MOSCOW, January 8 (RIA Novosti) – A controversial sitcom star-cum-priest asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring back a Soviet law criminalizing “sodomy.”
Not doing so would give “sodomites…a Constitutional opportunity to defile the young generation,” Ivan Okhlobystin said on his blog on Tuesday.
The actor praised Putin for last year’s ban on “gay propaganda,” but said it was not enough because the very existence of a legal gay community amounted to such propaganda.
The Kremlin did not comment as of Wednesday.
Okhlobystin’s post was deleted from TwitLonger blog platform for violation of terms of service, according to the Twitter of the site’s creator Stuart Gibson, who is openly gay.
But the statement caused a stir on the Russian blogosphere, and already earned the 47-year-old actor the label “faggot” from socialite and prominent opposition activist Ksenia Sobchak.
This is not the first instance of gay-bashing from Okhlobystin, who stars in “Interns,” a hit sitcom heavily deriving from US show “Scrubs.”
At a chat with fans in December, the actor said that he would “burn gays alive.” No repercussions followed.
Okhlobystin starred in some 50 film projects before “Interns,” Russia’s most popular TV show of 2012, according to state-run pollster VTsIOM.
He is also an Orthodox Christian priest suspended in service, the creative director of a cell phone retailer chain, a science fiction writer and an aspiring conservative politician.
“Sodomy” was punishable with up to seven years in prison in Soviet times, but the article disappeared from the Russian Criminal Code in 1993. Incidentally, no bans on lesbian sex were ever in place.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- jgECHR would not allow such a law.14:39, 08/01/2014Okhlobystin is probably unaware either that Russia is a signatory to the European convention on Human Rights or that Article 14 has been successfully used against the governments of other ECHR signatories by homosexuals contesting discrimination.
- MasterAdrianCAlling a bigot a faggot?????03:03, 17/01/2014Perhaps the term "faggot" means something different in Russia then it does in western countries, but "faggot" is a denigrating term for a homosexual person, so referring to this Ivan Okhlobystin as faggot means calling him the opposite of what he actually means..... Or do Russians know something the west doesn't know? Is mr. Ivan Okhlobystin a bigot (a anti-homosexual) or someone with active homosexual activities? His opposition to homosexuality means that he is a bigot..... but of course, often the biggest bigots are the most active practitioners of what they claim to be opposing......
- bielecAbout the labels23:57, 24/01/2014Check the Online Dictionary for the meaning of "perversion" and "sexual perversion". This term fits the LGBT community better than other, descriptions like "faggot" or "queer" that refer to people but not to their activities.
Unrestricted green light, political support and generous funding for organizations representing feminists, gays, lesbians, supporters of abortion and proponents of gay propaganda to minors, to name just a few, entered our reality as part of an effort to reduce the Earth's population, a policy that originally resulted from the National Security Study Memorandum 200, a report headed by Henry Kissinger in 1974.
This issue is also being used to bash Russia or any country that the US and EU want to criticize. Somehow, they don't criticize their political allies, for example Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, where much more severe anti-homosexual laws exist.
As to the homosexual activities - the current laws in Russia do not outlaw them. What Russian laws outlaw is a propaganda of homo or cross sex to children.
For hundreds of generations, people knew what was good and what was bad. They knew that introducing children too early to sex-related issues was not good, as pre-occupation with sex was shifting the focus away from learning and other age-appropriate interests. Plus, they knew that environment, not only genetic makeup, was a deciding factor in choices that children make. It turns out that today's Western human rights defenders don't care about the future of children that will get hurt in the process.
We often hear that homosexuals are "born that way", so it is not their fault. They are attracted to the same-sex partners. It makes them happy. So, we should accept them and embrace them, and let the recruit our children.
What's next? Are we going to accept
pedophiles? Well, they are sexually attracted to children, they are born that way, so it is not their fault. And it makes them happy. And if we don't care about the negative impact it will have on children, then why not?
Finally, the current laws do not violate the European Convention on Human Rights, as they do not outlaw homosexual activities or lifestyles. This whole topic is deliberately
exaggerated for strictly political ends. There is no need for straight or LGBT people to advertise their sexual activities in public. Some things are better kept private.
Infographics: World War I, 1914-1918