The issue of traditional values and «non-traditional orientation» is increasingly discussed in the socio-political space of two countries whose ruling forces position themselves as conservative — Russia and Turkey. In Russia, pro-government propaganda uses the rejection of aggressive homoideology by the naturally conservative majority of Russian society to mobilize them to vote for Putin’s constitutional amendments, which supposedly protect the country from this ideology. But are the ruling circles of Russia, who want to perpetuate their power, really so uncompromising towards homo-ideology? Even rumors about the preferences of many prominent representatives of these circles make one think — we’re not talking about someone’s private life, but about the public manifestation of their position, by which they are judged in the modern political space. So, what is the situation with this attitude?
A year ago, in an interview with the Financial Times, Vladimir Putin stated that he had no problem with the LGBTQ+ community and wished them health and the ability to live as they see fit. In 2015, when asked about the persecution of homosexuals in Russia, Putin said that it should be completely eliminated, citing the United States, where homosexuality was considered a crime at the time. He said, «It is known that in the United States, in four US states, homosexuality is considered a criminal offense. Whether this is good or bad, we now know the decision of the Constitutional Court, but this problem has not been completely eradicated, it has not been completely removed from the legislation of the United States. We do not have that.»
«We have people of non-traditional orientation living peacefully, working, advancing in their careers, receiving state awards for their achievements in science, art, or other fields. They receive orders that I personally present,» Putin emphasized.
Now let’s turn to Turkey, where a new scandal on the same subject has recently erupted. Two months ago, we wrote about how homosexual extremists harassed the official religious leader of Muslims in Turkey, the head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs of Turkey, Ali Erbas, for his critical statements about homosexuality. Not only was he harassed for expressing the position of the religion he represents, but he was also threatened with criminal prosecution. However, prominent members of the country’s ruling circles came to his defense.
Now, a similar campaign of harassment has taken place on a global scale against Kerem Kinik, the head of the Turkish Red Crescent and Red Cross Society. He made similar statements, saying, «We will not allow human dignity to be trampled upon. We will protect creation and the spiritual well-being of our children. We will continue to fight against anyone who invades young minds, who speaks in the name of modernity with dreams of pedophilia and presents anomalies as the norm, insulting healthy creation. This will not happen!»
The International Red Cross immediately condemned these statements, stating that the views of the head of its Turkish branch do not reflect its views, which condemn homophobia and stand in solidarity with the global LGBTQ+ community.
Naturally, representatives of the same «community,» both globally and in Turkey, responded from their perspective, launching hashtag campaigns on Twitter and elsewhere. In response, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made an unequivocal statement, saying, «I call on my people to stand against the perversions that our Lord has forbidden.» Against this backdrop, Muslims and other conservative-minded people launched a hashtag campaign against the aggressive expansion of LGBTQ+ views, using hashtags such as #LGBTFaaliyetleriYasaklansın.
Now let’s compare the two situations. Neither Russia nor Turkey is an officially religious state. Both declare themselves to be secular democratic constitutional states, which implies, among other things, that the state does not interfere in the private life of its citizens if it is based on voluntary relations between adults (the so-called «age of consent»). This means that homosexual relations are not prohibited in either country.
However, if we compare the positions of Putin and Erdogan on this issue, we can see that Putin’s position is ambiguous, while Erdogan’s is clear. What does this mean in practice and why is it important?
Again, within the framework of a secular democratic state, which neither the Turkish government nor the majority of society wants to abandon, there is no question of prohibiting homosexual relations themselves or punishing individuals for them.
But as we can see, the «community» in question is no longer concerned with not being persecuted — on the contrary, they are effectively trying to persecute those who do not approve of their choices and behavior and refuse to recognize them as morally normal. These people are already being persecuted all over the world — they are being fired from their jobs, their contracts are being terminated, their social lives are being destroyed, and sometimes they are even being physically attacked.
What can serve as a barrier to all of this in a secular state of law? Could it be the norm of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, which populist amendments to the Russian Constitution are currently seeking to introduce, even though the Family Code already contains a similar definition?
Obviously not. For example, prominent Kremlin propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov has repeatedly proposed legalizing same-sex partnerships in Russia without violating the definition of marriage, as is the case in many European countries. This view is openly advocated by a group of pro-government liberals, including openly gay Putin supporter Anton Krasovsky, whose activities we wrote about yesterday.
In the West, by the way, a change of attitude on this issue within conservative parties did not happen overnight either. For example, while Republican George Bush was initially against the legalization of gay marriage at the beginning of this century, he attended a same-sex wedding in 2013, reflecting the change in public opinion. Given that maintaining power at all costs is the main goal of the Russian establishment, few doubt that if they need to change their stance on this issue, for example by recognizing so-called «partnerships,» they will do so.
Against this background, why does the position of the current Turkish leader seem more reliable and unambiguous? Because he does not appeal to populist «values» that can change from one day to the next, but to his Lord and His commandments — «I call on my people to stand against the perversions that our Lord has forbidden.
This basis of Islamic value orientation in the form of unchanging laws of the Creator guarantees its preservation, at least in fundamental matters. Of course, the Islamic ideal is a state in which God’s commandments determine not only the moral standards of those who follow them, but also the legal laws. However, since the realization of this ideal is currently unattainable for various reasons, and attempts to impose it without the necessary conditions lead to the opposite results, Muslims must at least defend their right to have a personal opinion on certain phenomena based on the values of their religion.
And the example of Turkey shows how this can be done even within a secular democratic state. It also shows that the guarantee for the protection of traditional values in such conditions lies not in populist changes or propaganda, but in adherence to God’s law.