UKRAIN LAW COULD BAN TV SHOWS & MOVIES DEPICTING GAYS

[Danno 1,228]

UKRAINIAN LAW COULD BAN TV SHOWS & MOVIES DEPICTING GAYS

KIEV, Ukraine (The Blaze/AP) — While some countries, like the United States, have vastly increased the presence of gays and lesbians in popular media, the situation in Ukraine is unique. If a group of lawmakers have their way, television shows and movies depicting homosexuals could be banned in the Eastern European country.

Last month, six legislators, including President Viktor Yanukovych’s representative in parliament, submitted a law that calls for prohibiting the “propaganda of **-sexuality.” If passed, the law would impose fines and even jail terms on those who deliberately disseminate positive information about gays to minors. Anything from movies, television series, photographs and even art exhibits viewable by children would become illegal.

Lawmaker Pavlo Ungurian, who co-wrote the bill, told a news conference Monday that its goal was to preserve “the moral, spiritual and physical health of the nation.”

The bill has caused outrage among Western rights groups and politicians who said it would make being openly gay effectively illegal. This news comes just days after human rights groups claimed that anti-gay sentiment is on the rise in the Ukraine.

The gay community was forced to cancel its first ever gay pride parade in the capital, Kiev, in May due to concerns activists would be physically attacked by radical groups. After the cancellation, two gay leaders were violently beaten.

Oleksandr Zinchenkov, head of the Our World gay rights advocacy group, told a news conference Wednesday that Ukrainians have been increasingly hostile toward gays and lesbians in recent months.

This year homophobia in Ukraine “has entered the stage of physical violence,” he said.

Svyatoslav Sheremet, who leads Ukraine’s Gay Forum, said the community had decided to hold Ukraine’s first gay pride event believing that gays and lesbians were finally ready to be greeted by society. For every one gay Ukrainian who is out, he said, another 80 are forced to hide their sexuality.

But despite strong support from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev and other Western groups, they were forced to cancel the May 20 event on learning that hundreds of anti-gay activists had arrived in Kiev looking for confrontation.

Shortly after the parade was cancelled, Sheremet was first doused with pepper spray, and then kicked in the head, legs and arms by a group of youths wearing surgical mask. They then stomped on his back. A month later, Taras Karasiychuk, another gay parade organizer, sustained a concussion and a fractured jaw when he was attacked by men shouting homophobic insults outside his home.

“The message was clear: ‘don’t come out onto the streets with your gay rights, stay at home or in your clubs,’” Sheremet said.

Sheremet expressed hope Wednesday that violence and hostility would eventually give way to more tolerance and acceptance, saying that he saw this as a “necessary crisis period,” after which social integration would follow.

“Eventually, society comes to realize that one can only live peacefully when one is tolerant,” he said.

Minutes after the news conference was over, however, he was doused in buttermilk by an anti-gay activist.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ukrainian-law-could-ban-tv-shows-movies-depicting-gays/

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Oh no....

Edited July 23, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Buttermilk.

[X Factor 1,112]

Just heard it. Movies such as "Brokeback Mountain" will be banned.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Just heard it. Movies such as "Brokeback Mountain" will be banned.

And that gets a thumbs up because...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And that gets a thumbs up because...

Because everyone knows the best way to settle an issue is to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Danno 1,228]

We of course do the same thing with our own social or health issues such as smoking bans... alcohol consumption..... certain sex acts are forbidden to even be talked about on tv. Illegal drug use.

I bet they look at American TV and think -"Hmmm ABC now is running crafted positive images of Homosexuals in 55% of it's new programing. Wonder if that production theme could have an effect of young minds?"

If not... why does GLAAD keep track and celebrate as the percentage of viewing time increases every year?

If themes and imagery on TV have no effect on peoples behavior why do advertisers spend billions on thirty second adds and print media?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We of course do the same thing with our own social or health issues such as smoking bans... alcohol consumption..... certain sex acts are forbidden to even be talked about on tv. Illegal drug use.

I bet they look at American TV and think -"Hmmm ABC now is running crafted positive images of Homosexuals in 55% of it's new programing. Wonder if that production theme could have an effect of young minds?"

If not... why does GLAAD keep track and celebrate as the percentage of viewing time increases every year?

If themes and imagery on TV have no effect on peoples behavior why do advertisers spend billions on thirty second adds and print media?

Do people really think this way? Seems pretty simplistic assessment of the issue.

There are homosexuals in Ukraine, as there are in most countries. Not talking about it doesn't make the issue go away.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not talking about it doesn't make the issue go away.

But it does help people deal with their own latent homosexual tendencies.

[Danno 1,228]

Do people really think this way? Seems pretty simplistic assessment of the issue.

There are homosexuals in Ukraine, as there are in most countries. Not talking about it doesn't make the issue go away.

If you read the last part of the posted story you will see no one expects them to "go away" they simply encourage them to keep a much less visible public roll.

<<<“The message was clear: ‘don’t come out onto the streets with your gay rights, stay at home or in your clubs,’”>>>

Ukraine peeps are hardly sexual prudes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Last month, six legislators, including President Viktor Yanukovych’s representative in parliament, submitted a law that calls for prohibiting the “propaganda of **-sexuality.” If passed, the law would impose fines and even jail terms on those who deliberately disseminate positive information about gays to minors. Anything from movies, television series, photographs and even art exhibits viewable by children would become illegal.

Lawmaker Pavlo Ungurian, who co-wrote the bill, told a news conference Monday that its goal was to preserve “the moral, spiritual and physical health of the nation.

Just how would anyone define what amounts to "propaganda of **-sexuality". That a film or TV show has homosexual characters, that a documentary explores social prejudices? It's going to come down to arbitrary personal opinion.

It's the same old argument you see from 'morality police' types regarding any form of censorship - the idea that an individual or a group of people sitting in a room somewhere can arbitrarily define what amounts to taste and decency has always been fundamentally flawed and an infringement on the right of free speech. Even in the UK and USA organisations like the BBFC and the MPAA aren't protecting the 'moral, spiritual or physical health' of anyone - all they do is enforce the subjective judgement of individuals who have been given the power to decide what people should and shouldn't watch. How are they qualified to do that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you read the last part of the posted story you will see no one expects them to "go away" they simply encourage them to keep a much less visible public roll.

<<<“The message was clear: ‘don’t come out onto the streets with your gay rights, stay at home or in your clubs,’”>>>

Ukraine peeps are hardly sexual prudes.

What is their 'visible public roll' that needs to be diminished?

The message is clear - some people in the Ukrainian government want to marginalise their own citizens and to discourage public dialogue of a controversial social issue.

[Danno 1,228]

Just how would anyone define what amounts to "propaganda of **-sexuality". That a film or TV show has homosexual characters, that a documentary explores social prejudices? It's going to come down to arbitrary personal opinion.

It's the same old argument you see from 'morality police' types regarding any form of censorship - the idea that an individual or a group of people sitting in a room somewhere can arbitrarily define what amounts to taste and decency has always been fundamentally flawed and an infringement on the right of free speech. Even in the UK and USA organisations like the BBFC and the MPAA aren't protecting the 'moral, spiritual or physical health' of anyone - all they do is enforce the subjective judgement of individuals who have been given the power to decide what people should and shouldn't watch. How are they qualified to do that?

News flash dude.... there is not a station or publication that does not have a aRBITRARY standard of decency they hold their production to.

Would you abject to a certain channel which ridicules and shines a negative light on Gays or any other group?

As soon as you say "no" the "N-word" should not be on public airwaves..... well congratulations... you have just appointed yourself judge over decency.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

News flash dude.... there is not a station or publication that does not have a aRBITRARY standard of decency they hold their production to.

Would you abject to a certain channel which ridicules and shines a negative light on Gays or any other group?

As soon as you say "no" the "N-word" should not be on public airwaves..... well congratulations... you have just appointed yourself judge over decency.

A news channel's editorial controls aren't the same as government legislation promoting a selective form of censorship. Not comparable at all really.

You might not be able to use racist epithets and swear words on public airwaves, but that's not the same as trying to ban anything that involving the discussion of a particular topic.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Martin Wellbourne

[Danno 1,228]

A news channel's editorial controls aren't the same as government legislation promoting a selective form of censorship. Not comparable at all really.

You might not be able to use racist epithets and swear words on public airwaves, but that's not the same as trying to ban anything that involving the discussion of a particular topic.

It's no secret that scat related subjects are not allowed neither would be speech which puts a positive light on Pedo activity.

I think your problem is you expect other countries version of Democracy to mirror your version.

Might be interesting to see if there is anything in their Constitution to prohibit such a law, clearly ours doesn't hinder us from doing the same thing.