The New Russophobia 2

More fun in the Duma.

JMG wrote:

A bill decriminalizing domestic violence has passed its first reading in Russia’s State Duma. Some 368 lawmakers voted in favor of the law, with just one deputy voting against the plans. One other deputy abstained from the vote.

The bill would remove the charge of “battery within families” from Russia’s Criminal Code, downgrading it to an administrative offense. Criminal charges would only be brought against offenders if familial beatings took place more than once a year. The bill was spearheaded by ultra-conservative Russian lawmaker Yelena Mizulina, who is already notorious for successfully lobbying Russia’s controversial “gay propaganda” law.

Mizulina first took up the fight in July 2016, when President Vladimir Putin decriminalized other forms of assault and battery that did not cause actual bodily harm. Mizulina has called the decision to define battery within families as a more serious offense – alongside hooliganism and hate assaults — as “anti-family, and claims that the law undermines parents’ “right” to beat their children.

Of course there is more opposition to this law than in the case of the gay propaganda law... not only was there an abstention, one member actually voted against it! Of course it was only first reading, perhaps improvements can be made to it so the whole Duma can get behind it.

Mobo2000 wrote:

 

VOTD -- from your example, to me the ideal response would be for the gay rights groups to do both:  call for resistance to the homophobic laws (and give support to domestic groups best able to bring about change), and also call out Western powers on their aggression, and make it clear that change in Russia should not come about through outside force. 

In practical terms, also, international pressure about domestic policies frequently strengthens the existing governement, as the population rallies around the government because it is perceived as being attacked by outsiders.   It's a tricky problem.  

 

Mostly agree. I'm undecided if a gay-rights group needs to take an official stand on imperialism(arguably not part of their mandate, any more than an anti-imperialist group needs to take a stand on gay rights everywhere), but certainly, if the given political climate poses the risk that a campaign for persecuted gays will be hijacked by those pushing a warmonegering agenda, the activists can make it clear that they're not on board for that.

And I certainly get what you're saying about international pressure hardening attitides within the target country. But it can be interesting how these things play out. The US embassy helped sponsor a gay-rights festival in Korea some time last year. The people protesting against Uncle Sam in this case were mostly right-wing Christians, the kind of people who, more often than not, would normally be the biggest cheerleaders for US involvement on the Korean penisula.

http://tinyurl.com/javb5ha

(EDIT: Re-reading the article, it was a gay-rights FORUM, not a festival, that the embassy sponsored. I think I was mixing that story up with one from another country.)

Thanks for the reasonable discussion, VOTD.   Appeciated your Korean example and the article as well.

ETA:  Smith, I would love to have some kind of conversation with you about this.   But sometimes you are too meta for me.   I honestly don't know what you mean above.  

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Actually, no.  If you feel that you need to "ignore British and US imperialism to focus on the evil Russians" then that's a multitasking fail.

But I don't feel that way, do you, or are you just beating the shit out of strawmen again?  Go ahead attack that person he's not me.

Quote:

Because he spends most of his time criticising U.S. misdeeds, he must be condoning those of U.S. rivals. It's a dishonest attack in that case, and also here on babble.

Why isn't is just as dishonest to suggest that if someone criticizes other countries' misdeeds, you must be supporting U.S. imperialism?

Quote:

But I don't feel that way, do you, or are you just beating the shit out of strawmen again?

No.  I was just suggesting that with our big human brains, it's never necessary to ignore everything else in order to not ignore one thing.  We don't have to choose just one country's imperialism to oppose -- we can oppose them all.

There's an unfortunate tendency here at babble to simplistically equate, say, criticism of Cuba's human rights record with unquestioning support for the U.S. ... speaking of straw men.  That's really all that argument is, too.

We've had plenty of debate here, long before you arrived, about the merits of having some kind of anti-imperialist perspective as a requirement here, just as we DO have a requirement of avoiding racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., tirades.

You will get called on the latter. Try it and see.

Anyway, I don't think we came to any conclusion on anti-imperialism. Too bad as far as I'm concerned. But it is a rather high "bar" for a country like Canada. Not, I think, for most of the rest of the world.

edited to add:

rabble/babble comment policy

Quote:

We welcome your comments at rabble.ca. To maintain a respectful dialogue, we've posted the guidelines of our comment policy below.

• Stay focused. All viewpoints are welcome, but comments should remain on the topic set by the original article, discussion question or other type of initial entry. Post maximum is 250 words. We invite you to bring any longer, more in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.
• Be respectful. Personal attacks, excess profanity, oppressive and aggressive behaviour are prohibited. Instigating arguments in a disrespectful way is also prohibited.
• Tell the truth. Please avoid spreading misleading or false information.
• No spam. Repeated posting of identical or very similar content is prohibited, as is aggressively promoting or linking to services or products.
• Copyright. Please do not publish full-length articles from other publications and websites -- linking is preferable.

rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and as such encourages discussions which develop and expand progressive thought.

We retain the discretion to determine which comments violate our comment policy. We also reserve the right to edit, remove individual comments or close comment threads that violate our comment policy. We expect all contributors to be respectful.

If you plan to comment on our discussion forum, babble, please read and respect our babble policy.

Thank you for taking the time to review our comment policy. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.

link

I rarely agree 100% with Kevin Dooley, but last year he wrote an interesting blog / reflection on "The Limits of Chomsky’s Anti-Imperialism" that explores some of the critiques of the principle being discussed above, - ie, that "you criticize the actions of your own government first".

"There are a few objections I have to this kind of framing, but the most central one is the idea that imperial violence forced by ruling class interests are really the collective crimes of the America people. Imposing this kind of guilt on the classes that have nothing to do with designing or implementing imperial policy functions in a similar way as his lesser-evil advocacy. In the case of Trump, Chomsky is isolating a figure from his long-held position within the confines of the ruling class to warn of the unique danger he poses, and in the case of war guilt, he’s doing the opposite by merging all of the classes together in order to share the burden of responsibility for the empire’s shameful legacy of global destruction, plunder and immiseration.

This use of “we” functions as a rebuke of internationalism as I’ve always understood the term. Since Americans ostensibly live in some kind of democracy, with a state in some way accountable to the popular will, then “we” is not meant to represent the global masses enduring life under capitalism. Instead, it’s used as a national identification that removes class barriers in effect linking ordinary people with the capitalists who rule them. The erasure of the clear differences in political, social and economic status within a society does a lot of damage to people’s ability to see how the interests of the ruling class are necessarily in conflict with their own class interests. It also makes it difficult to see how people all over the world are linked in a common struggle against capitalism and all those dedicated to its survival."

(My emphasis added.)

https://kevindooleyirl.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/the-limits-of-chomskys-a...

Edzell wrote:

Mobo2000 wrote:

The main principle for anti-imperialists is you criticize the actions of your own government first.  This is anti-imperialism 101.   All our domestic media, left, right and centre, will be happy to criticize the actions of our enemies.

Mobo, I thought everyone was welcome to post here within the (very liberal) rules. I have no wish to have my thought processes, or my posts on the forum, judged on whether I'm sufficiently - or at all - anti-imperialist by anyone's definition thereof.

Mobo has been here less time than you. And I struggled to see where Mobo said you weren't welcome to post here. One thing I deeply dislike is the construction of straw men, especially when used to take shots at fellow babblers. So please, do me a favour, and stop it. If you don't agree with what someone says, express your disagreement. But don't weep about not being allowed to post here when it's perfectly obvious that your very thoughtful posts to date are welcome and the subject of much discussion.

Quote:

I haven't been here very long but if I'm only welcome as someone's idea of an anti-imperialist, I'll be off. I don't favor discussions you can only be respected in if you hold a certain narrow view. I once attended a meeting of people advertising themselves as "Free Thinkers" but haven't returned. They spent half thier time laughingly ridiculing - almost vilifying - all non atheists. I'm atheist myself but I found their behavior fairly disgusting and their thinking anything but free. Hope the discussions here are not just for "preaching to the indoctrinated."

I'm sorry about your experience with the "Free Thinkers". But if you think it over, you'll hopefully realize that babble is not a meeting of people advertising ourselves as anything. We have very different opinions (didn't start with your arrival) and we continue to debate and discuss. Your comparison of this community to "the indoctrinated" is a bit hasty - but certainly, it is erroneous. You were obviously the victim of some discussion you didn't like among the "Free Thinkers". I hope you don't see yourself as a victim here. Because that's the way your post, taken as a whole, reads.

We will, from time to time, drop our differences and unite to laughingly ridicule Kellie Leitch and the like. I hope you don't find that "fairly disgusting" or that our thinking is "anything but free". Because we won't change those kinds of laugh fests just to make someone more comfortable about sticking around here. Not as long as my keyboard functions, at least.

So, glad you're here, deal with people's viewpoints, and if you find a post too infuriating to reply to - consider ignoring it. Meanwhile, please stick around, your contributions are welcome and valued.

Oh by the way, Edzell, you totally misinterpreted ikosmos "try it and see" comment. He has long maintained that failure to follow anti-imperialist policy often gets a pass here, while the same is not true for racist, sexist, and other posts. He wasn't talking about you. He wasn't seriously suggesting that you should make such a post.

In fact, for your information, the anti-imperialist section of babble's policy is the newest part, and it was the subject of some controversy. Whether I agree with ikosmos's assessment or not (and I think there's a grain of truth, but also that it's understandable why there should be), it has certainly proven to be less clear cut than some of the other stands around which we all unite. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Unionist; thanks for the kind as well as the maybe not-so-kind words. The part of Mobo's post that prompted mine was as follows:

Quote:

"The main principle for anti-imperialists is you criticize the actions of your own government first.  This is anti-imperialism 101.   All our domestic media, left, right and centre, will be happy to criticize the actions of our enemies. 

For Canadian anti-imperialists, the US government is a close second, because a) we support it ideologically and materially in its goals, and we benefit from it's Empire, and b) we have some ability to influence it, through our proximity to american citizens."

I took this - no doubt wrongly - to suggest that only those who fit some definition of "anti-imperialist" are welcome. (I do have an antipathy to being called any sort of "ist".) I should also mention that's not the only place I think I've seen it implied that rabble/babble was "for" anti-imperialists. But anyway I'll back off and concede that maybe that's not what Mobo was meaning (sorry, Mobo.)

The thing about the Free Thinkers was maybe not too appropriate in that the opinions were more rigid & forcefully expressed than most of what I see here. Some of them were nasty to the point of being hateful, and I just couldn't get past the irony that they called themselves Free Thinkers. I fnd that laughable, yes, now that I've escaped them but I doubt they would laugh with me..

Anyway enough of all that. I do have a habit of criticising what I see as invalid or over-the-top rhetorical observations just on principle, in the interest of promoting factual discussion and regardless which "side" of a dispute I would support. I daresay it will get me into trouble more than once, in more ways than one.

I do enjoy this forum; on balance it's the friendliest, most civil one I've found with the exeption of a gardening one where the "digs" are so subtle you can't respond in case they really are unintentional.

Thanks to all here.

Unionist wrote:

Gardeners are not permitted here. We have to draw the line somewhere.

Should have stayed in the (propagation) closet!

ikosmos wrote:

There are no words.

Do you promise? I wish there were no words.

Unfortunately we keep getting these finger-wagging, righteous diatribes about how disappointing we are.

Beyond the fact that it is annoying, I don't care. You don't run the show here any more than I do, so it doesn't actually mean anything.

LOL right back at you. Whether you realise it or not, you come across like one of those classically repressed and bullying schoolmasters constantly haranguing his classroom of skeptical, insubordinate and hugely unappreciative schoolchildren.

Roger Waters pretty well captured your style and ethos here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U

As always, the children see right through the charade and the hypocrisy.

"Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone,
All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

NDPP wrote:

"Is it not somewhat concerning how many Russia media stories have had to be corrected and/or retracted - always in the same direction? "

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/819895812939534336

 

 

Not really. Their hacking of the DNC and dissemination of the hacked information has been established to my satisfaction. They don't rely deny it, but issue non-denial denials and mockery. The Trump thing is not as clearcut at this point, including contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but I believe will be established in time.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know, from they way that is written it sounds like he's talking about RT. Except that they never retract anything.

But it is not clear what he is talking about in the first place. Who has retracted what? Comey and his accusation? Trump and most of his platform?

 

Click on the link, then click on the various images attached to his tweet. As you might expect, they are both retracted allegations about Russian hacking - one about C-SPAN, the other about the U.S. electric grid (a Burlington Electric computer was indeed allegedly hacked, but the retraction said it wasn't attached to the grid).

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You know, from they way that is written it sounds like he's talking about RT. Except that they never retract anything.But it is not clear what he is talking about in the first place. Who has retracted what? Comey and his accusation? Trump and most of his platform?

It's not clear to me from this, who and what youi're talking about.

I wish people would quote the relevant thing they comment on. (But just enough to clarify the context, not long internested back-&-forth stringd of thread.)

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Go back and look for the previous use of the word "retract". You know, I do sympathize, and if I have made a comment and a few have piled up behind me I usually edit to point out who I am talking to. In this case is should be pretty clear, though. If not from what came before, certainly from what followed.

Well, it's not clear to me yet and I'm too lazy to pursue it further - but thanks for the sympathy :).

The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government’s Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia (truthdig.com)

Quote:

"The main principle for anti-imperialists is you criticize the actions of your own government first.  This is anti-imperialism 101.   All our domestic media, left, right and centre, will be happy to criticize the actions of our enemies.

It would be a good thing, IMHO, if the second principle for anti-imperialists were to turn the lens of attention on whichever government they support.  If that government has clean hands then there's nothing to lose, yes?

[You know you can shrink images to a more manageable size, right? Of course, if your intention was to make reading this thread more difficult for some, then ...]

The new Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs is banned from Russia. This may be a first in international politics. Way to go, Canada!

I guess the new Minister can make noises from the comfort of her back porch on how Russia should govern itself. I'm sure there will be an enormous audience ... of crickets.

ikosmos wrote:

[You know you can shrink images to a more manageable size, right? Of course, if your intention was to make reading this thread more difficult for some, then ...]

Thanks for the info

ikosmos wrote:

The new Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs is banned from Russia. This may be a first in international politics. Way to go, Canada!

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/09/politician-blacklisted-...

The nominee has always been a harsh critic of Moscow. He was an ardent supporter of sanctions introduced by the Obama administration over Crimea. Coats was among several lawmakers banned from traveling to Russia.

ikosmos, I think you are giving Freeland more credit for being principled than she deserves. She is totally a creature of the billionaire culture, which she served loyally as a propagandist for her entire career until she became a star Liberal candidate. If they change their views on anything, she will tailor hers to match.

Saturday Night Live:  because, well, Hitler had some "good points".

SNL wrote:

"Nazi Germany at least had guts to take on Russia".

As Alexey Golden noted, "Of course Nazis did some bad things, but at least they killed about 27 million Soviets, this partly offsets the bad things they were doing. Good laugh."