Should the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics go ahead?

As Russia gears up to host its first Winter Olympics since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the question has to be asked: why were the Olympics given to a city surrounded by so much controversy?

It seems every international sporting event in the modern era is flooded by its own issues, whether this be the economic status of the host country as the event draws nearer, or concerns of whether or not facilities and construction will be completed in time to the quality which we expect. But Sochi has more than the standard problems – the biggest question is where on earth to start?

Sochi is not the safest of cities, especially right now. In fact, it wasn’t always Russian territory; in fact it used to belong to a race called the Circassians up until 1864. This was until the Russian-Circassian war, where 1.4million Circassians were left dead, deported, or simply disappeared – a large number made worse by the fact that this was roughly 90-94% of the entire Circassian population.

Circassian organisations are unhappy that the games will be held on land that was theirs since records began. The games are seen as particularly offensive due to the fact they will fall on the 150^th anniversary of what the Circassians consider genocide.

Circassians are firmly against the Sochi Olympics. Photo: pshegubj (via Flickr)

Furthermore, they are unhappy about the use of the land. Skiing and snowboarding will be held on ‘Red Hill,’ called so as, when a group of Circassians tried to return home in 1864, they were massacred. Using ‘Red Hill’ seems like a complete disregard to the feelings of the Circassians and is incredibly offensive. An eyebrow would surely be raised if Gettysburg hosted the modern pentathlon or there was sailing down at Pearl Harbour – it’s simply disrespectful.

Given Russia’s track record, there is cause for concern. Everyone will remember the war that broke out between Russia and Georgia at the start of the 2008 Summer Olympics – completely against the Olympic spirit.

There could be a solution, however. Russia could learn from previous host nations such as the United States or Australia, who incorporated the culture of their indigenous population into the event’s format. It may not solve all the problems, but it would certainly improve the situation.

Yet, with the constant threat of car bombings, local mafia groups, Russian nationalists, separatists and Islamists, it seems peace is far from reachable. Oleg Nechiporenko, chief analyst for Russia’s National Anti-Terrorist and Anti-Criminal Fund, said of Sochi: “The region is such a muddied and bloodied aquarium of conflict that to pick out any one fish is impossible.”

With this much concern over basic safety in the region, why would the IOC send a group of people with such a mix of cultures and beliefs to a city with so much cultural friction as it is?

Friction is certainly something the LGBT community must be feeling right now too. Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in Russia in 1999 (well done Russia), but there is a law that bans the distribution of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” to minors. Since, gay rights activists have been arrested and there has been a surge of hate crimes related to homophobia. So much for the Olympic spirit trying to promote the participation of all.

Protests held in Berlin over Russia’s homosexuality laws. Photo: Adam Groffman (via Flickr)

Pride House was established in Vancouver 2010 and has been (and will be) at every major sporting event since. The purpose of Pride House is to welcome and celebrate LGBT athletes. In all honesty, this seems comprehensively patronising. Well done for being gay – how condescending. Unfortunately, we do live in a society where this is necessary because we haven’t created a sense of welcome towards the LGBT community, especially in the sporting industry.

Russia’s Ministry of Justice actually struck down an attempt to obtain Pride House for Sochi 2014. There have been assurances from the highest level of government in Russia that they are committed to the Olympic charter and welcome LGBT athletes. This shouldn’t need to be said, but, in these circumstances, it kind of does.

This still seems an uphill task when the judge who denied Pride House openly said: “Pride House incites propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation which can undermine the security of the Russian society and the state, provoke social-religious hatred, which is the feature of the extremist character of the activity.”

There are so many things wrong with that statement. Adding the issues regarding homophobia to the already significant list of problems is like adding a handful of chillies to a vindaloo.

Environmental and construction concerns, a faltering economy, political instability, corruption, the fear of safety, the danger of war, social-religious hatred. And if you want one more legitimate, terrifying cause for concern about this event, take a look at this article from The Telegraph.

This is where the IOC deemed to be the best place to hold a major sporting event? What’s next, giving Russia the World Cup? Oh, wait…

Jordan Edgington, Sports Team

Global Homophobia

Image credits: Vince Mig

Online Features Columnist Sophie Mogridge talks LGBT issues. You can read Exeposé Screen’s review of Out There here.

On BBC’s Out There, Stephen Fry points to his laptop screen on which plays the harrowing footage of a mass hanging in Iran. “If anti-Semitism led to Auschwitz, then homophobia leads to this”, laments Fry. It’s one of the most chilling images to have ever crossed my television screen and highlights Fry’s very question: how can falling in love with another person ever be considered criminal?

In the age of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) logrolling it can be easy to forget that homosexuality is, in many countries, constitutionally illegal and that many men and women die worldwide as a direct consequence. Astonishingly, in Iran alone there have been over 100 cases of capital punishment because of homosexuality in the last century. For our “democratically” Westernised minds, such cruelty may seem abhorrent – we are living in the twenty-first century after all – but it must be recognised that homosexuality laws are not worldwide. Death, imprisonment, life sentences are commonplace; and tens of countries simply will not recognise a marriage even when conducted abroad.

Although it can hardly be considered a consolation, capital punishment is not the most popular legal response for homosexuality. Many men and women across the globe are subjected to “corrective rape”. In Out There, Fry meets a young Ugandan woman named Stosh who fell victim to such punishment. Absurdly, the monster that raped Stosh and stole her penetrative virginity did so because he hoped it would “cure her of her homosexuality”. Currently, there are plans emerging within the Ugandan government to criminalise homosexuality entirely as they believe it “inevitably” leads to all manner of malignant diseases; yet, in a painful twist of irony, Stosh’s rapist only succeeded in proving the exact opposite. As with many other same-sex partners, Stosh had never contracted sexually transmitted diseases from the benevolence of her homosexual relationships. Yet, her one “relationship” with a man not only made her pregnant, but infected her with HIV. Actions speak louder than words.

Image credits: Marco Raaphorst

On first impressions, we Britons are fortunate to be living under a constitution which provides us with the cusp of marriage equality. Yet there is perhaps a rather dark downside – laws criminalising homosexuality never existed in many countries before Britain imposed it upon them. On further research, out of the 84 remaining countries criminalising homosexuality, half are former British colonies. So should Britain have the weight of homophobia on its shoulders? Should our current government step in and right the wrongs of past governments? We are lucky to be living in a constitution with a much higher level of tolerance than places like Sri Lanka, Uganda and Iran, but things can still get better. Even in the UK today, homophobia is still a prevalent issue – even within Exeter itself.

Having spoken to many gay students in Exeter, it does not seem uncommon for them to have been stereotypically labelled with nasty, condescending terms – some being asked to move out of their student homes – and others being held at arm’s length, as if suffering from an incurable illness. But that is what is essential to understand, homosexuality is incurable because it is not a disease, an illness or a choice. It is a feeling, and feelings and beliefs simply cannot be stamped out – Hitler definitely proved this point.

Sexuality itself comes down to who you love, and to whom you are attracted – so why do people across the globe continue to condemn, criticise and attack homosexuality? In the midst of same-sex marriage lobbying, this quote went viral on the internet: ‘Claiming that someone else’s relationship is against your beliefs is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because you’re on a diet’. Whilst not saying the quote should be taken literally, but just because homosexuality is not your cup of tea (or indeed doughnut) it doesn’t mean you should become part of its condemnation.

Sophie Mogridge, Online Features Columnist

Review: Out There

Katherine Perrington watches in horror as Stephen Fry explores what it means to be homosexual across the globe.

Its easy for us, who are living in a largely tolerant society, to forget just how many human beings are out there spouting homophobic vitriol. Stephen Fry’s two part series is a powerful and revealing look at the treatment of gay people across the world, with interviews from some of the most prolific homophobes on the planet.

Stephen Fry with a victim of ‘corrective’ rape.
Image Credit: BBC

But first we start with a cosy scene of a couple, Andy and Steve, getting married (not quite Adam and Steve but close enough) with Stephen Fry sitting in the audience, shedding a tear of happiness at how far we have progressed since being gay was a crime in this country. 

However after starting on a positive note, Stephen meets Iranian asylum seeker Farshaad who is facing the death penalty if he is sent back to Iran. The Home Office do not believe he is gay and apparently require proof if he is to stay in the country. What exactly they expect him to do to provide proof is unclear and unhelpful. He asserts he would rather commit suicide than go back to a country that would humiliate and execute him. 

Next, Stephen travels to Uganda, where, in a radio debate, he encounters Pastor Solomon Male, a homophobic preacher. I was shocked at his ridiculous assumptions about gay people and his obsession with the idea of anal sex and its sinful nature, to which Stephen beautifully counters with, “Why are you so obsessed with anuses? It’s about love!” Its almost funny until you remember this hateful rhetoric is aimed at making life a misery for gay people in Uganda.

Stephen also speaks to the minister of ethics and integrity, Simon Lokodo, (possibly one of the most inappropriate titles ever) who near enough accuses Stephen of planning to spread gay propaganda through his country, rendering intelligent discussion impossible.

Still in Uganda, Stephen hears a heartbreaking testimony from a woman named Stosh who at the age of fourteen was subjected to “corrective rape” which left her both pregnant and HIV positive. This was a very distressing scene and as someone who never cries I can honestly say I was brought to tears by the cruelty she suffered at the hands of evil and ignorant people.

Episode 2, wherein Fry travels to India, is available on iPlayer
Image Credit: BBC

The programme does however, end on a positive note with a charming interview with gay actor Neil Patrick Harris, about his optimism that people are becoming more accepting of the gay community. However, we clearly still have a long way to go as next weeks episode will explore the alarming new laws in Russia and why life for gay people there is about to become even harder than it was before.

How did Out There make you feel? Let us know on Facebook, Twitter or by commenting below.

Society stigmatised

Photo credits to Fibonacci Blue

Michael Cope puts forward his opinions in response to a comment piece on gay marriage in Issue 47 of Exeposé.

In a discussion opposing equal marriage in the 19th February edition, the author indulges in the same stereotypes and misconceptions that LGBTQ people face every day. Reading his homophobic piece distressed me, as it contains the same arguments used by more vociferous bigots who demand far worse restrictions on the rights of LGBTQ people than a refusal of marriage rights. I found his arguments to be bigoted, hurtful and hetero-supremacist, so here’s my say on the issue.

Firstly, the writer uses the tired argument that the definition of marriage should not be changed, and that marriage is ‘public property’. He seems to forget that there is no set definition of marriage, as marriage is a social construct. Its meaning has changed constantly over time and it means different things to different people. Biblical polygamy anyone? If marriage is ‘public property’, then surely the sections of the public who are LGBTQ own it as much as anyone else?

Photo credits to Mariopiperni

The writer then goes on to state that marriage is unnecessary for homosexual people, firstly because same sex couples in civil partnerships have ‘near parity’ in terms of rights with married heterosexuals, and secondly because, as marriage is based on love, same sex couples do not need marriage as this will not add anything to their relationship. To deal with the first point, ‘near parity’ is not parity. It is not full equality and pretending it is sufficient is to defend the unequal position of LGBTQ people in British society.

The refusal to give a same sex couple the opportunity to marry reinforces the idea that same sex partnerships are inferior to and worth less than heterosexual ones. His argument that ‘the truth of the love and commitment surely comes from the couple, the name is worthless’ is laughable given that he seems very eager to defend the ‘name’ of marriage for heterosexual couples, regardless of how much they may love each other. In addition, does he have to refer to same sex couples contemptuously as ‘these people’?

The next section of his article rehashes two particularly pernicious and incorrect hetero-supremacist arguments: that marriage is a place for rearing ‘the next generation’ and that a heterosexual marriage is the best place in which to do this. Firstly, if the writer believes that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then surely he also opposes marriage for those who do not want or are unable to have children. Yet there is no mention of this in his article. He focuses purely on same sex couples, which makes his message clear: same sex couples are unsuitable parents.

This argument feeds into hetero-supremacist views that homosexuality and same sex partnerships are innately dangerous. This has usually been linked to accusations of paedophilia or fears about ‘converting’ children. As well as being homophobic, it is also complete nonsense. Secondly, what is it about marriage that suddenly makes for better child rearing anyway? Does the word have magical properties we don’t know about? Despite the writer’s stated wish not to ‘slate’ single parents, this is exactly what he does. The writer argues that heterosexual marriage is the place to raise children because it is ‘the guise that society would prefer’. This is not true. It is simply the guise that those who have the loudest voices and the most power and privilege prefer, and they have used this power and privilege to enforce hetero-supremacy within society. When the writer says ‘society’, he means ‘I’.

Photo credits to Ehoyer

His homophobia does not end there. He uses his next paragraph to reduce homosexuality to a set of acts, to ‘what goes on in your bedroom’. The reduction of homosexuality to acts, historically with the term sodomy, has driven the oppression and persecution of homosexual people throughout history and is still used today to paint homosexuality and homosexuals as sinful and unsavoury. For someone who asks ‘why should I care that you love each other’, he seems to care a great deal about making sure same sex couples remain stigmatised.

In the grand scheme of the fight for LGBTQ equality, marriage equality is not the only or the biggest issue. However, it is an important one, one that reaches further then the right to walk up the aisle. It represents the fight for the de-stigmatisation of same sex couples and LGBTQ people. It is about the end to nonsense arguments about the inferiority of our relationships, our inability to bring up children or our danger to society. The equal marriage vote shows that legislators, in a small way, are starting to get it. The writer may not view marriage as a matter of equality, but he clearly has not spoken to people for whom it means a great deal.

Marriage equality looks set to happen, and with it will hopefully come the death of the stereotypes, misconceptions and homophobic arguments that I felt this article consisted of.

Michael Cope