Russia recently
passed a law that essentially prohibits people from ‘acting gay’ in public,
Article 6.13.1. Propaganda of homosexualism among minors. The problem is the
imprecise definition of “propaganda.” Without a distinct meaning, the law is
left open to interpretation and could be enforced widely or not at all (Grim to
Be Gay 1). The Russian government
maintains that the law’s intention is not meant to encourage discrimination
against the LGBT community, but to protect the children. Critics, however, believe
the broadly stated wording encourages rather than discourages discrimination
and will likely lead to more problems for the LGBT community in Russia (Averko
1).
Some believe the
motive behind this new legislation is political rather than moral. It is
believed by some that Vladimir Putin is using this issue to differentiate
himself from Europe and the West. Russia is defining their ‘cultural codes’ by
what they are not: Western, liberal, modern (Grim to Be Gay 1). The LGBT
community in Russia is paying the price for this. Polina Andrianove of Coming Out, a campaign
group, says “The law has given a green light to aggression.” A nasty new trend
is the posting of videos online showing gay men tricked into meetings where they
are humiliated by vigilantes (Grim to Be Gay 2).
Homophobic
vigilantism is on the rise in Russia, according to many human rights
organizations. Some rightwing groups are using social media to trick gay people
into meetings where they are humiliated and beaten. Organized groups, such as
Occupy Gerontophilia and Occupy Paedophilia, are rising up with a mission to
“reform” homosexuals. The head of Occupy Paedophilia, Igor Kochetkov, said that
most incidences are not reported to the police.
His organization found out about “20 attacks that had been reported,
four were investigated and only one resulted in a court case” (Luhn, 1-2)
While this new law seems to have support in
Russia, the rest of the Western world is not happy and some are calling for
boycotting the 2013 Winter Olympic Games, which will be held in Sochi. The
former IOC President Jacques Rogge says they are waiting for clarification from
the Russian government that the anti-gay propaganda law would not be applied to
visitors to Sochi before having final judgment. (Smith, Morely, McGowan 2-3).
This month Thomas
Bach was elected to succeed Rogge as IOC president. Minky Worden, director of
global initiatives at Human Rights Watch, believes it was time for a leader
with “the vision to put human rights reforms in place and the will to enforce
them.” He continues to say,
“Russia’s June
2013 anti-gay law blatantly violates the Olympic principle of
non-discrimination and curtails the rights of athletes, sponsors, journalists,
and spectators, as well as other Russian citizens and foreign visitors to free
expression and equal treatment” (Olympics: Rights Agenda 1).
The arguments are whether or not
Russia has breached their pledge to uphold the Olympic charter and whether or
not the IOC has an obligation to get involved with the politics of the host
country.
The
Human Rights Watch has written up a proposal that would ensure “future host
countries have to meet benchmarks for compliance with human rights principles
and the Olympic charter.” They believe Bach has an opportunity to make it clear
that countries who wish to host the Olympic games need to meet high standards
(Olympics: Rights Agenda 2).
There
are three basic principles featured in the Olympic charter that the Human
Rights Watch has called on the IOC to uphold: The principle of human dignity,
the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of media freedom.
On
the other side of the argument, some gay athletes are asking that the Games go
ahead in Sochi. These athletes argue that they have worked very hard for this
opportunity and don’t want to miss their chance at going for a medal. New
Zealand speed skater Blake Skjellerup told CNN “ It’s very important for the
world to show up in Sochi and be united in this issue, to bring light to and
start a conversation about what is going on” (Smith, Morley, McGowan 7-8). With such a polarizing law being passed
seven months before the Games, this will prove to be more about the host than
ever before (Levy 5-6).
Links to further
information:
1. Athlete Ally: Olympic Sochi Movement
Gaining Momentum: http://www.athleteally.org/news/olympic-sochi-movement-gaining-momentum/
2. PolicyMic: I'm An Openly Gay Gold
Medalist and I Reject the Sochi Olympics Boycott: http://www.policymic.com/articles/58481/i-m-an-openly-gay-gold-medalist-and-i-reject-the-sochi-olympics-boycott
3. George Takei
petitions: ‘Move the 2014 Winter Olympics out of Russia’: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/07/george-takei-move-the-2014-winter-olympics-out-of-russia/
Discussion
& Analysis:
1. In the links
above, you have heard from athletes on both sides of the argument of whether or
not the 2014 Winter Olympics should take place in Sochi, now that human rights
are in question. Which side do you think has a better argument and why?
2. Some argue that
Putin is using this new anti-LGBT legislation to make a political statement
that Russia is not like Europe and the West. They believe this conservative
nationalism has led to the increase in hate crimes across Russia. a) Do you
agree with this viewpoint? Please explain. b) Do you think the Global exposure
of the Olympics, and this issue in particular, will influence other countries
sharing Russia’s animosity towards the US to follow suit and have an increase
in hate crimes?
I’m in the media law class this quarter and we’ve been discussing freedom of speech the past few weeks. On a personal level I find this “don’t act gay” law ridiculous. However, I’m learning how to separate my personal values from the topic in order to analyze freedom of expression laws more objectively. The human right to freedom of expression under the Olympics’ doctrine is at question. So I have a few questions. Do Olympic rules trump the national laws of the host country and is the law enforceable? In your post you point out how the law is extremely broad in its definition of “acting gay”. Broad laws and this broad uncertainty with the definition hinders all expression, therefore Russia is violating the Olympic rules as a host country. However, I do not agree with removing the games from Sochi. Russia is making an attempt to differentiate their national brand from the West. But the global exposure of the Olympics puts the national brand at stake more so than the other systems involved; for instance the US Olympic team, the Olympics, and endorsements. Basically, I see Russia as stuck in the defensive position. The Olympics, US team and partner endorsements have the opportunity to promote LGBT issues. Similar to greenwashing, there’s the potential to “pride-wash”, companies’ curtailing their marketing initiatives to show support for the LGBT community and human expression.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Russia’s conservative nationalism is a political statement. I do not agree that other countries will follow suit in the hopes to show animosity towards the US. The LGBT effort is not solely a US form of identity. It did not “start” in the States and it is not a Western tradition. It’s a human expression that involves all nationalities and races. Russia’s political statement is more harmful to the brand and their reputation than it is pushing other countries to rebel against Western ideals.
Hi Shannon,
DeleteI think you’re on to the right idea. I also see a platform for brands to communicate that they support LGBT rights. However, I hope such brands would do that in good will rather than “pride-washing.” Based on my past conclusions about “greenwashing,” for instance, those approaches are not always authentic. In the case of the Russian Olympics, however, I do see a great opportunity for brands to rally behind anti-discrimination, or to pull a Chic-Fil-A approach. Since you bring it up, I think this adds a whole other dimension to what we could be monitoring for when watching the Olympics as communications folk this winter. It would be interesting to see what brands are endorsing the Olympics and follow their Twitter feeds, etc. I am excited to see how Putin and his staff will respond to the protests, if there are any, in real-time. In the George Takei interview, we can see how MSNBC already responded to the situation, citing that they support equal rights, but then they went straight back to business. The anchor, however, did say he would sign Takei’s petition to move the winter games to Vancouver. I thought that was risqué of him. Very interesting.
Like Adriana, I also hope that brands would be standing up for the LGBT community out of goodwill rather than for "pride-washing" purposes. As a nation, we expect that our country would stand firmly behind human rights for all. (Despite the fight for equality within our own country) Will this expectation pressure the United States to react because of their Social Responsibility? I am interested to see how the US chooses to respond to Putin’s new laws and also how they protect our own LGBT athletes.
DeleteShannon, I think that your last point is very strong. Despite the claims that Putin is trying to separate Russia from the West, it is true that the LGBT community is not only active in the West. By painting his country as intolerant of this community, he is (as Shannon said) “branding” Russia as non-progressive and close-minded. I am interested to see whether the upheaval surrounding these laws will force Putin to reconsider the branding of his country.
I really enjoyed the point regarding brands speaking out against the law and supporting the athletes that are LGBT. The brands that have already signed contracts to advertise and purchased media at the games can run their own campaigns supporting the athletes. This approach would fit with the mind-set of those who support the LGBT community, and at the same time undermine Putin's agenda. The brand support for the U.S. Olympic team has always looked out for the interests of the athletes, and the sponsors can take a big step in supporting not only U.S. athletes, but others who are being targeted by Russia's propaganda. Most of the advertisers at the Olympics will be global brands and can tailor messages to support all athletes.
DeleteShannon, you raised a great question,"Do Olympic rules trump the national laws of the host country and is the law enforceable?" As of now, the Olympic laws do not trump the national laws of the host country.
DeleteWhat many activists are hoping is that the controversy surrounding the Sochi Olympics will encourage the IOC to hold countries more accountable if they want to host the Games in the future. This is a difficult thing to do, however. A representative from Scania, a Swedish automotive manufacturer and Olympic sponsor, said, "As long as thre are no sanctions on doing business in a certain country, we are doing business. If you should take into consideration different things like,'shall we deliver to countries with the death penalty, for instance the U.S. and China?'...We have to act on a commercial bases. Otherwise, we couldn't sell almost anywhere in the world." I think the IOC will run into similar issues while defining what is acceptable behavior for a country and what goes against the Olympic Charter.
1. The the International Olympic Committee (IOC) should stand by its word about
ReplyDeleteantidiscrimination and live up to the expectations of its Rights Agenda. Accordingly, I liked George Loganis' solution to the problem. He provides a happy medium for people to rally behind anti-discrimination but also considers risks involved for other stakeholders, which is a realistic and strategic approach to take in this situation.
First, moving an Olympics to another city would be a logistical nightmare and cost a lot of money for all stakeholders involved, so I don't think it would ever happen. I saw someone from the IOC speak in Denver once, and the committee was already planning for the 2020 Olympics in 2012. Thus, Loganis’ solution provides the opportunity for folks to take a stance and face what is truly happening in Russia and forces the IOC to stay in the forefront and deliver transparency to its audience in real-time. I like this, because this is a more realistic situation for a communications staff to have to manage than relocating a problem. I think it also forces the Russian government to stay engaged in the concerns surrounding this LGBT issue. I also noticed how the articles provided illustrate how Athlete Ally, which is focused on LGBT rights and athletes, has spoken up at the right time to leverage its organization on this real-time Olympics issue.
2. a) Based on the sources you have provided, I can only draw conclusions from those sources as to whether or not heightened homophobia is occurring across Russia due to Vladimir Putin’s new anti-LGBT legislation. It appears that the sources on this topic would suggest this is true, so that is my conclusion. Nonetheless, we know that U.S. hate crimes went up against people who looked like "terrorists" after 9/11, so perhaps some parallels can be drawn there. If it is the goal of Putin and his staff to mobilize people to perform hate crimes against the LGBT community, perhaps unfortunately their communication platform about anti-LGBT legislation is working among the Russian population.
b) Yes, I also believe this particular situation could have an increase in hate crimes against the LGBT community across the world. Often times, hate groups will leverage off of one another to build momentum for their own causes. In my opinion, it is a different but same strategic approach an organization, like Athlete Ally, could and did use in a scenario like the Olympics to respond to hate crimes from their organization’s own point of view.
1. First of all, I agree with Adriana that the sheer effort it would take to move the 2014 Olympic Games from Sochi to Vancouver would be tremendous. It would also be financially irresponsible of the IOC to commit such resources to a move if a compromise is still an option. Having said that, the IOC absolutely has to address this issue with the Russian government and ensure that the IOC Charter is upheld in order to protect gay athletes, coaches and any other parties who may be at risk, given the new and very ambiguous Russian law. If an agreement about the law not applying to those coming for the games cannot be reached, the IOC will need to take action of some sort. George Takei's point about this law wreaking havoc and creating potentially dangerous situations for attendees and athletes is well received. The IOC has to make a concerted effort to ensure the games are a safe place for all.
ReplyDeleteHaving read the links and looking at both sides of the arguments made about the 2014 Olympics, I would be most inclined to side with Greg Louganis. His position provides a logical, middle-of-the-road solution that does not support a boycott, but does advocate for a higher level conversation about gay rights. His consideration of the time and effort athletes have put in to their training is important. Asking US athletes to boycott the Olympics takes away the chance for them to succeed at the sport that they have dedicated their lives to mastering. Instead, encouraging the alignment of supporters of LGBT rights with organizations like Athlete Ally is a great way to help solve the long-term issues that are at play here. This is a teachable moment that can be best leveraged using a long-term strategy designed to educate people about equal rights and why they are important. This is a great time to continue that conversation abroad and hopefully make some progress.
2. a) I do agree with this viewpoint. The timing of the announcement of the new law is no coincidence, and was clearly going to bring a lot of attention to Russia and Putin. It is in direct opposition with the progress that has been made recently in America and other countries towards equal rights for the LGBT community.
The ambiguity of the law no doubt has the potential to increase the rate of hate crimes in Russia, and given the information presented, it appears that this activity is on the rise.
b) I do not think that this issue will encourage other countries to align with Russia and increase pursuit of hate crimes against the gay community. I agree with Shannon, and feel that this particular situation will be one that effects the brand of Russia. Having said that, I believe that the agreements reached and decisions made by the IOC in the coming weeks and months will have a huge impact on subsequent results of this situation. IOC's actions will send a message to the world about the priority placed on non-discrimination on a global level.
Bbb is Ashley, by the way. :)
DeleteBbb is Ashley, by the way. :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo avoid reiterating the same sentiments, I'll just say that I also concur that it would be extraordinarily difficult to pull out of Sochi at this point for the Olympic Council logistically and fiscally speaking. As far as countries boycotting the Olympics, it has been utilized in the past (Cold War era), but tends to polarize and aggravate relations and dialogue on future issues. I think it sends a stronger message to allow the athletes to go on and compete; that’s what they have been training for for so long. I think what this Olympics could use is actually another Jesse Owens figure. It sends a stronger message to the Anti-Gay community when you show up, saying "we're not going to let you bother us, we're not afraid, and we're here to prove it."
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand why Putin has pushed this legislation through. To me, it would seem like a nightmare to deal with the influx of domestic violence issues at the local level. It's social suicide at home and abroad, and does nothing to enhance Russia's reputation as a “modern(izing) democracy.” As others said already, it certainly has affected Russia’s “brand”.
Personally, I think the greatest protest that could be done is if individuals choose not to go to Russia to watch the games. Instead it would be a great opportunity for donation and charity groups to start fund raisers that could start collections to support the Olympics and the Athletes (since low ticket sales could potential harm the Olympic institution), and also support LGBT causes in Russia and around the world. That would send a strong message to Russia from the international community; We support the games and all our fellow players, but we will not come and allow our money to support your economy and your hate laws.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDavid, I really like your point about Jesse Owens. Perhaps some of the athletes will have their own PR people or brands rally behind them. I have read about how Lady Gaga chose to tap into the LGBT market, which goes untapped, so she is "brilliant" for it. But with Gaga, that whole back story seems to be unauthentic to me when folks talk about her tapping into the untapped LGBT market. Accordingly, perhaps some of the athletes who identify with the LGBT community will use this as an opportunity, as you say, to send a message against anti-discrimination. Hopefully it's more authentic, too, unlike Gaga (in my opinion). I think this is one of the most powerful things they can do. It also forces Russia to pay attention to this conversation front and center and not allow them wash their hands with this issue. Not showing up is also a great idea. Actions speak louder than words.
DeleteExcellent perspective, David. I think responding to a law that speaks to oppression and hate with acceptance and positivity aligns with what we talk a lot about in class - practicing what you preach. This could be a powerful way for LGBT rights organizations to lead through positive action. Combating an issue like this by protesting or walking away doesn't send as powerful of a message as attending and rallying support for LGBT issues.
DeleteI also agree that it was a very interesting choice for Putin to push this legislation through, especially since the article Margie had us read identified that he had hired a public relations firm to help with image issues. I finally think that progress is beginning to be made here in the states with equal rights for the LGBT community, and that wouldn't be happening without the support of an ever-growing number of American people. If there was an intention to win favor in this country, this move would appear to be ill-advised.
I also agree with David in that one way to support the cause so to speak is for spectators to boycott the games. Hurting Russia’s bottom line might just be the best way to get the government’s attention. But, again, as long as the athletes support this decision. Competing with no fans in the stands doesn’t exactly spark the fiercest competition.
DeleteHi David,
DeleteI really enjoyed your idea of holding fundraisers to support Olympic athletes, who do work hard to participate in the games, as an alternative to giving money to Sochi. As a side, there is a major international sporting event held for LGBTQ athletes called the "Gay Games." The host of the games is the Federation of Gay Games, and I hope they take this opportunity to promote who they are and what they do (and maybe raise funds for their own 2014 games). I'm afraid that the Sochi Olympics sends a powerful message that the sports world is, as it is so often believed to be already, antigay. Many athletes have already expressed concern over speaking out against Russia's antigay laws and sentiments for fear of facing disqualification or prejudice/violence. If we don't have those voices, we don't have much to counter that message. Though not as big as the IOC, the FGG is a 30-year strong organization; it would be great if they could use Sochi to garner attention for themselves and communicate that there is a place for everyone on the field.
I also agree with Adriana that moving the Olympics to another city would be nearly impossible. Although what George Takei proposes could solve the problem of a potential boycott, I can’t help but feel that uprooting the entire event would be simultaneously sweeping the larger issue under the rug. Russia’s new laws targeting homosexuals have received an enormous amount of press because of the Olympics, which will probably prove beneficial for the campaign against them. By choosing to pass the laws at this time, Putin seems to be asking for the consent of the rest of the world by assuming that they will still send their athletes. I cannot imagine he overlooked the possible controversy these laws would create, and now he and the rest of the world is faced with an ethical dilemma.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading Greg Louganis’ perspective on the Sochi Olympics Boycott. All of the Olympic competitors have worked incredibly hard to make it to the Winter Games, and it would be asking a lot of the LGBT athletes to pull out of the competition. I would imagine that the issue could be resolved in ways not requiring a boycott. The IOC has to deal with the ethical principles of advocacy, loyalty, and fairness when approaching the problem. They are called to be advocates and also to remain loyal to both the athletes and the host country, Russia. This is where the fairness component enters the equation. Although the IOC has been involved in politics in the past, (as Marlo mentioned yesterday- China, Germany) it is more difficult in this situation because the country in question is hosting. How does the IOC ensure fairness to both Russia and the athletes and fans travelling to the Sochi Olympics? First and foremost, I think the safety of the athletes and foreigners is of the upmost importance. It must be determined whether the laws will apply to foreigners in the country, and if so, the IOC must be mindful of their safety. Secondly, how do we convey to Russia the appalling nature of these laws? As Marlo mentioned yesterday, the United States is acting a bit hypocritical when condemning Russia for their laws when we have not fully achieved equality for the LGBT community in our own country. As I come to the end of my blog post, I think I have ended with more questions than when I began. My questions I pose to rest of the class are: Firstly, as the PR manager for the US Olympic athletes, what would be your course of action? Secondly, do you think the US could use this situation to achieve equality for the LGBT community here?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteElizabeth, I want to address your second question regarding whether or not the controversy surrounding the Sochi Olympics will effect equality for the LGBT community here in the U.S.. I do think that the Sochi Olympics will draw attention to Human Rights. Unfortunately, I think it will continue to act as a polarizing issue, rather than one that brings our country together. While there have been boycotts of products produced by sponsors of the Olympics and petitions signed by thousands to move the Games out of Sochi, there have been just as many people showing support for Putin and Russia's new anti-LGBT propaganda. For example, a US pastor named Scott Lively calls Putin "the defender of Christian civilization" and travels the globe trying to convince people of the evils of homosexuality. (see link below)
DeleteThat being said, I do believe in the power of sport to break down barriers and to cross borders. The focus should be on sport and the athletes, first and foremost. But there is an opportunity for the athletes and visiting fans and media to have a real impact on human rights in Russia, the U.S. and around the world. Like all human rights issues, this is going to take time and I don't think we will ever have everyone on board. There is still a lot of discrimination and hatred in the world, but I think the exposure and conversations we have regarding these issues will help us move towards equality for all.
Scott Lively Article: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20546485-the-rainbow-belongs-to-god-anti-gay-us-pastor-sets-sights-on-sochi-olympics?lite
Hi Elizabeth,
DeleteThis was a great response!
If I worked in communications for the IOC, I would probably quit. The organization is not living up to their own stated ethics (their "charter), and thus, I would be forced to advocate for ideas and policies I had not signed on for. Though, if I stayed, I'd demand for increased and honest dialog between the Russian government and the IOC to ensure the safety of LGBTQ visitors and athletes; I'd also keep the public informed of what was said in these exchanges. To date, this has been a huge problem. The IOC has released false (or benefit of the doubt, ill-interpereted) information regarding exchanges with Putin and his representatives. I'd also demand IOC uphold their charter and be stern in communicating with Russia that inclusiveness is at the heart of what the games stand for.
I do not mean to sound so jaded, but I do not believe the Sochi debates will have any impact on the LGBTQ rights movement's momentum. Those who are expressing their concerns about the games being hosted in such an antigay and politically hostile environment are largely those who are already passionate about LGBTQ rights. And of course, those on the US political right who favor Putin's policies are just as loud in their support of the law as they of their opposition to same-sex equality on the home front.
(Here are some pretty disturbing quotes from conservative groups regarding the "propaganda" law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/russia-anti-gay-bill_n_3530050.html )
However, Marlo is right. Dialog is good. I just think this is one more piece, not the puzzle's solution.
I have read the original posting numerous times and the phrase that sticks out to me every time I read it is that the law is meant to "protect the children." The outrageously broad working of the law coupled with the fact that now those who support the law are allowed to feel threatened by the LGBT community. Vladimir Putin has given the law's proponents ammunition in the fight against LGBTs in the Russian community. They can justify their hate crimes by simply saying that they were "protecting the children."
ReplyDelete1.) The Olympics should not be moved from Sochi and out of Russia entirely, for the simple fact that there is nowhere else capable of holding the Games. That being said, this allows the LGBT community and those that support human rights to take a stand against the close-mindedness of the laws. The threat of boycotting the Games is a very viable option, but by doing that, Putin’s laws win and Russia will be allowed to hold the Games based on what the law dictates. The LGBT community competing in the Games and their global supporters collectively “throw the book” at Putin and the proponents of the anti-gay law.
2.) .
a. I DO believe that the anti-LGBT legislation is a political statement founded on the basis tat Russia is attempting to identify itself as an independent state capable of making its own laws and upholding its own moral and ethical standards. However, the legislation is further ostracizing the country and the law’s supporters from the progressive nature of the world we live in. I also believe that the conservative nationalism has lead to the increase in hate crimes across Russia because, as mentioned before, it gives anti-LGBT a reason to feel threatened by the LGBT community. Conservative nationalists believe in social traditionalism and supporting the traditional family approach.
b. Unfortunately, I agree that there will be increases in hate crimes both across Russia and globally, as more countries WILL adopt legislation that prohibits “acting gay.” The verbiage of they law has now shaped the way other laws can be written. By informing the public that the LGBT community poses a “significant” threat to the country’s children and the values that the said country is founded on, anti-LGBT supporters are armed with idea that their lives are now threatened by members of the LGBT community. Russia-US relations are shaping the global landscape and countries are beginning to align with either side. This is another facet to add to the discussion as the world is becoming more polarized based on social and economic issues.
1) As many who have posted have already stated, moving the Olympics is a near impossibility due to the time constraints of the impending Games and the sheer number of preparations that must be made leading up to the Games. In this way it was a smart move by Putin to wait until closer to the Games to start rolling out his anti-LGBT legislation so all of the stakeholders involved, including athletes, sponsors, governments, etc. had to make a tough decision in a smaller amount of time. The most important stakeholders in any Olympics discussion are the athletes themselves. Fans should voice their opinions on what they believe can, or should, be done, but the people who are most affected by a decision to boycott the Games are the athletes that have been training for years to get to the point they could represent their countries at the highest level. Even if the majority of the athletes came out in support of moving the Games to a different location or boycotting the Games it wouldn’t be enough to force those athletes who did not agree with the decision to comply. Greg Louganis’ argument was for me the one to give credence to, as he was directly affected by the boycott of the 1980 Games. Yes, use the Games as an opportunity to educate people, but don’t punish athletes who might never get another opportunity to compete on this stage.
ReplyDelete2a) I also can only draw limited conclusions on the increase in hate crimes across Russia, but people have a tendency to lash out at the “other.” Putin is creating an environment of “us” against “them” at home and abroad by pushing forward with this legislation, and demonizing the “other” rarely turns out well for the “other”.
2b) I don’t think that other countries will take sides based on animosity towards the US, but more conservative countries might be using Russia as a test case. If Russia can get away with it, why can’t they?
In terms of Public Relations models this would be a good example to look at Pat Jackson’s Behavioral Public Relations Model as referenced in the Strategic Communications Planning text. There is now awareness of serious issues for the LGBT community in Russia, but at this point almost everyone seems to be in the Latent Readiness to Act stage. What will be the triggering event that causes people to act?
I just listened to a very interesting program called "Arctic Oil Meets Greenpeace Activists," which is a program from "On Point" (WBUR) through National Public Radio for October 11, 2013 (I downloaded the NPR app into my phone and clicked on programs). It was interviews with several people about the 30 Greenpeace activists who were arrested and may be sentenced to about 15 years in jail for "piracy" by the Russians. I mention it here because some of the discussion focuses on the current climate in Russia regarding crackdowns on dissent and "deviancy," and all the political dynamics around these shifts. It also raises very interesting questions (on a side note) regarding activism and direct action and what risks people are willing to take, and when are civil disobedience actions going too far (particularly under laws and political climates of different countries).
ReplyDelete