Russia: Constitutional Court Upholds ‘Foreign Agents’ Law

[ProSense]

Russia: Constitutional Court Upholds ‘Foreign Agents’ Law

Blow to Freedom of Association

April 9, 2014


(Moscow) – Russia’s Constitutional Court has upheld the controversial “foreign agents” law. The law has been the centerpiece of the government’s near two-year crackdown on independent groups.

The law, adopted in July 2012, requires nongovernmental organizations that accept foreign funding and engage in “political activity” to register as “foreign agents,” a term generally understood in Russia to mean “traitor” or “spy.”

“The court’s ruling is deeply disappointing,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The “foreign agents” law violates fundamental rights and is designed to silence independent groups through intimidation and humiliation.”

<...>

Russian authorities have used the “foreign agents” law to limit advocacy, advisory, and public education outreach work by independent groups on a wide spectrum of issues that involve comment on or interaction with government authorities, Human Rights Watch said.

- more -

http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/08/russia-constitutional-court-upholds-foreign-agents-law

The exception of course is funding and advocacy from American RW hate groups.

Miranda Blue
People for the American Way

Two Russian Officials On Sanctions List Closely Involved In Upcoming World Congress Of Families Summit

Two Russian officials whose places in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle have made them subject to US economic sanctions are also intimately involved in the upcoming World Congress of Families summit at the Kremlin, organized by the Illinois-based World Congress of Families and supported by a number of prominent US Religious Right groups.

It’s hardly a coincidence that two major backers of the summit would end up on the sanctions list. As we have reported, Putin and his allies have leaned on social conservative causes, especially opposition to gay rights, to solidify support at home and provoke anti-EU hostility in Ukraine. It’s not surprising that the World Congress of Families summit, which brings together anti-gay and anti-choice groups from around the world, has proved a popular cause among some of the Russian president’s greatest allies.

Yelena Mizulina, a member of parliament who was the force behind Russia’s infamous “gay propaganda” ban, was among the seven Russian officials on whom the White House imposed economic sanctions last Monday. Mizulina has worked closely with the organizers of the upcoming World Congress of Families summit: She joined an organizing meeting for the event in October and is scheduled to lead a panel discussion on “pro-family legislation” at the conference.

Mizulina has made no secret of the fact that her focus on opposing gay rights is closely intertwined with her interest in distancing Russia from the United States and the European Union. At an event in Moscow in June, which was also attended by the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown, Mizulina framed Russia’s crackdown on gay rights as a battle between Russia’s protection of “traditional family identity” and a decadent Europe that has embraced “sexual minorities”:

- more -

https://www.freespeech.org/text/two-russian-officials-sanctions-list-closely-involved-upcoming-world-congress-families-summit

Fortunately, that event was canceled after Russia invaded Ukraine.

[jakeXT]

1. Pretty easy after the USAID twitter thing in Cuba. /nt

[ProSense]

5. I love all these

"Pretty easy after the USAID twitter thing in Cuba."

...false equivalencies and excuses, especially when RW hate group in the U.S. are freely exporting hate with the approval of the Russian Government.

Religious right leader backs Russian crackdown on gay rights

By Steve Benen

The crackdown on gay rights on Russia is stunning in its scope, and offers a reminder that Russia "remains a country where discrimination and even violence against gay people are widely tolerated." But while much of the West has condemned Vladimir Putin's new efforts, the offensive is not without American backers.

Voice of Russia is the government's official international radio broadcasting service, and last week, it ran a report touting comments from the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, a prominent leader of the religious right movement here in the U.S., who spoke to VOR at some length.

"Russia is not being homophobic, it's homorealistic -- the Russian government is trying to take the issue into consideration and establish public policy to contribute to public health, as this lifestyle is not be promoted, endorsed or granted special legal protection", the expert said, warning of high health risks linked to this lifestyle.

He cites the Center for Disease Control that has monitored the HIV epidemic since 1987 and determined that 61% of HIV-positive males had sexual contacts with other males. "Homosexual behavior is just as risky as drug abuse," Fischer said.

"I think the Russian government is right to be concerned with propaganda on teenagers who are at the age of struggling through sexual identity issue and we should help to channel these urges in productive behavior. Heterosexuality is God's design. Policies that encourage young people to think this are good ideas."

<...>

Note, Fischer's not the only one in the U.S. cheering Russia on. As we talked about a while back, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute said it "admires" Russia's anti-gay moves; Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality lauded Russia for rejecting "America's reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion"; and the Illinois-based World Congress of Families has scheduled its 2014 conference for the Kremlin...then, of course, there's evangelical activist Scott Lively...sounds familiar, it's probably because of his work in Uganda, where he brags he is known as the "father" of the anti-gay movements. When Uganda took up a "Kill the Gays" bill, proponents said it arose out of an anti-gay conference that Lively headlined in 2009. Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that Lively has spent the last decade working "systematically to strip away human rights protections from LGBT people" around the world, becoming "a kind of persecution consultant, strategizing with influential leaders and cohorts in other countries about ways to further silence and remove LGBT people from basic protections of the law."

And wouldn't you know it, Lively conducted a 50-city speaking tour of Russia in 2007, where he recommended the very measures Russia is now pursuing. From an AP report last year:

"Russia could become a model pro-family society," he wrote. "If this were to occur, I believe people from the West would begin to emigrate to Russia in the same way that Russians used to emigrate to the United States and Europe." <...>

"Russians, even after glasnost, are comfortable with an authoritarian style," he said. "That wouldn't work in the United States."

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/12/19989091-religious-right-leader-backs-russian-crackdown-on-gay-rights

[cprise]

2. National Endowment For Democracy is a US govt-funded front org

that dropped $5 billion (a huge deal in a country like Ukraine) on NGO activists in Ukraine at the behest of the Bush administration.

Imagine China spending that amount on non-profits in the US; Now imagine an amount adjusted for the relative size of US GDP. And then there is the question of AIPAC... an organization that probably *should* be illegal in this country.

The positions in the OP are based on Citizens United-like assumptions that the parley of finances in any amounts from any source is simple free association or free speech. This is a deeply deceptive "principle" that no politician (or, indeed, NGO) should leave unchallenged.

[The Magistrate]

3. I Doubt You Can Back That Figure Up, Sir

Five billions is roughly forty times the annual appropriation it receives from the government in recent years, and this is larger than it previously enjoyed. Reported expenditures by the group in Ukraine have run about three millions a year recently, and it is required to report accurately.

The nearest thing to a 'source' for the five billions number I am aware of seems to be a statement from Ms. Nuland that something like that amount had been put into Ukraine and was not going to be let go to waste. It seems that this statement is meant to indicate a rough total of all aid from the U.S. government to the Ukraine government since its independence in 1991, which does not seem an outlandish figure as a total over that period, nor in relation to economic activity in Ukraine. The GDP of Ukraine has run around a hundred seventy billions a year lately, having risen rapidly from about fifty billions yearly in its first decade of independence.

[cprise]

4. Yes, Nuland is the source, though I mispoke re NED being 'the' instrument

According to Politifact (whose characterization of the crisis nevertheless adheres to corporate media norms) we spent nearly half a billion$ since 2009 alone on Ukrainian NGOs. And this funding has been going on since 1992.

U.S. Obscures Foreign Aid To Ukraine, But Here's Where Some Goes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/us-foreign-aid-ukraine_n_4914682.html

(...)A significant portion of democracy program funding has come from the National Endowment for Democracy and its affiliated groups. The government-funded nonprofit discloses grant recipients on its website. (Publish What You Fund warned that this list may be incomplete and may not meet international foreign aid reporting standards the group promotes.)

From 2007 through 2012, the National Endowment for Democracy spent $16.8 million to stimulate civic activity and fund election watchdogs and non-state run reporting outlets in Ukraine. (NED will post 2013 grant recipients within the next week.) These funds have gone to organizations that played a role in the 2004 Orange Revolution and have since continued to monitor elections, investigate government corruption and educate youth about democratic government.

Ukrainian recipient organizations of U.S. democracy aid included election monitors Civic Network OPORA, an offshoot of the pro-Orange Revolution Pora Party (at least $411,370), and the Committee of Voters of Ukraine, which has branches across the country to monitor local elections, conduct polls and provide an organizing space for young Ukrainians ($788,072). The youth chapter of the nationalist People's Movement of Ukraine party, All-Ukrainian Youth Civic Organization or "Young Rukh," received nearly $200,000 to train youth activists and monitor corruption at Ukrainian universities. Other funding has gone to the Democratic Initiatives Foundation for election exit polling and surveys ($363,404).
(...)

Personally, I would not be surprised if that level of funding had most Ukrainians with activist or journalistic aspirations getting their bread buttered in some form by the US government.

A big problem here is that a group like NED, who are notorious for pushing a US imperial agenda, is included in the funding. This casts doubt over the character of the entire stream of purported good works.

Another big problem is how Nuland openly supported the rioters and their demands, which were stridently for the removal of Yanukovich. She did this in the first days of December in response to the riot police beating up some people.

[The Magistrate]

10. Yes, Sir, You Mis-Spoke, To A Degree Which Calls Into Question If You Understand The Basics Here

On the over-all point, you overstated by a factor of ten, and on the particular by a factor so much greater as to be risible. You are attempting to claim that it is solely due to U.S. funding the people of Ukraine rose to oust Yanukovich, and you fall desperately short in the effort. Why you see it as a problem that a U.S. diplomat expressed support for the crowds which had risen peaceably against him, and which were attacked by his riot squads, and then began to fight back against their brutal actions, quite escapes me. I acknowledge there has always been a humorous tone to U.S. comments on such things, a sort of 'don't you treat those demonstrators like we'd treat them here' hanging over such comments, but that does not affect the validity of the desire of the people in the streets for an end to misrule, and in this case, for their country not being put back into Russia's orbit, to come slowly but surely under its dominance once more.

[cprise]

17. He doth protest too much

I didn't claim the coup was due solely to US interference. Now *you* have an accuracy problem of a more serious kind. At least I made the mistake of conflating "NED" with "USA" which doesn't even rate as a stretch.

That interference (to some degree) is a certainty given the involvement of USAid and NED, Nuland's words stated AFTER the crowds turned violent (no later than Dec. 2), molotov cocktails and other firebombing are considered by none other than the US of A as terrorism at home and NOT a reasonable response to police beatings, and even if the crowds were still peaceful at the time, supporting the overthrow of an elected leading constitutes interference against Ukrainian sovereignty. Treaty breeched.

-

No doubt the US influence was there: Nuland virtually spelled-out that she expected an anti-Yanukovich result after Ukranian "civil society" had been eating out of Uncle Sam's hand. Actually, standing there in front of Exxon and Chevon logos, it was extremely brazen in true neocon style and I'll bet her husband and other Dick Cheney hires from the Bush era were proud.

[The Magistrate]

18. I Describe, Sir, Not Protest

And the kind of craw-fishing back from the full implications of the line you press when challenged on it fools no one.

When riot police use murderous force against demonstrators, the latter are, and always will be, in my view, entitled to fight back with whatever means are to hand, and whether a U.S. law considers a bottle of gasoline and a wick 'terrorism' carries less weight than a gnat's wing with me.

Regarding both 'support' and 'expectation' you are engaged in a low bit of semantic subterfuge. Governments are fully entitled to express support, through their diplomatic personnel, for one side or another of a political dispute in a foreign country, and this does not change if that dispute reaches a pitch of violence verging on, or constituting, a revolution in progress. Further, people looking at a current set of circumstances, whether diplomats or otherwise, are not only entitled but often expected to state what they think the outcome will be, what they expect will happen, just as they may state what they would like to see happen ( people being what they are, there is often some overlap between expectation and hope ). None of things indicate agency, and certainly do not indicate essential agency --- they do not nearly suffice to establish a claim that without U.S. influence, the people of Ukraine would not have risen against Yanukovyk, and made his further rule of the place untenable. Short of this, claims of U.S. influence are meaningless, mere froth on a wave.

"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

[cprise]

29. Lets talk dates...

Dec. 2: 'Demonstrators' throwing fire bombs at police. Also bricks. And they tried to run the police over with a bulldozer. That is lethal force, and I understand it was in retaliation to police beating up some people on the Maidan.

Some police actually did catch on fire.


Jan. 22: Two(?) rioters die from bullet wounds. Last I checked the BBC didn't ascribe the killing to police (though I acknowledge its likely)


Any you'd like to add? How about dates for Nuland's speaking and glad-handling the 'demonstrators'.

[The Magistrate]

41. Riot Police Initiated Violence On 30 November, Sir

Your fervent apologia for police violence against demonstrators is duly noted. You may be of the view that riot squads have carte blanche to attack and brutalize and even kill persons dissenting from a government's actions, and that when they do they should not face the slightest risk of harm, but that is far from my view, and it is far from a leftist view....

[cprise]

43. You are full of it. Beatup protesters is not cause for Regime Change.

And that's what you're really pushing here-- a US style regime change narrative which I will point out again, was initiated by a neoconservative with very close ties to Dick Cheney.

The US State Dept. breeched a treaty between the US and Russia by throwing its support against a sitting, elected president of Ukraine in a fashion that had nothing to do with democracy. That gave Russia an excuse for nullifying the established Ukrainian borders mentioned in the treaty.

YOU are an apologist for initiating the destabilization of whole countries and bringing the US closer to needless martial conflict with 'regional powers' of the world... or at least for the hypocrisy of applying wildly unrealistic expectations WRT crowds that harbor violence.

I would not wish violence on peaceful protesters, but I can't change the fact that Ukrainian riot police resorted to bullying tactics that are quite common throughout the west, nor the fact that protesters turned to lethal tactics in return. The next time you see molotov cocktails and bulldozers used to escalate violence (esp. against police) here in the US... Take some nice detailed notes as to how that goes.

[ProSense]

44. Wait

The US State Dept. breeched a treaty between the US and Russia by throwing its support against a sitting, elected president of Ukraine in a fashion that had nothing to do with democracy. That gave Russia an excuse for nullifying the established Ukrainian borders mentioned in the treaty.

...you're accusing someone of being "full of it" while throwing around unsubstantiated claims to make excuses for Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine?

"YOU are an apologist for initiating the destabilization of whole countries and bringing the US closer to needless martial conflict with 'regional powers' of the world... or at least for the hypocrisy of applying wildly unrealistic expectations WRT crowds that harbor violence.

I would not wish violence on peaceful protesters, but..."

"But" being an "apologist" for Russia is OK?

[cprise]

47. 'Unsubstantiated claims' - sure

If rioters are attacking police with lethal force and demanding the president be removed, you don't put your US-diplomat ass on a platform encrusted with oil company logos and 'express support' for what is going on outside. Not if you want to keep your country's promises and treaties in tact, and avoid looking like a complete hypocrite when US protesters are labelled terrorists and brutalized for far less.

How is that snap election going in Ukraine? Oh, the coup leaders ditched that demand once they got in power.

Imperialists (including pro-Russian ones) have accused me of being an apologist for all sorts of things. It doesn't change the fact that the US insists on dominating the affairs of people all around the world without claiming responsibility for the consequences.

Your reasoning stems from this American Exceptionalism.

[ProSense]

48. No,

"Imperialists (including pro-Russian ones) have accused me of being an apologist for all sorts of things. It doesn't change the fact that the US insists on dominating the affairs of people all around the world without claiming responsibility for the consequences.

Your reasoning stems from this American Exceptionalism."

....my "reasoning stems from" the fact that you seem to hold your theories up as facts. You're being pissed about what you believe about the role of the U.S. in the world doesn't make your theories valid. They just make you biased and prone to making unstantiated claims.

[cprise]

50. Flat denial with no mitigating facts.

I am so chastised.

[ProSense]

52. All you've done is repeat: Leave Russia alone. n/t

[cprise]

53. I'm saying your intepretation is based on the Cold Warrior drumbeat. n/t

[ProSense]

54. Nonsense. You're searching for justification for your Russian apologia. n/t

[cprise]

57. Your draconian take on the finance law fell apart, then changed the subject. n/t

[ProSense]

58. Look at this thread: You started out with a bogus defense of legalized persecution

and then you, yes you, revealed your true motivation: your defense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[cprise]

59. You didn't like that reminder about US-backed NGOs I see. n/t

[The Magistrate]

60. This Is Nonesense, Sir

There ws, and is, no breach any treaty by the United States, and Russia has no grounds whatever i international law for unilaterally altering any border, even with the thin fig-leaf of a supposed invitation from a group of protesters followed by a sham referendum. The claims you are making here touch reality at no identifiable point.

You are forced to concede that the violence was initiated by the riot police, and plead only that in your view the riot police acted no worse than riot police elsewhere acted in violently suppressing political dissent, as if that made the slightest difference to my categorical statement: when riot police attack protestors with lethal violence, the protestors have a perfect to fight back with lethal force of their own. I do not care whether this is in Kiev or Oakland or Timbuktu. Further, to disagree with this proposition is in fact to endorse police violence used to suppress dissent, and to claim that police who suppress dissent with lethal violence ought to be at liberty to do so without risk of harm in return. I do not care if it discomfits you to be confronted with what you are actually endorsing and arguing for here. It ought to make you uncomfortable.

[cprise]

61. Rioters initiated lethal violence-Dec. 2

That 2 rioters were the first ones to die of lethal violence on Jan. 22 is a tragic irony.

The way you dance around the distinction between beatings on one hand, and firebombs and tractors on the other is dishonest.

...only that in your view the riot police acted no worse than riot police elsewhere acted in violently suppressing political dissent, as if that made the slightest difference...

In a sense, yes. If nation-states are going to side with a mob against an elected leader, then they should expect to have their noses rubbed in their own hypocrisy. If you want to twist that into me personally supporting police brutality, that's your prerogative.

What kind of twisted bubble do you live in where lethal retaliation is a 'rightful' response to getting beat up? If you advocate this kind of response at OWS Oakland, they would drive you out or report you to the police. The American Exceptionalist mindset, especially married with your officious articulation, cannot deal with such situations as the underlying double standards create a deep, uncompromizing chasm. And that's where you appear to be-- in a chasm of molotov cocktail advocacy.

[The Magistrate]

62. That, Sir, Was Priceless

What kind of a 'twisted bubble' do I live in where I hold the view people being beaten have a right to defend themselves with deadly force? What sort of 'twisted bubble' indeed.

It is pretty generally conceded that people have a right to defend themselves against violence done to their person, and to do so in a manner which ends the attack against them. People who do not hold that there is a right of self-defense generally have principled objections to violence in any direction, by anyone, and this is certainly a view I can respect, even if I disagree with it. But you have no such principled objections to violence; in fact, you endorse a good deal of violence --- you consider riot police have a perfect right to beat protestors, and that Russia has a perfect right to invade Crimea and possibly portions of Ukraine. If there is any consistency to your view, it is that you endorse violence when it is either used against people you do not like ( persons who you conceive to be dupes of neo-cons and fascists ), or by a side of a quarrel you support, while you abhor violence done to persons you support ( riot police of the previous Ukraine government, whom you imagine to be resisting fascist dupes of neo-cons ) or in a cause you do not agree with. That is not an attitude which entitles you to much in the way of moral posturing, and gives you no standing whatsoever to lecture anyone else on their views regarding the propriety of violence, either in particular instances or expression of general principles.

It is not necessary for me to 'twist that into you personally supporting police brutality', because when you condemn resistance to police brutality, and most stridently so where that resistance is effective, no twisting at all is required to observe that you are supporting police brutality, because it is in fact what you are doing, with of course the risible caveat that you support police brutality only when you do not like the objects of it.

[cprise]

63. So condemning lethal force in response to beatings is 'support of police brutality'.

What an upstanding assessment.

If lethal retaliation is ever justified in "protests", I would expect the number and duration (days? months?) of beatings to bear heavily on that question. I don't think there were even any taped examples of police brutality on Dec. 2 or the day before.

And don't think I didn't notice how you suddenly dropped all reference to domestic US protest from your windy response-- retreating back toward the NATO-frontier side of the chasm where the shadows flatter your world-view.

OWS would identify your views as Black Flag Anarchist and spit you out. The US government would be far less charitable.

[The Magistrate]

64. It Is Clear, Sir, You Have Never Given The Subject Much Thought

By denouncing a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police, and maintaining that a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police is wrong, you are endorsing and supporting police brutality against demonstrators, and setting it up as right and proper action. You may not like this being pointed out, but that is no one's problem but your own: it is what you have done.

You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against violence done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all violence, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of violence to defend oneself against violent attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of violence against my enemies and disapprove of violence against my friends' standard.

Part of the muddle which tends to arise when people think of violence and whether it is right or not is a confusion between decisions made on the basis of moral values and decisions made as considerations of strategy or tactics. As people must often be reminded, the fact that one has the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do in some particular circumstance, judged by considerations of what might succeed or fail, and what the gains or pains might turn out to be. Judgement of this sort might well conclude it is a bad idea to fight back in some situations, but that does not change that people have the right to fight back, or establish that in all situations it is a bad idea to fight back.

When engaged in conflict towards some political end, one reason often given some weight in deciding whether use of violence is a good course or not is whether use of violence will forfeit the proverbial 'moral high ground', and indeed, it can be of use in seeking some end against opposition to give the appearance of being better people than one's opponents. It is a pretty question whether behavior which aligns with a high moral standard, but is performed not from a desire to behave morally but rather from the calculation that it may pay to appear moral, should be considered moral behavior, or something else. It is something definitely worth bearing in mind, however, when considering this subject.

Non-violence, as a strategy, depends for its success not on minimizing violence but rather on seeing to it violence flows in only one direction in the confrontation. Violence remains at its heart, for violence is the ultimate test of sincerity in political matters, and a willingness to see violence done, whether by oneself or upon oneself, is essential to achieving anything. A non-violent protest met with slices of cake and soft drinks rather than tear-gas and clubs or worse, would achieve nothing. Again, it is a pretty question, particularly for people who adopt non-violence from a sincere belief violence is in and of itself wrong, just what are the moral culpabilities when one deliberately courts and provokes violence in others, and indeed depends up the violence of others for success.

Since maintaining a monopoly on use of violence for political ends within its boundaries is one of the distinguishing characteristics of whether a functioning state exists, the question of violence will always arise when people in any number challenge the government of a state. The state will certainly be tempted to demonstrate its monopoly, and of course it is likely to have more resources in that line. But a successful use of violence against agents of the state is, by token of that claimed monopoly, one particularly striking way the legitimacy of the state itself can be called into question. In any confrontation which aims, or comes to aim, at overthrow of a government, there will come a point when violence by the opponents of the state becomes an important means for them to stake their claim it is they, not the government they oppose, which is the legitimate power in that state.

[cprise]

65. So violence=violence, regardless of what kind.

What dumbed-down newspeak swaddled in a bed of word salad.

By denouncing a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police, and maintaining that a violent response to violent suppression of dissent by police is wrong, you are endorsing and supporting police brutality against demonstrators, and setting it up as right and proper action. You may not like this being pointed out, but that is no one's problem but your own: it is what you have done.

You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against violence done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all violence, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of violence to defend oneself against violent attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of violence against my enemies and disapprove of violence against my friends' standard.

Search: violence, violent
Replace: QUACK

By denouncing a QUACK response to QUACK suppression of dissent by police, and maintaining that a QUACK response to QUACK suppression of dissent by police is wrong, you are endorsing and supporting police brutality against demonstrators, and setting it up as right and proper action. You may not like this being pointed out, but that is no one's problem but your own: it is what you have done.

You have not even attempted engaging the near universal consensus that people have a right to defend themselves against QUACK done to their person, and do so in such a manner as will ensure the attack ends. Nor have you engaged that it is only a moral position against all QUACK, by anyone, which is ever resorted to in claiming use of QUACK to defend oneself against QUACK attack is never justified or moral. It is evidently not a standard you could meet, from your commentary on the topic. It is clear yours is, really, a garden variety 'I approve of QUACK against my enemies and disapprove of QUACK against my friends' standard.

[The Magistrate]

66. Your Sputtering Is Noted, Sir

And as you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of serious matters....

"I'm going home now. Somebody get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[ProSense]

6. What does that have to do with Russia and the HRW report? n/t

[cprise]

8. HRW is arguing a Libertarian Globalist view of NGO finance.

My reading of this is that the Russian government isn't requiring that simple associating (being with, talking with, etc) with foreigners result in a "foreign NGO" label. They mean material financial support.

I nothing wrong with people being able to easily discern between advocacy/assistance that is domestically financed or foreign financed. And if orgs like USAid and NED give foreign aid a bad reputation by their (mis)deeds, then maybe the funders should consider addressing their problem with corruption (e.g. take their own pretentious posture to heart and apply the criticism to themselves).

[ProSense]

9. Again,

"My reading of this is that the Russian government isn't requiring that simple associating (being with, talking with, etc) with foreigners result in a "foreign NGO" label. They mean material financial support."

...the Russian Government seems to have no problem with American RW hate group in the U.S. are freely exporting hate.

Religious right leader backs Russian crackdown on gay rights

By Steve Benen

The crackdown on gay rights on Russia is stunning in its scope, and offers a reminder that Russia "remains a country where discrimination and even violence against gay people are widely tolerated." But while much of the West has condemned Vladimir Putin's new efforts, the offensive is not without American backers.

Voice of Russia is the government's official international radio broadcasting service, and last week, it ran a report touting comments from the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, a prominent leader of the religious right movement here in the U.S., who spoke to VOR at some length.

"Russia is not being homophobic, it's homorealistic -- the Russian government is trying to take the issue into consideration and establish public policy to contribute to public health, as this lifestyle is not be promoted, endorsed or granted special legal protection", the expert said, warning of high health risks linked to this lifestyle.

He cites the Center for Disease Control that has monitored the HIV epidemic since 1987 and determined that 61% of HIV-positive males had sexual contacts with other males. "Homosexual behavior is just as risky as drug abuse," Fischer said.

"I think the Russian government is right to be concerned with propaganda on teenagers who are at the age of struggling through sexual identity issue and we should help to channel these urges in productive behavior. Heterosexuality is God's design. Policies that encourage young people to think this are good ideas."

<...>

Note, Fischer's not the only one in the U.S. cheering Russia on. As we talked about a while back, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute said it "admires" Russia's anti-gay moves; Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality lauded Russia for rejecting "America's reckless and decadent promotion of gender confusion"; and the Illinois-based World Congress of Families has scheduled its 2014 conference for the Kremlin...then, of course, there's evangelical activist Scott Lively...sounds familiar, it's probably because of his work in Uganda, where he brags he is known as the "father" of the anti-gay movements. When Uganda took up a "Kill the Gays" bill, proponents said it arose out of an anti-gay conference that Lively headlined in 2009. Earlier this year, the Washington Post reported that Lively has spent the last decade working "systematically to strip away human rights protections from LGBT people" around the world, becoming "a kind of persecution consultant, strategizing with influential leaders and cohorts in other countries about ways to further silence and remove LGBT people from basic protections of the law."

And wouldn't you know it, Lively conducted a 50-city speaking tour of Russia in 2007, where he recommended the very measures Russia is now pursuing. From an AP report last year:

"Russia could become a model pro-family society," he wrote. "If this were to occur, I believe people from the West would begin to emigrate to Russia in the same way that Russians used to emigrate to the United States and Europe." <...>

"Russians, even after glasnost, are comfortable with an authoritarian style," he said. "That wouldn't work in the United States."

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/12/19989091-religious-right-leader-backs-russian-crackdown-on-gay-rights

[cprise]

45. I don't deny the anti-gay mindset there

Personally, I have had to counter AFA propaganda in my own family.

Its shameful and no doubt will hurt people in Russia. And if those foreign groups get a pass on identifying themselves as such (although some have names like "American Family Association&quot , then that would be a point of corruption and hypocrisy on the part of the Russian government that people should make an issue.

OTOH, there are countries much closer to the US sphere of influence who get a pass on even worse anti-gay policies, which just underscores that the US is now using women and gays for its geopolitical ambitions. Throw another issue on the bonfire of the hypocrisies.

[ProSense]

46. See,

I don't deny the anti-gay mindset there

Personally, I have had to counter AFA propaganda in my own family.

Its shameful and no doubt will hurt people in Russia. And if those foreign groups get a pass on identifying themselves as such (although some have names like "American Family Association&quot , then that would be a point of corruption and hypocrisy on the part of the Russian government that people should make an issue.

OTOH, there are countries much closer to the US sphere of influence who get a pass on even worse anti-gay policies, which just underscores that the US is now using women and gays for its geopolitical ambitions. Throw another issue on the bonfire of the hypocrisies.

...this is the kind of dismissiveness that comes with making excuses for Russia. Countering anti-gay policies and human rights atrocities should never be seen as "hypocrisies."

[cprise]

49. Get back to me on Saudi Arabia, India, UAE, etc. sometime.

Oh, but 'dismissiveness' is bad because... lets see... we gotta keep the band chock full of anti-Russia sentiment to get Halibuton's New Cold War on.

Screw that and your utter lack of proportion.

The US government and media establishment coddles countries that sentence gays to life in jail or execution.

[ProSense]

51. So you

Get back to me on Saudi Arabia, India, UAE, etc. sometime.

Oh, but 'dismissiveness' is bad because... lets see... we gotta keep the band chock full of anti-Russia sentiment to get Halibuton's New Cold War on.

Screw that and your utter lack of proportion.

The US government and media establishment coddles countries that sentence gays to life in jail or execution.

...think "proportion" is demanding that people leave Russia alone because they're not the only ones persecuting gays?

Apparently, for you it seems to be Russia first!

[cprise]

55. The rhetoric has descended to baby babble now

Its not an either-or proposition. I don't have to submit to a "your with us or against us" filter. You don't understand a damn thing about anyone if that's the way you really think.

I suggest, however, that in your sincere concern for gays around the world, you could actually include the worst offenders in your posts.

[ProSense]

56. Right...

You: "Its not an either-or proposition. I don't have to submit to a "your with us or against us" filter. You don't understand a damn thing about anyone if that's the way you really think. "

You: "Get back to me on Saudi Arabia, India, UAE, etc. sometime."

Yup, you called it: "baby babble."

[ProSense]

7. Yes, we need is a similar law in the U.S.

"Imagine China spending that amount on non-profits in the US; Now imagine an amount adjusted for the relative size of US GDP. And then there is the question of AIPAC... an organization that probably *should* be illegal in this country."

...to allow the Government to start labeling people "foreign agents" and rounding them up.

How Secret Foreign Money Could Infiltrate US Elections

Think the United States is immune from foreigners' campaign cash? Think again.

By Andy Kroll

Foreign money and American elections are like fire and water, orange juice and toothpaste, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans: The two don't mix. At least they haven't for nearly 50 years, when the federal government banned foreigners from giving or spending any money on local, state, and federal elections.

But for the secretive nonprofit groups pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2012 elections, the rules are different. These outfits, organized under the 501(c) section of the US tax code, can take money from foreign citizens, foreign labor unions, and foreign corporations, and they don't have to tell voters about it because they don't publicly disclose their donors...Anyone, American or not, can give any amount—$1 or $10 million—to politically active nonprofits like the Sierra Club or Americans for Prosperity, the national free-market organization cofounded by billionaire industrialist David Koch. Federal law prohibits a penny of that foreign money from being spent on politics. But it's not hard to dodge that ban, says Marcus Owens, a tax law attorney who ran the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.

Owens offered this hypothetical scenario: Say a Chinese businessman wants to funnel $10 million to a nonprofit that runs anti-Obama ads. For a few hundred dollars, that donor—or his attorney—can create a Delaware shell corporation that can funnel the $10 million to the nonprofit. And when the nonprofit discloses its donors to the IRS (as the law requires), all the taxman sees on the donor line is the shell corporation...Complicated as it may sound, the use of shell corporations isn't so implausible. Last year, Edward Conard, a former partner and colleague of Mitt Romney's at Bain Capital, used a newly created shell corporation called W Spann LLC to anonymously funnel $1 million to the pro-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future. Satirist Stephen Colbert lampooned this shell game by creating an anonymous shell corporation called "Anonymous Shell Corporation" for the purpose of shoveling dark money to his super-PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.

<...>

In 2010, ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the liberal Center for American Progress, sent shock waves through Washington when it accused the US Chamber of Commerce of funding political ads with money from foreign businesses. A Chamber spokesman told FactCheck.org that it kept foreign money separate from its political honeypot but declined to give any details on how the funds are segregated....In the early 1990s, then-Republican National Committee chair Haley Barbour used a phony think tank called the National Policy Forum to funnel $2.2 million from Hong Kong businessman Ambrous Young into the RNC's coffers for 1994 and 1996 elections. Barbour faced a grilling from Senate investigators, but ultimately avoided punishment. The story of Barbour's scheme, Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said in 1998, "is the only one so far where the head of a national political party knowingly and successfully solicited foreign money, infused it into the election process, and intentionally tried to cover it up."

- more -

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/foreign-dark-money-2012-election-nonprofit

[cprise]

11. Also pine for the bankers who would be "rounded up" if Glass-Steagal

were re-instated... while you're at it.

Money uber alles works marvellously from the standpoint of someone who can print up almost arbitrary amounts of the world's reserve currency.

[ProSense]

13. The fact is that Russian law impede human rights.

"Also pine for the bankers who would be "rounded up" if Glass-Steagal"

Are you suggesting that association should be criminalized?

[cprise]

19. Falling back on stale rhetoric?

'Well... just Russia Bad, and that's that'

No doubt Russian laws "impede" human rights (though the suggestion of flow here is interesting). But as its reported here, it doesn't appear to be THIS law.

"Also pine for the bankers who would be "rounded up" if Glass-Steagal"

Are you suggesting that association should be criminalized?

Eh? Are you even following? I'm saying that attempting to pass off foreign monetary support as domestic is no more dramatic as a crime than running the whole banking sector like a casino.

Or perhaps you are trying to equate finance with association? They are not one and the same.

[ProSense]

20. "No doubt Russian laws 'impede' human rights

...But as its reported here, it doesn't appear to be THIS law."

Which "stale rhetoric" is that?

"Eh? Are you even following? I'm saying that attempting to pass off foreign monetary support as domestic is no more dramatic as a crime than running the whole banking sector like a casino."

That's absurd.

"Or perhaps you are trying to equate finance with association? They are not one and the same. "

You're the one who brought up "Glass-Steagall," which, in fact, criminalized the activities that lead to the financial crisis.

Apparently, you're the one not "following" the your own attempts to excuse the atrocity described in the OP.

[cprise]

23. That one line tautology

... is the stale rhetoric. As if it were any kind of intelligent response.

I'm sensing a comprehension gear went 'clunk' again. Or was that a shift into autopilot...

[ProSense]

24. Says the person

"I'm sensing a comprehension gear went 'clunk' again. Or was that a shift into autopilot..."

...engaged in logic FAIL.

[treestar]

15. You can imagine that and bet it is happening

without anyone having to register as a "foreign agent."

[malaise]

12. Does the US allow foreign governments to foment unrest in

America?

[ProSense]

14. Well,

"Does the US allow foreign governments to foment unrest in America?"

...they fund Republicans. The U.S. happens to have a stronger democracy so such activity doesn't translate into "unrest."

What I find interesting is that people seem unaware that foreign goverments are engaged in similar funding in the U.S.

Do you oppose foreign advocacy on behalf of LGBT rights in Russia or should the U.S. leave them (and their RW allies) to their own devices?

This is not an all or nothing proposition. There are clearly boundaries.

[cprise]

21. Yes, but its still possible to finance advocates in Russia

They just have to identify as foreign-backed. Indeed, its about boundaries.

[ProSense]

22. Ridiculous.

"Yes, but its still possible to finance advocates in Russia. They just have to identify as foreign-backed. Indeed, its about boundaries."

You're apparently cool with the funding as long as there is a law in place that legalizes the persecution of some groups.

[cprise]

25. Disclosure isn't persecution. Too bad for your 3rd Way bankers. n/t

[ProSense]

26. You know damn well this isn't about "disclosure." n/t

[cprise]

27. Yeah, it means increased skepticism. Again... too bad!

This reminds me of the "debate" around labelling GMO foods.

[ProSense]

28. No, it means legalized persecution.

"This reminds me of the 'debate' around labelling GMO foods."

Yeah, and I suppose "labelling GMO foods" reminds you of Glass-Steagall.

Ludicrous.

[cprise]

30. How enlightening. n/t

[treestar]

16. Yes.

The First Amendment.

They can't get much traction, though. We are used to free speech and there is plenty of opposition.

[nilesobek]

31. An undefeated bully wanders into the woods

and gets badly mauled by a bear for entering its territory.

I love it that Russia has said, "nyet!" to the warmongering neo-cons. Russia owns half the world's land surface and can maul America anytime they want with impunity. They have possession of the six largest nuclear weapons ever made. The bully should stay out of the woods or end up in the hospital.

[ProSense]

32. Isn't that

"I love it that Russia has said, "nyet!" to the warmongering neo-cons. Russia owns half the world's land surface and can maul America anytime they want with impunity. They have possession of the six largest nuclear weapons ever made. The bully should stay out of the woods or end up in the hospital."

...a bit Palinesque?

[nilesobek]

33. Isn't Palin a neo-con that makes

crazy and inaccurate, alarmist statements about Russia? I don't love Russia, I just love that someone has stood up to the neo-cons in Syria and the Crimea. Russia is on to our techniques of subversion and lying.

Basically this dispute could be likened to say, for instance, if Texas had seceded from the USA ten years ago and the USA had to take action for a perceived threat.

Are we ready for an out-all nuclear mauling by Russia over this type of dispute? The Russians are calling the bluff and willing to go all the way. The USA alone cannot win a final struggle for the planet surface.

[ProSense]

34. "Isn't Palin a neo-con that makes crazy and inaccurate alarmist statements about Russia?"

Yes.

[nilesobek]

35. Just seems like mockery, but do carry on.

[ProSense]

36. No, just correlating bravado and inaccuracies. n/t

[nilesobek]

37. I'm ok with any kind of constructive criticism.

For me, this Russia subject is like rooting for the bad guys in some of the movies. The "good guys," are so predictable and swarmy I end up hoping they all get shot to death at the end of the movie.

[ProSense]

38. Well, that

"For me, this Russia subject is like rooting for the bad guys in some of the movies. The "good guys," are so predictable and swarmy I end up hoping they all get shot to death at the end of the movie. "

...explains your initial comment, which has nothing to do with the point of the OP.

[aikoaiko]

42. And the jury results are in...

On Wed Apr 9, 2014, 02:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

An undefeated bully wanders into the woods
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4798996

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

wtf? this is over the top

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 9, 2014, 02:38 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Needs a pro Russia site
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a comment that doesn't belong on a liberal site. It's cheering on the suppression of human rights in Russia.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[nilesobek]

39. You spliced two stories together

to make it look like the Russian foreign agent law is somehow discriminatory, without any proof at all.

[ProSense]

40. That makes four ridiculous comments. n/t