardian decides upon the selection of adoptive parents, taking into account moral and other qualities of the applicants, the chances of giving a child to a homosexual are purely hypothetical. Also, while chances of adopting for open gays and lesbians are virtually non-existent, access to artificial insemination in Russia is not legally defined. Furthermore, the non-recognition of homosexual partners as being close relations leads to discrimination of sexual minorities in connection testimonies in court (18) and in visitation rights between partners in correctional institutions and medical facilities. The range of issues where non-recognition of homosexual relations leads to discrimination is hard to specifically determine. Since 1999, when the Ministry of Health approved a new classification of diseases, Russian psychiatry no longer regards homosexuality as a disease. In accordance with Article 1 of Federal Law “On Donating Blood and Its Components” dated June 9, 1993 (¹5142-1), “any capable person within the age of 18–60 can be... a blood donor after a medical examination.” A person wishing to become a donor “is obligated to report everything he knows about his/her past diseases and about previous use of narcotics” (Article 12). That means that individuals of homosexual orientation cannot be deprived of the right to donate blood or blood components if they meet other eligibility factors of age and health. However, under Clause 4.1.1 of Instruction “On Medical Examination of Donors of Blood, Plasma, Blood Cells,” dated November 16, 1998, an absolute ban on donations from members of risk groups (homosexuals, drug addicts, prostitutes) was envisaged. This regulatory act was in direct violation of the rights of gays and lesbians to be blood donors guaranteed by law. In late 2001, the November 16, 1998 Instruction was revoked, but given the absence of any new similar document, this Instruction continues to be applied. A new legal document of the Ministry of Health on blood donations is undergoing the registration process in the Ministry of Justice(19). Violations of the rights of homosexuals are most often covert. Stigmatization of sexual minorities explains their fear of publicity. A low legal awareness and no confidence in the effectiveness of legal protection (typical of Russians as a whole) results in victims of sexual discrimination abandoning attempts to rectify violated rights and protect themselves against discrimination (when possible). Russian gays and lesbians are not inclined to report violations of their rights to human rights organizations (including even those specifically established to protect the rights of gays and lesbians) (20). Serious and unbiased mass media coverage of this problem is to date a rare event (21). The result of the above is that the genuine scale of discrimination and sexual minorities’ rights violation is hidden from view. In 2000, Russia saw a rather high level of intolerance towards sexual minorities, as reflected in the stigmatization of this group. Nevertheless, there is no reason to question the favorable trend of greater tolerance towards homosexuals that has recently taken shape. In this respect, we see a considerable gap between major cities, especially between Moscow and St. Petersburg, on the one hand, and other towns and villages on the other. This holds true not only for Russia. Relatively young people and older generations also display drastically different levels of tolerance (22). The state displays little activity in enhancing tolerance towards sexual minorities. On August 25, 2001, Federal Program “Formation of Cornerstones of Tolerant Conscientiousness and Prevention of Extremism in Russian Society (2001–2005) was adopted.” The goal of the Program is to “form a tolerant mind-set, which determines stable conduct of individuals and groups in society, as a basis of civil accord in a democratic state.” According to the drafters of the Program, if we are to meet this goal, we need to accomplish three tasks: the development and implementation of a set of effective measures aimed at forming tolerable behavior…; the development and practical introduction of such methods such as monitoring, diagnosis and forecast of the social and political situation in the country…; the development and implementation of a system of measures promoting tolerant conduct, opposing extremism in all its forms, including: development of training programs for all levels and forms of education, and development of efficient socio-cultural technologies of propagating tolerant behavior patterns…(23) The Program does not specify tolerance towards sexual minorities, therefore, we can only guess if any attempts to stimulate tolerance in this area will be made. However, in evaluating government activities in this arena in 2001 and before, Russian famous sexologist Igor Kon stated, “the passive attitude of the authorities result in no steps being taken to support sexual education in school or for teaching basic principles and promoting tolerance towards sexual minorities and alternative life styles (24).” Organizations of gays and lesbians fail to influence the authorities by their lobbying efforts for bills that could improve the situation of Russian homosexuals (25). Also, any efforts to objectively inform the public on problems associated with sexual minorities and enhance the public’s level of tolerance are of a very limited nature. Drawbacks of Russian legislation, law enforcement abuses, a low legal awareness and a general intolerance towards sexual minorities create favorable conditions for discrimination and multiple violations of their rights. The covert nature of this problem was mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, some instances did become known to human rights organizations and the mass media. Moscow authorities banned the so-called Love-Parade organized by an initiative group composed of non-governmental organizations, businessmen and artistic community, specifically, producers’ company Prokos, Odin Art Trading, BG Records, Manner Und AIDS German charity foundation, Radical Party, and others. This initiative group submitted multiple petitions to the Moscow Mayor. The last request was for the parade to be conducted as part of the Day of the City celebrations. As was stated in the press-release issued on July 23, 2001, “the city government will not allow this march to take place either on the City Day, or on any other day” because the Mayor is of the opinion that “such actions cause the indignation of most of Moscow’s residents by promoting loose morals and by attempting to impose unacceptable norms of behavior, which run counter to the traditional moral values of the majority of Russians as well as to the canons of the main religions practiced in Moscow (26).” The Vice-Premier of the Moscow government explained later that the parade “does not correspond to the spirit of the festivities occurring in Moscow, nor to the traditions of the city.” “Muscovites cannot accept the ideology and form of the march,” which actively call for participation by young people with non-traditional sexual orientations and promote freedom of sexual relations (27). According to the organizers and in keeping with the ideology of similar events (Love Parade has been held in Berlin since 1989 and more recently in other cities around the world), Moscow Love Parade was to be an international youth festival of modern electronic music in the open air. Homosexuals, no doubt, actively participate in such shows, along with other people, without hiding their sexual preferences. It was also planned to have a separate group of gays and lesbians participate in the street march. But the organizers did not intend this event to be a gay-parade or a march of homosexuals carrying slogans defending their rights. We can only conclude that the Moscow government mistook one event for another (28). Article 31 of the RF Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assemblies. These guarantees are also provided in Article 69 of the Charter of Moscow. To organize a peaceful assembly, it suffices to notify the authorities. So, apart from violating the constitutional rights of the organizers of Love Parade, the Moscow government demonstrates social phobia and prejudice, insulting to sexual minorities. The prohibition of Love Parade by the Moscow Mayor’s Office (and on the grounds not fitting the occasion), accompanied with pronouncements that could be regarded as homophobic, is rather typical of the current situation that Russian sexual minorities find themselves. Typically, the organizers of the event decided against going to court, and the only politician who condemned the decision of the Moscow authorities was Vladimir Zhirinovsky (29). Improper references to public morals may cover up illegal refusal to register public organizations of gays and lesbians. The Versty newspaper reports the plight of the Omsk organization “Sail” established in 1995 to fight AIDS (30). On April 28, 2000, the regional Department of Justice refused to register this organization on the grounds that its activities “do not correspond to moral and ethical norms of society, and will be taken by many citizens and organizations to be an insult to society as a whole and as violation of moral and ethic sensibilities (31).” The leaders of the organization turned to the Central district court of the city of Omsk, and then filed a complaint against its negative verdict with the Omsk Regional Court. The latter, however, upheld the decision of the lower instance court, with the motivations presented being very much the same. The “Sail” representatives brought a complaint against the decision of the Omsk Regional Court to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. If the decision will again be negative, the association’s leaders plan to take their claim to the European Court of Human Rights. As was mentioned above, homosexuals are also discriminated against in the area of law enforcement (32). During the night of June 29–30, three Moscow gay and lesbian night clubs (“Central Station,” “Three Apes,” and “Barracks”) were subjected to the so-called “planned inspection of recreation areas” by the personnel of the Moscow Drug Trafficking Administration under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In the Barracks club, clients experienced degrading treatment, unjustified use of force, and insults based on sexual orientation by law enforcement officers. In the “Central Station” club, raided without any search warrant, in violation of the RF Constitution and Federal Law “On Police,” one client was beaten by the officers from the Moscow Drug Trafficking Administration (33). It should be noted that in principle such inspections are legal, but in this particular case the inspections were carried out with gross procedural violations (no warrant was presented, use of force was not justified), and homosexuals were discriminated against (insulted because of their sexual preferences). (1)Hereinafter the term “sexual minority” means homosexual and bisexual males and females. Terms “homosexuals (gays and lesbians) imply homosexual males and females and is synonimous to “sexual minorities.” Individual variations of different parameters of sexual orientation (sexual behavior in the first place, emotional and social preferences, life style and identity) are not taken into account. Open sources information was used during the preparation of this chapter. The analysis of legislation was based on the following legal sources: (1) Constitution of the Russian Federation. The official text as of October 1, 1998 with historical and legal comments. Moscow, Publishing Group NORMA-INFA Moscow, 1998; (2) Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in the federal laws edition as of December 29, 2001, available at http://www.akdi.ru /pravo/kodeks/uk2.htm; (3) Federal Law “On Police” in the federal laws edition as of March 31, 1999, available at http://www.kirov.ru/~lovo/offic/ zak03_00.html; (4) Federal Law “On Donorship of Blood and Its Components” of June 9, 1999, available at http://blago.ru/law/donor.html; (5) Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Parts 1–3, available at http://www.akdi.ru/ pravo/kodeks/gk.htm; (6) Code of Laws on Labor of the Russian Federation, avialable at http://base.consultant.ru/nalbuh/q32.exe?B0CK [] H32447; (7) Family Code of the Russian Federation, available at http://anti-court.nm.ru /docs/sk.htm. (2) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, pð. 312–316). (3) Decision of the European Court on Human Rights (before 1998 — Human Rights Commission) on specific cases related to issues of compliance with the European Convention are binding for all member-states of the Council of Europe. (4) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, pð. 312–316). (5) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 200 and further on). (6) Ibid. (7) In 1993, President Yeltsin eliminated Aricle 121.1, which punished for voluntary homosexual relations, from the then effective Criminal Code of the RSFSR. In 1996, the new RF Criminal Code was adopted. It became effective on January 1, 1997, and is still in force (with amendments and additions). (8) During 2001, modifications and additions were introduced into the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Civil Code. Also, a new Labor Code and Part 3 of the Civil Code were adopted. This is not an exhaustive list of legislative innovations of 2001, but none of those law-making efforts did in any way change the position of sexual minorities. (9) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 206). (10) Notions “homosexual rape” and “ lesbianism” refer only to forcible sexual actions. (11) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 207). (12) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 210). (13) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 214). (14) Non-recognition of homosexual partners relations in their own country makes some homosexuals become citizens of those countries where the situation differs from that of Russia, and use new legal opportunities (see, for instance a report on a “wedding” of two Russians who became Germany citizens). Numerous “staged weddings” demonstrate discriminatory nature of the relevant provisions of the Russian legislation. (15) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 214. and futher on). (16) Maxim Chernigovsky, article in Kommersant-Kliyent (2001, ¹14). (17) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 217). (18) Under Article 51 of the RF Constitution “nobody is obliged to testify against himself, spouse and next of kin, whose range is identified by the federal law.” At present, there is no such law and the Criminal Code in its Article 308 repeats the above-mentioned clause of the Constitution. Therefore non-recognition of homosexual partners as spouses (and relatives) forces them testify against each other in court unless they want to face a criminal penalty. (19) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 225). (20) From this point of view, the following characteristic given in the Chita regional report is significant: “We are unaware of any instances of representatives of this category turning to human rights organizations, governmental bodies and mass media with complaints against their rights’ violations; they are afraid of any publicity…” (21) “Initial wave of information histeria and indignation aimed against homosexuals with time ebbed away. At present Russian mass media try to display a more balanced approach to this topic coverage. Though degrading and insulting articles, materials and manner of covering relevant events are still far from being a rare occasion.” (N. Alexeev, .Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 233).) (22) No regular public opinion polls whose results could be compared are conducted in Russia on issues related to sexual minorities. A prominent sexologist Igor Kon offers the following data: 36% of Russians consider homosexuality an “immoral habit,” 31% — a “mental disorder.” Unfortunately, the material lacks details, which decreases its scientific value. Unfortunately we do not have precise information on the 2001 situation, though extrapolation of earlier trends is quite acceptable here. See: I. Kon, Moon Light At Dawn (Moscow: 1998, p. 319 and further on); I. Kon, Introduction to Sexology (Moscow: 1999, pp. 207–208); N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World. (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, pp. 228–229); L. Nicole, “Russia Stays in the XIX Century On Issues of Information About Sex.” Les Temps (March 2, 2001). (23) Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation ¹629 of August 25, 2001. (See: Notice for the press ¹1175 on the official server of the government of the Russian Federation — http://www.government.gov.ru/2001/ 08/31/999234161.html.) (24) L. Nicole, “Russia Stays in the XIX Century on Issues of Information about Sex.” Les Temps (March 2, 2001). Compare I. Kon’s statement on the issue: “The Idea of Sexual Education at School Is Dead Blocked.” (See: I. Kon’s feedback on the draft federal law “On Modifications and Additions Into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation” at the server of I. Kon (http://sexology.narod.ru/info089.html).) (25) The estimate voiced by I. Kon in 1998 holds good for 2001 as well — “political influence of gays’ organizations… is negligible.” (See: I. Kon, Moon Light At Dawn (Moscow: 1998, p. 329).) Also, according to N. Alexeev, “existing organizations of gays and lesbians… do not play a significant role in promoting rights of sexual minorities and do very little research and education work.” (See: N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 231).) (26) Information of Gay.ru web-site of July, 2001 (http://www.gay.ru/news/ rainbow/2001/07/23.htm). (27) Information of Queer Russia web-site (http://gay.ru/queer/news/ 240701_1. html). (28) According to Sergei Bugaev, one of the organizers of the event,” we ran into a curious situation — we, who had nothing to do with sexual minorities, unintentionally provoked polemics between some part of the Mayor’s office staff that could not distinguish between a love-parade and a gay-parade, and the sexual minorities. (See: Svyatoslav Lyubarov, “Love-Parade Will Only Pass Moscow By As Mayor’s Office Mistook it For Gay-Parade.” Vremya MN (August 2001). Also see: http://www.vremyamn.ru/cgi-bin/2000/142/7/2.) (29) Information of Gay.ru web-site of August 5, 2001 (http://www.gay.ru /news/rainbow/2001/08/05.htm). (30) “Sex Minorities Do Not Surrender!” Versty (March 6, 2001, ¹25–26). (31) Press-release of the Omsk Sexual Minorities Support Center “Favorite” of June 17, 2000 (http://www.favorit-omsk.narod.ru/press.htm). (32) N. Alexeev, Legal Regulation of the Position of Sexual Minorities: Russia in the Light of International Organizations Practice and National Legislation of the Countries of the World (Moscow: Publishing House BEK, 2002, p. 242 and further on). (33) Information of Gay.ru web-site of July 2, 2001 (http://www.gay.ru/news/rainbow/2001/07/02.htm). Back |
Íàøà êíîïêà  |
|