Gay Rights in Russia - hardly a level playing field

 

President Putin of Russia is rarely described as a Liberal, but his authoritarian rule has sunk to a new low with the introduction of draconian anti-gay laws in the Russian Duma. The bill was passed by 436 votes to 0 (Putin isn’t the kind of President you say no to) and will ban "gay propaganda" aimed at under 18s. The law is vague and effectively criminalises any action that seems to promote homosexuality (reminiscent of the UK’s infamous "Section 28"), which could involve the arrest of non-Russians (some Dutch tourists have already been arrested for shooting a film about gay rights). There have been grotesque and brutal attacks on gay people and pride marches have been banned, in what seems to be a severe attack on civil democracy, which also arguably goes against the Russian constitution, given that Article 17 guarantees the rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to the universally recognised principles and norms of international law.

 

This has raised serious concerns amongst gay activists around the world with many campaigning for a boycott of all things Russian. Stephen Fry has written a much publicised letter to the British Prime Minister, Lord Coe and the President of the International Olympics Committee to lobby for Russia to be stripped of hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014. The World Athletic Championships are to be held this month in Russia, but sadly the president of the world athletics’ governing body, Lamine Diack sees "no problem" with Russia’s new laws and that the new laws "should be respected". Yes, he actually did say that and it certainly made me choke on my afternoon cuppa. It is possible to see why the athletic championships could not be re-arranged, but it is naïve to assume that sport can not influence events. Sporting bodies can and should make a stand against discriminatory treatment. They are not somehow separate from world events. Many people can still picture Jesse James at the 1936 Olympics making a stand against Nazi Germany, showing how sport can be a powerful tool to shape public opinion. It is arguably irresponsible for such a powerful body as the IAAF not to condemn what is happening in Russia.

 

This begs the question does homophobia still pervade professional sport? At an amateur level, there are many gay sports clubs, but it does seem the case that many gay professional sports people remain reluctant to be open about their sexuality. There are some high profile gay sports people, such as Gareth Thomas, the Welsh rugby player, but they are surprisingly few, given gay people make up around 10% of the population. Are sports players too worried about what their employers will say or do if they come out? Are they worried about the impact on their professional career? Whatever the reason, sports people, as indeed all employees in the UK, are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect within the workplace and not treated less favourably on the grounds of sexual orientation. Many professional sports people are employees, working under employment contracts and are entitled to assert rights they have under the Equality Act.

 

No one can say that gay rights are under threat in the UK in the same way they are in Russia, but nevertheless cases are still brought before the Employment Tribunal for sexual orientation discrimination. It may be a more level playing field here in the UK, but plenty of work still needs to be done.

The passing of Lady T

Last week I watched the cortege of Lady Thatcher pass by Chancery Lane with the pomp and pageantry of a "ceremonial funeral". It was not a "state funeral" (only the British could differentiate between a ceremonial and state funeral), but it felt like one. The Queen was present, ceremonial uniforms were glistening and the military drums were beating.

I was sceptical as to whether such a funeral was justified for such a divisive individual. After all, Atlee and Lloyd George were denied them, despite being radical leaders. I respect her for being the first democratically elected woman Prime Minister in British history. She became leader of a chauvinistic, old Etonian party (which it is back to being), but still broke through the glass ceiling. She was also from a relatively modest background and had a career before entering politics (rather rare these days). While I respect that achievement, it is a shame she did nothing for women once in power.

She was radical economically and was not a Conservative in that sense and was arguably a Classical Liberal. However, she remained socially very conservative, particularly around gay rights and the imposition of the notorious Section 28 that banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Her concept of the family was the typical nuclear family and she had no desire to promote equality for minority groups. She was a contradiction in many respects, for example she voted in favour of the legalisation of homosexuality in the 1960s, but sought to introduce section 28 in the 1980s. To some degree this was to appease her back benchers, but it did not come across like that.

Thatcher understood the importance of perception in politics. She did implement draconian employment laws relating to the trade unions and came across as the warrior, the modern Boudicea of the 1980s, but actually there are examples of where she was prepared to negotiate with the trade unions and others, in order to reach a compromise. She would retreat if it was expedient to do so. However, the perception was always of a hardliner and powerful leader (with a hair do and power suit to match). No one dared to mess with Mrs T or they risk being handbagged. She compromised with Europe and signed the Single European Act, the greatest transfer of sovereignty in British history to Europe and actually helped lay the foundations of the Irish peace talks. However, the perception was always different. In politics it often does not matter what you do, but actually how you are perceived, which is why image has always been important for politicians from the time of Elizabeth I to Lady T.

I grew up in the North and her economic policies caused large swathes of the country to be left in ruin. Communities collapsed and people were resigned to the scrap heap. This was a disgrace. Everyone recognised the need for economic change, but she believed that the market could come in and be the saviour. This was naïve – markets are only interested in money and profit margins, whereas our economy at that time needed investment to be modern and dynamic. North Sea oil revenue could have been used to invest in modernising our economy rather than just paying people to stay on the dole queue. We suffer the consequences still, both economically and socially. Many communities are still virtual ghost towns and we remain overly reliant on financial services in the south east for our country’s income. The coalition is working to try and re-balance the economy, but that will take a decade at least.

She was a patriotic person and I believe that she thought she was acting in British interests. To some degree there is truth in that. Nevertheless, she divided a country and caused much heart ache and distress to many. That was in stark contrast to Mr Attlee and Mr Lloyd George. I do not think such a funeral was merited, but hopefully it will help focus the nation on the real legacy of Thatcherism and what we really want from our economy. That is the great debate of our time.