In the hyper-masculine right-wing internet community known as the “manosphere,” few figures loom larger than Jesse Lee Peterson. The Los Angeles-based pastor and online radio host has become a star in conservative media in part for his demands that men and women return to his unorthodox version of traditional gender norms.
Peterson has also emerged as one of the right’s most vocal anti-gay figures. He’s claimed that people who march in gay pride parades are the children of Satan, and that “radical homosexuals are evil.”
Now several of Peterson’s one-time friends allege that the pastor’s own personal life is rife with gay sexual relationships. Two of Peter’s former male associates came out in June with on-the-record interviews saying they engaged in sexual activities with him, while other men say he propositioned them.
As longtime JMG readers will recall, I’ve reported on Peterson’s often bizarre anti-gay statements dozens of times over the last decade.
He last appeared on JMG last August when he sponsored a second annual California “Straight Pride” event which ended in violence by the Proud Boys.
PREVIOUSLY ON JMG: Jesse Lee Peterson says depression is caused by sinning. Peterson says all Asians look alike to him. Peterson says “weak straight people” have allowed “radical homosexuals” to seize the terms husband and wife. Peterson says men should not marry “educated women” as women should be cooking and cleaning, not seeking degrees. Peterson calls for sending Andrew Yang back to China. Peterson says Brett Kavanaugh isn’t a real man because his kids are all girls and “real men make boys first.” Peterson says Roy Moore’s Senate loss proves that black Democrats don’t believe in God. Peterson says that women who accuse Trump of sexual assault are “literally Satan’s daughters.” Peterson declares discrimination by businesses to be a “good thing.” Peterson calls for boycotting the NFL over openly gay player Michael Sam.
More than 15,000 people have marched in Romania’s capital Bucharest for equal rights for gender and sexual minorities as the country’s lower chamber of the parliament is set to vote on a law later this year that bans discussion of homosexuality and gender identity in public spaces.
An amendment to the Romanian Child Protection Law that was proposed by the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR), an ethnic minority party that is part of the ruling coalition, was inspired by a similar law which was adopted by Hungary in 2021.
After being passed by the Senate in April and approved by the Romanian Human Rights Commission, the bill needs the backing of the lower chamber of parliament.
“The way it looks like at the moment, this bill is completely anti-democratic from many points of view, mainly because it hinders the freedom of expression and because it stands against all treaties, conventions, and international recommendations regarding LGBT rights,” said Ionela Baluta, who participated in Saturday’s Bucharest Pride to support the community and oppose the bill.
Baluta, a professor at the political sciences faculty of the University of Bucharest, with expertise in gender studies, political representation and gender equality policies, is concerned about the ambiguous formulation of the bill.
She thinks it could lead to consequences as far-reaching as gender studies being banned in universities and individuals being incriminated for posting information related to gender identity on their personal social media accounts.
The European Parliament’s LGBTI Intergroup expressed their concerns about the bill in a statement, urging members of the Romanian legislature to be “clear and resolute in striking it down”.
Deeming it as “another attempt to galvanise hatred in Romania”, Marc Angel, the group’s co-chair, added that “this bill has no human rights compliance and serves no societal purpose but to ostracise further those already discriminated against”.
A similar law, attempting to ban gender identity information in Romania’s schools and universities, was deemed unconstitutional by the Romanian Constitutional Court in 2020 after being passed by the Senate and the parliament’s lower chamber.
“Back then in 2020 when the law passed through the parliament, it felt like the world collapsed on me because I realised I couldn’t be myself any more,” said Gabriel Gherman, a 20-year-old transgender community activist and community facilitator with ACCEPT Romania – an NGO advocating for LGBTQ rights.
“I’m sure this time it would be the same if it would pass, but nobody with real political power asked us young transgender people in Romania how we feel about it,” Gherman said.
Although same-sex relationships have been decriminalised in Romania since 2001, Romania remains conservative towards the LGBTQ community, with same-sex couples still not being allowed to marry or enter into civil partnerships.
A banner in support of equal democratic rights was displayed during the Bucharest Pride march. ‘We continue to hope that this law will not be passed by the Romanian parliament … as this is a clearly unconstitutional initiative, which places us closer to Russia, in opposition with the European values that we adhered to by the will of the Romanian people, by being part of the EU and signing the human rights convention,’ said Teodora Ion-Rotaru Roseti from ACCEPT Romania. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
A banner with a hate message towards same-sex marriage was displayed during a counterprotest organised by Noua Dreapta, a far-right group. In 2018, conservative and religious organisations attempted to change the constitution through a referendum to prevent same-sex marriage from ever becoming legal. The referendum failed after voter turnout fell below the threshold of 30 percent needed to validate it. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
About 200 people displaying anti-LGBTQ rights banners and Christian Orthodox imagery participated in a counterprotest in response to the Pride march, on Saturday. The protest has been taking place on the same day as the Pride march since 2005. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
Young people participating in a ‘Pride in the Tram’ event wave at people waiting in a tram station. ‘We want to outline the fact that LGBT people exist in all walks of life and the tram takes message for equality rights through various neighbourhoods and reclaims public spaces and services for the community. It is also a message about the need for safety in public spaces for LGBT people,’ said Vlad Levente Viski from Mozaiq, an NGO advocating for LGBT rights. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
Two women hug each other during the Pride march. ‘Having a community feels for us like having another family, in the community we find our people, with whom we can be ourselves. When I had the opportunity to spend time in the community I felt great joy,’ said Gabriel Gherman, community facilitator from ACCEPT Romania. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
A Ukrainian dancer waves his national flag in a message against war during Bucharest Pride. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
People celebrated diversity marching, dancing and waving LGBTQ flags through the centre of Bucharest. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
A huge LGBTQ flag was carried by people participating in the Pride parade. [Alexandra Radu/Al Jazeera]
The words used, the language is deliberate to dehumanize anyone LGBTQ+ and make it seem they are extreme and degenerate. The wording is to make it seem those people are not normal and are sick, and any attempt to be positive and inclusive harms society and the straight people. Hugs
The language will be as follows: parental leave instead of maternity leave, parent instead of mother or father, parenting, birthing parent instead of mother, non-birthing parent instead of father. But what if it’s a woman who is beyond birthing age? What do we call her?
Now the reason behind this, the NEA writes, is that in using this contract language members need not worry about how a board of education defines maternity leave. Mother and her father, the language is an inclusive reflection of how the LGBTQIA+ members build their families.
This rationale assumes that the way that heterosexual members build their families should be rewritten regardless of their personal preference. How about bestiality? Is that part of it? I’m just waiting. And if it’s not, why not?
Officers are sharing racist content online, with some wearing the ‘thin blue line’ avatar, associated with white nationalism among US police
The Met was placed on special measures in June, after scandals including the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met officer. Photograph: Cliff Hide General News/Alamy
Police forces in the UK and across Europe are suffering from a growing “culture of extremism”, according to a report that warns of an increase in officers sharing racist and far-right content online. The report, by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), says UK policing has a growing extremist problem, and highlights issues across Europe. In France, 81% of gendarmes declared they would vote for far-right politician Marine Le Pen.
In France, Belgium, Germany and Hungary former high-ranking police officers have become extreme-right mayoral and parliamentary candidates.
In the UK, a series of recent cases involving the Metropolitan police have further damaged the reputation of a force long accused of being “institutionally racist”. They include officers sharing images on WhatsApp of two murdered black sisters. Another group of officers, at a central London station, were found to have joked about rape, killing black children and beating their wives.
The Met was last month placed on special measures after scandals including the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving Met officer, the strip-searching of innocent black children, and stop-and-search controversies including that of the British Olympic sprinter Bianca Williams.
Liz Fekete, director of IRR, said: “Our conclusion that the dehumanising mindset and overall sense of impunity and entitlement displayed in police WhatsApp groups is a symptom, not a cause, of authoritarian trends in policing, will no doubt make for uncomfortable reading.”
Fekete added: “Racism has become entrenched in policing as the rank and file are resituating themselves as society’s victims and organising on an ever more extremist agenda.”
The report also warns that the “thin blue line” avatar and hashtag are still seen on the Twitter feeds of police officers, including a safer neighbourhood team in London, and they have been observed on the uniforms of officers in Manchester. In the US, the thin blue line avatar and “blue lives matter” movement are associated with white nationalism, with serving and retired officers implicated in the Capitol Hill siege.
Fekete warned that the thin blue line had become a “besieged and misunderstood minority group” with a proliferation of victim narratives that represent rank-and-file officers as the aggrieved party in debates on police racism and use of force.
The report also warns of a link between racist attitudes and operational practice, particularly in relation to predictive policing and racial profiling. Last December, concerns were raised about the Met’s Operation Pima in which 61% of individuals identified within intelligence reports as the “most prolific or violent offenders” in London were black.
Ilyas Nagdee, from Amnesty International, said the research was important particularly as discussions about “alternative approaches to public safety” gained ground.
Mark Rowley was last week unveiled as the Met’s new commissioner, a figure whose previous position as its head of counter-terrorism means he is well versed in the challenges posed by extremism, both within and outside the force.
The only thing bring abusive cops to justice, to prevent abuse of blacks by racist cops is the videos that came out. The cop that enjoyed killing George Floyd wouldn’t have been found guilty without that video that showed him smirking and knowing killing a man. So the right wing racist in office want to protect those abusive cops and let the abuse by the police continue. This has to stop. The love that the blacks are treated like an occupied people and that police harm minorities. One state tried and I think did pass a law that made it illegal to insult a cop. WTF! Are they that fragile in their military gear they can not take an insult? Hugs
Critics say the law gives police too much discretion.
The same week that a federal judge sentenced ex-cop Derek Chauvin to more prison time for killing George Floyd, Arizona passed a law making it harder to record police by limiting how close bystanders can be while recording specified law enforcement activity. Chauvin was convicted in part because a recording showing his attack on Floyd at close proximity went viral. It was filmed by a teenager named Darnella Frazier while she was standing “a few feet away.”
The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year.
Sponsored by Republican state representative John Kavanagh, the law known as H.B. 2319 makes it illegal to record police at close range. In a USA Today op-ed, Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said “there’s no reason” to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal.”
This week, Kavanagh has succeeded in making close-range recording illegal in Arizona, with only a few exceptions. Perhaps most critically, the person involved in the police activity—someone being questioned, arrested, or handled by police—can record, as long as it doesn’t interfere with police actions. The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop.
Additionally, anyone recording activity from an enclosed structure on private property still has a right to record police within 8 feet—unless law enforcement “determines that the person is interfering” or “it is not safe” for them to be in the area. That caveat potentially gives police a lot of discretion over who can record and when.
Kavanagh said he decided to push for this change in Arizona law after some Tucson officers complained that bystanders sometimes stood a foot or two behind them while recording arrests. The state representative also told USA Today that his decision to set the minimum distance at 8 feet “is based upon 8 feet being established by the US Supreme Court as being a reasonable distance as they applied it to people entering and leaving abortion clinics when faced with protesters.”
Responding to critics who think citizens should be able to get closer to law enforcement activity, Kavanagh said, “The argument that filming from 8 feet away does not allow for a proper view of the scene is ridiculous.” He cited impactful police brutality recordings that were recorded from further distances, including Rodney King (100 feet) and Freddie Gray (“clearly 8 to 10 feet away”).
Concerns over constitutionality
Over the past decade, similar attempts to limit the recording of police activity have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional.
In 2011, a top US appeals court stopped police from arresting bystanders for supposedly “secretly” recording police activity, deeming the police action a violation of both free speech and guaranteed protections against unreasonable search and seizure. This established “a constitutionally protected right to videotape police.”
The next year, the US Department of Justice stated in a letter that recording police activity should only be “subject to narrowly defined restrictions,” praising the practice because it improves public confidence in law enforcement, helps ensure public safety, and holds police accountable. In 2017, a federal appeals court re-affirmed First Amendment rights to record police, saying that recordings both protect against abuse of power and exonerate wrongly accused cops.
Ahead of the law passing, Kavanagh was concerned about the constitutionality of his bill, especially after rules attorneys for the state House of Representatives told him it might be unconstitutional to apply the 8-foot buffer “to all police encounters.” To push the law through, Kavanagh amended the bill so that it “only applies to filming during police-citizen encounters where there is a potential for violence, such as arresting or summonsing people, questioning suspicious persons, and handling emotionally disturbed people.”
Kavanagh has expressed confidence that the new law will hold up against inquiries into its constitutionality. However, earlier this year, the ACLU of Arizona tweeted that “Not only is this bill a terrible idea, but it’s also unconstitutional” because it “places unnecessary burdens on folks and grants police too much discretion.”
Today, the ACLU of Arizona renewed those concerns, with staff attorney K.M. Bell saying that the law is a “chilling” use of the “public’s most effective tool against police wrongdoing in violation of our First Amendment rights.”
“By limiting our ability to record police interactions, this law will undoubtedly make it even more difficult to hold police officers accountable for misconduct,” Bell said in an emailed statement.
Kavanagh did not immediately respond to a request for comment on constitutional concerns now that the bill has passed. (Update: Kavanagh responded to add that “no sane person with good judgment walks a foot or two away from a police officer making an arrest,” unless they are “unbelievably naive or have other agendas.” He also said that videos taken from 8 feet away give “greater context” than close-range videos. He considers the ACLU argument to be “bogus” and expects the law to hold up if challenged in court.)
For now, bystanders recording Arizona police activity (as defined in the bill) will need to rely on their camera’s zoom capabilities if they want to follow in Frazier’s footsteps and capture close-up footage that holds police accountable. Her close-range video has been deemed “one of the most important civil rights documents in a generation” by journalists and documentarians.
More than one in ten wild tree species is threatened by unsustainable logging
One in five people around the world rely on wild animals, plants and fungi for food and livelihoods, according to a landmark assessment.
But many wild species are not being harvested sustainably, putting food security at risk, the report found.
In 2019, experts estimated that one million plants and animals could go extinct in coming decades.
And much of this is being driven by unsustainable fishing, hunting and logging.
Now a new report by the same influential body concludes that the sustainable use of wild species is critical for people and nature.
And climate change and increased demand is likely to push more species to the brink, putting food security at risk.
IMAGE SOURCE,WILD POETS SOCIETY
Image caption,
Over-fishing threatens a third of marine fish species
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is conservation scientists’ equivalent of the IPCC group of climate scientists.
Their most recent assessment, approved by 139 countries in Bonn, Germany, focuses on how fishing, hunting and logging can be carried out more sustainably without damaging biodiversity and food security.
It found that billions of people across the world rely on 50,000 species of wild animals, plants and fungi for food, medicine, fuel, income and other purposes.
The assessment paints a picture of widespread exploitation of nature, with about a third of wild fish in the ocean overfished, more than 10% of wild trees threatened by unsustainable logging, and more than 1,300 mammals pushed to extinction by unsustainable hunting.
IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES
Image caption,
Forest being cleared for cattle ranching in Brazil
Actions that would help address these challenges include a crackdown on illegal fishing and wildlife trade; better management and certification of forests; and recognising the rights of indigenous people who look after land and forests, it said.
Dr Jean-Marc Fromentin, co-chair of the assessment for France, said rural people in developing countries were most at risk from unsustainable use, and had few alternatives, “often forcing them to further exploit wild species already at risk”.
The report found:
About 50,000 wild species are used for food, fuel, cosmetics, medicines, tourism and other purposes.
More sustainable use of wild species is critical for people and nature, with billions of people in every corner of the globe relying upon them.
The sustainability of wild species in the future is likely to be challenged by climate change, increased demand for such products, and technological advances in methods of hunting, logging and fishing.
Addressing these challenges will require “transformative changes”.
Commenting on the assessment, Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said more sustainable use of animals and plants can provide a strong incentive for conservation and living in harmony with nature.
“Today one million species are at risk of extinction,” she said. “And the unsustainable, illegal and unregulated use of species is a large part of the problem. For example, the illegal wildlife trade is a 23 billion dollar annual business that lines the deep pockets of a few unscrupulous individuals. These people get rich at the expense of nature and ecosystems.”
The 2019 IPBES global assessment alerted the world that the direct exploitation of species is one of the main reasons that one million species of plants and animals now face extinction.
The new report will provide decision-makers with evidence for enhancing the sustainable use of wild species and will feed into negotiations in Montreal later this year on setting global targets to stem the loss of biodiversity.
Sustainable development will remain out-of-reach unless humanity changes the way it values nature, according to the UN’s science advisory panel for biodiversityJOHN WESSELS AFP/File
A major UN report warned Monday that a global economy focused on short-term profit is wrecking the planet and called for a drastically different approach as to how we value nature.
Without this shift, universally accepted goals of sustainable development and greater equity will remain out-of-reach, the science advisory panel for biodiversity, known as IPBES, found.
“The way we understand economic growth is at the core of the biodiversity crisis,” Unai Pascual, an ecological economist at the University of Bern and co-chair of a 139-nation meeting in Bonn that approved the report, told AFP.
“The new assessment aims to bring different types of values into the decisions leading us to transformative change.”
Some 80 experts combed through more than 13,000 studies, looking at how market-based values have contributed to the destruction of ecosystems that sustain us, and what other values might best foster sustainability.
A 34-page Summary for Policymakers, approved over the weekend, comes as the UN steers an international process to stem species loss and protect nature.
In December, nations gather to finalise a treaty tasked with halting the decline of biodiversity and setting humanity on a path to “live in harmony with nature” by mid-century.
“Nature is what sustains us all,” commented Inger Andersen, head of the UN Environment Programme. “It gives us food, medicine, raw materials, oxygen, climate regulation and much more.”
But a five-fold increase in per-capita GDP since 1950 has maimed the natural world that made such growth possible.
A million species — including, arguably, our own — are threatened with extinction and global warming is on track to make large swathes of the planet unlivable.
‘Not going to be easy’
Two landmark UN reports — one on climate change in 2018, another on biodiversity in 2019 — concluded that only a wholesale transformation of the way we produce, distribute and consume almost everything can stave off runaway global warming and a collapse of ecosystems.
That already Herculean task becomes nigh impossible, the IPBES report warns, unless humanity also changes the way it perceives and values nature.
More nuanced valuations of nature could lead to better policy choices, the IPBES authors concludeANDI AFP/File
“If you think of nature as a factory at your service, your emphasis will be on extracting the highest yields possible,” said Patricia Balvanera, an ecologist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a co-chair of the report.
Many still fear that sustainability can only be achieved at the expense of well-being, when in fact a natural world that can regenerate itself is the bedrock for healthy societies in the future, scientists say.
More nuanced valuations of nature could lead to better policy choices, the IPBES authors conclude.
A narrow cost-benefit analysis of development projects such as the Grand Renaissance Dam along Ethiopia’s Blue Nile or the Mayan Train project on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula weighed the value of electricity, tourism or jobs against the cost of construction or displacing populations.
A “living from nature” perspective may even quantify the economic value of damage to ecosystems, such as a CO2 absorbing forest or wetlands, or the loss of insect populations that pollinate crops.
“If nature is part of me, part of my family, then — as in a family — the priority is to take care of each other,” said Balvanera. “It is a totally different mindset.”
Many of the delegates and scientists in IPBES — the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services — are also part of the 196-nation Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), which has struggled to find consensus on the draft treaty to be delivered in December.
Civil society will play a critical role in changing the way societies value nature, according to a major report from the UN science advisory panel for climate changeMORRIS MAC MATZEN AFP/File
“We think this values assessment can help the negotiations, politically speaking, to provide find a solution,” noted Pascual, who said several delegates called it a “game-changer”.
“Right now, there is a gloomy sense that this is not going to be easy at all.”
Ah yes, the right wings favorite tool, lie, misdirect, and misinform. Accuse, slander, make false claims, and attack anyone / anything that doesn’t walk the right wing line. Again notice the wording used to describe even just being gay or supporting equality. Hugs
Facebook and Instagram both allowed anti-LGBTQ sentiment and misinformation to proliferate despite claiming to support the LGBTQ community during Pride Month, according to a pair of Media Matters reports released this week. Both social media platforms are owned by Meta, which publicly promotes its platforms as safe spaces for LGBTQ users.
Facebook enabled right-wing media to amplify anti-LGBTQ lies during Pride month, according to Media Matters. The progressive media watchdog group found that during the month of June, right-leaning pages posted about LGBTQ and Pride nearly 3,500 times and earned just under four million interactions.
“Facebook and its parent company Meta had eagerly promoted Pride Month, adding Pride features on the platform, claiming to amplify LGBTQ creators, and reiterating the company’s supposed commitment to supporting LGBTQ people and to eliminating hate speech targeting them. But Facebook has regularly failed to remove the dangerous and dehumanizing hate speech and misinformation targeting LGBTQ people coming from right-wing outlets, figures, and groups. And this Pride Month, under Facebook’s watch, posts that amplify longstanding, baseless, and dangerous rhetoric about the LGBTQ community proliferated across the platform,” the report found.
Pages run by right-wing media outlets TheBlaze, The Western Journal, and The Daily Wire, which regularly exploit Facebook’s algorithm, spread lies and fearmongering posts about Pride events and LGBTQ people “grooming children.” Similar anti-LGBTQ posts about Pride were also found all over right-wing Facebook groups both public and private.
“During Pride Month, Meta announced it was ‘celebrating pride’ by launching Pride-themed stickers and avatars, a Global LGBTQ+ Cultural Guide, and an LGBTQ+ Safety Hub,” the report on Instagram reads. “Despite Meta’s newly announced resources, Instagram has allowed its users to spread propaganda against the LGBTQ community — and even against the same individuals it’s publicly celebrating. In several cases, these are accounts dedicated to targeting LGBTQ people, while in others, these are accounts of right-wing media outlets and personalities who also push anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. Many of these posts seem to violate Meta’s policies.”
Media Matters tracked a number of right-wing accounts on Instagram – including Libs of TikTok, which has become notorious on various social media platforms for posting anti-gay propaganda and encouraging followers to harass LGBTQ people – that have been allowed to post homophobic memes and disinformation to their hundreds of thousands of followers.
As Media Matters points out, the rise in anti-LGBTQ hate on social media has coincided with a wave of anti-LGBTQ legislation in state houses across the U.S. as well as Pride events being targeted by extremist groups this summer. “The false narratives right-wing figures are spinning to support these bills are being projected through online platforms and news outlets and have already led to real-world harm.”
“While some queer users are profitable for Instagram, especially during the month of June, its ongoing failure to address accounts actively spreading harmful rhetoric against the LGBTQ community make the platform’s ‘Happy Pride’ messaging hollow,” the report concludes. “Once again, Meta is showing that it will prioritize the engagement that these high-profile right-wing accounts generated through hateful, lie-filled content, even when it leads to real-world harm and the degradation of LGBTQ rights and safety.”
LGBTQ Nation reached out to Meta for comment and will update this article if they respond.
Ah the republicans are salivating over this. They dream of going this far. We all knew this was coming in Russia where they are basically making being LGBTQ+ illegal. Just existing as a gay person will be against the laws. That is the end results of the don’t say gay bills. It has been a long time goal of the religious right to return the culture to the past where only white Christian cis males have right. I can not believe in a time where around the world the smaller right wing countries are opening up and recognizing gay rights as human rights two of the largest countries are hurting backwards and establishing theocracies. Notice the wording describing just showing gay people exist as propaganda and promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships. All to make seem gay people were trying to molest, groom, teach sex to kids. The current laws states anything LGBTQ+ can not be seen by minors and that means anywhere from online, TV / movies, public spaces, cars, anywhere a minor might be able to see it. Now they want to extend that to basically anywhere anyone could see it. The entire country is off limits to display or show anything positive about LGBTQ+ yet the hate groups can still attack those people freely. They are trying to make being non heterosexual and non cis illegal and open for attack. The law maker even bragged that attempt to legalize same sex marriage is a thing of the past. That is what the right salivates to happen here. In Russia when they tried democracy LGBTQ+ acceptance was becoming very supported by the public. Laws were being changed to be more accepting. Then the religious leaders went to Putin and offered to back him, install him as the countries leader if he gave them what they wanted. He agreed and the rest is history. It is a history being repeated in the US. Why does the right wing media love Russia / Putin? Why does Fox hosts praise authoritarians worldwide especially Putin? Because these leaders / countries are hurting the same groups they hate, giving their church official status in the government / laws. Please help us defeat these people and these red state hate laws. Hugs
Gay rights activists march in Russia’s second city of St. Petersburg May 1, 2013. (OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP via Getty)
Russia lawmakers have proposed extending the country’s existing “gay propaganda” law to include people of all ages later this year.
The existing legislation was signed by Vladimir Putin in 2013 and banned any “promotion” of “non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors. Anyone found guilty under the law can be sentenced to heavy fines or imprisonment.
But Alexander Khinshtein, chairman of the State Duma’s information committee, said the 2013 law for minors is now “insufficient”, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported. He said lawmakers would consider pushing the legislation further to ban depictions of the LGBTQ+ community for “audiences of all ages” in the media and online.
“We propose to fully extend the ban on that sort of propaganda among audiences of all ages (offline, media outlets, the Internet, social media, as well as in cinema theaters),” Khinshtein wrote on Telegram.
Under the proposed changes, any event or act seen as an attempt to promote the LGBTQ+ community could incur a fine, Reuters reported.
Khinshtein said his committee will consider the proposed amendments and even imposing stricter punishments for any violations of the so-called “gay propaganda law” when they are back in session in the fall.
A demonstrator holds a poster depicting Russian President Vladimir Putin with make-up. (GERARD JULIEN/AFP via Getty)
Russia’s parliamentary speaker Vyacheslav Volodin said the country would be banning the promotion of “non-traditional value” since it broke ties with the Council of Europe, the continent’s foremost human rights watchdog.
“Demands to legalise same-sex marriages in Russia are a thing of the past,” Volodin said. “Attempts to impose alien values on our society have failed.”
![Arizona makes it illegal for bystanders to record cops at close range [Updated]](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/GettyImages-1232299164-800x564.jpg)
