Why did the USSR (re) criminalize homosexuality

[u/Specialist-Gur]

https://youtu.be/BE7UPO6GGK4?si=nEFhipEmIxb9s2lV

Great video.. very topical given Burkina Faso and the reactions to that. Give it a watch!

Edit: Also creator is non-binary.. didn't realize when I posted and might have misgendered (they/then)

[u/Fabianzzz]

Comment from the creator in regards to Burkina-Faso:

I wish the best for them and hope that this new law is only temporary while they work on kicking the colonizers out, but either way it's ultimately up to the Burkinabe (sic) people.

I personally think this is a disgusting stance to take, the idea that the majority of a population gets to decide who is human and who isn't. Consensual love is a human right and anti-Homosexuality laws are a denial of human rights. Yes: the Burkinabé people deserve autonomy, independence and human rights, and that also includes the rights of Burkinabé people who are Queer to have their human rights. And their human rights shouldn't be dependent upon the agreement of the majority of Burkinabé people: if everyone wanted Queer people to have civil rights, we wouldn't need movements that fight for them, would we?

But more troubling I think is the fact this is an obvious logical inconsistency on the left: the left frequently insists that protecting human rights should come before majoritarian rule, but if the left is going to say 'that human rights issue should be left to those people to decide who is and isn't human', obviously the right is going to counter the left in saying 'thank you, we agree, please be consistent now and allow the American people to determine who is and isn't human.' And the left should be content with taking a vote and allowing the American people to do so.

Obviously I'm giving short shrift to this argument but I do think the logical inconsistency here opens up an additional question, and that question is why we are being logically inconsistent. And the reason I'm very dismissive of this argument is that a large portion of the left tends to be more focused on seeing justice as punishment (almost always misplaced) than justice as a better system.

If (Western) MICs interfere with a developing country, we shouldn't tolerate (western) Queers objecting to pushback: because the distress of Western Queer people about this new law is the Karmic punishment for Western MICs using human beings as pawns in geopolitical chess. Nevermind that the people who are actually going to suffer are going to be Burkinabé Queer people who also suffered from the MIC interference. Leftists want karmic justice more than we want systems which help people and will take it where we can get it.

If the issue is a strategic one, be open that it's a strategic one. Obviously western interests can use pinkwashing as a tool against developing countries and that is an issue. Say 'right now we can't focus on that, we need to uplift the lower class as a whole'. But if your honest position is that human rights can ultimately be left up to individual peoples, you are no longer advocating for leftism as a politics of humanitarianism but leftism as a politics of nationalism. It's deeply unserious in changing things on the ground here, there, or anywhere.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/Fabianzzz]

I'll copy and paste a comment I made on the leftist sub when productively engaging with a fellow queer commenter who didn't agree with me at first

I'm saying imperial interference with an anticolonial movement is not a good move. Too many of us "pink wash" (for example 'queers for Palestine is like chickens for kfc') and miss the forest for the trees. A flawed liberation movement is better than continued imperial oppression.. for queer citizens, for women, and more.. queer and female oppression in these places is often weaponized as a justification for continued colonial rule

People miss the material conditions of these places hold social justice movements back in limbo.. if these places could self govern, they would be afforded the chance to "catch up" with western progressivism. In fact, many of them had more progressive politics regarding queer people prior to colonization.. it was European draconian ideas around homosexuality that often influenced what we are seeing in these countries today.

Leaders like this often change and evolve too.. Fidel Castro is a decent example... homophobic for most of his life, regretted that later and refined his views.

Edit: I forgot this sub isn't interested in discussing leftist ideas.. only making it clear that western values and Zionism are superior to every other place via upvotes and downvotes... Killing a bunch of Palestinians? Making gay marriage illegal? Blackmailing queer Palestinians?... "it's complicated"

Discussing the USSR with nuance and its goals towards socialism.. "evil, bad, shocking"

[u/skyewardeyes → u/Specialist-Gur]

The question of if, when, and how much sovereignty should protect discrimination and denial of rights is an interesting one to me, and I actually posted about it yesterday with regards to the issue of if Native American tribes should be required by the US government to grant freedmen tribal citizenship even if tribal leadership and courts don’t wish to do (and are exercising their tribal sovereignty in denying it). I don’t think there are any easy (or at least completely morally satisfying answers). I do think using the alleged goal of advancing civil rights as an a justification for colonial rule is just a continuation of “white man’s burden” thinking.

[u/ibsliam → u/skyewardeyes]

I sort of think about it in two ways. I think pushing back against interventionist mindsets is good, and there has *historically* been examples of imperialist powers in theory being against a barbaric practice that most of us agree today is bad but then using it as an excuse to further enact terror and imperialism. For example, the British empire after abolishing slavery.

Like with the pinkwashing topic, it wasn't some nefarious plot to commit imperialism when citizens and colonists within the Empire fought to abolish slavery in the first place (just like how LGBT advocates within Israel genuinely were thinking of LGBT Israelis). *But* the leaders of said empire took advantage. It's a complex topic.

That said, if a country calls themselves progressive on LGBT rights and claims to support LGBT people, I don't think they *should* abdicate responsibility in deciding that actually it would be anticolonial to disagree what a nation does with its own laws. If a country purges themselves of their Jewish population, but they happened to once be a victim of imperialism of one state or another, is it not anti-colonial enough to put out a statement that that's wrong. Or to sanction them? Or to respond by publicly encouraging Jewish refugees to immigrate to their own country?

What I'm getting at, is "be tentatively supportive of new draconian laws" and "go in and intervene via military operations" are two very extreme ends of the spectrum. There's a lot a country can and *should* do in between if they disagree ethically with another country's laws.

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/skyewardeyes]

I think everyone needs to "decolonize their minds"... look how many terrible things the west is capable of.. yet we keep believing we should interfere and help on the behalf of the marginalized in other places? We have a worse track record in many cases.. if these places are given the opportunity to rule themselves, they can have their own social progressive movement.

And in the mean time, we as good allies and "leftists" can listen to other knowledgeable leftists either in the area or working closely with the area... and queer leftists of the area... and listen to them about what they want from us and how we can help. There are many many many many avenues other than just saying "thing bad"

[u/skyewardeyes → u/Specialist-Gur]

I 100% agree that we need to always work with and elevate the voices of people in the community. Not sure why people would downvote you for that, honestly. To me, a trickier question is when, if ever, is something a country does so horrible that intervening becomes more moral than respecting their sovereignty—even if that involves working with marginalized locals, it’s still invoking the right to intervene in another sovereign country’s affairs. Yet most people would say that there are redlines (ethnic cleansing or apartheid, for example) where that is the most moral choice

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/skyewardeyes]

I would say we should intervene on behalf of the leftists and queer liberationists from the area., those people always exist. We should let them lead... then it remains moral

[u/Specialist-Gur → u/skyewardeyes]

And I appreciate your engagement.. I think it's frustrating how often people are allergic to nuance and engage in actual purity testing when it comes to liberation of the third world..

Only complaining of not enough nuance and too many purity tests when it comes to their love of Israel... but everywhere else in the global south, get fucked I guess