Recently, Elena Grigoryeva (pictured) was killed in St. Petersburg. She had previously reported threats to the police and on social media because of her activism. Some media outlets were quick to label her an «LGBT activist» and emphasize that aspect of her work. However, this was not her only activism — Grigoryeva was a civic activist and opposition figure in a broader sense. She organized pickets in support of various political prisoners, including Oyub Titiev, Ingush opposition activists, Crimean Tatars, and also spoke out against wars in Ukraine, Syria, and so on. In the West, people like her are called «Social Justice Warriors» (SJW), a term that some take dramatically and others mock. But in a country where taking part in protests can lead to serious problems, the consequences can be very different.
Against the backdrop of this murder, threats against Grigoryeva and other LGBT activists were officially spread by a group called «Saw against LGBT». How should we view such murders, other personal reprisals, and threats against Muslims in Putin-Gundyaev’s Russia?
First and foremost, as Muslims, we are unequivocally opposed to the LGBT movement, especially when it seeks to advance its agenda in the Muslim community. We consider sodomy an abominable phenomenon, a great sin, and its public demonstration and normalization a moral destruction of society. And this is especially true of radical LGBT fundamentalism, which not only seeks to legalize this phenomenon and give it the same rights as normal men and women (including marriage, adoption, etc.), but also to prohibit criticism and harass «homophobes» who base their views on Quranic, Biblical, or Talmudic values.
At the same time, it is important to understand that the specific practical approach to these phenomena depends on the values, politics, and legal framework of a society. If it is a religious society and state, it is one question. Putin-Gundyaev’s Russia tries to behave as if it were one, but then serious questions arise. Why does it have a constitution that proclaims the principles of a secular state, including freedom of religion, equality of confessions, and their separation from power? Why not adopt a basic law that openly defines the principles on which the country’s power and society are really built? Perhaps it will not be adopted, so that the country will have no law and live according to a constitution whose fictitious nature is obvious to all and which the authorities can simply ignore? But in that case, it must be understood that in such a country where there is no law, secular or religious, all groups of the population, secular and religious, are powerless and unprotected, as we see every day.
Speaking specifically about homosexuals, it should be understood that top officials of the Russian regime, when it is convenient for them, constantly declare that they are tolerant of this phenomenon. And how could it be otherwise, when its proponents make up a significant part of the power establishment, whether in the political, propaganda, or cultural and entertainment spheres?
So why do the so-called fighters against LGBT not declare war on them, but only on civil activists involved in opposition and human rights activities? We will return to this rhetorical question later.
Yes, it can be argued that, unlike closeted homosexuals in and around power, LGBT activists are dangerous precisely because they seek the legalization of these phenomena in Russia. But what kind of danger is it if the authorities and society as a whole do not accept these views and have no intention of making corresponding changes in legislation? Can a few people with pro-LGBT placards do it? Obviously not, because they do not make decisions.
Another obvious fact is that if today extrajudicial reprisals start against them because of their position and public activities, tomorrow it will happen to others under one or another moral pretext. Indeed, why tomorrow — we know very well that they began «yesterday», especially against Muslims, and today both judicial and extrajudicial reprisals are taking place against Jehovah’s Witnesses, Evangelicals, Baptists, as well as opposition activists of various views, including pro-Russian and Orthodox. And against this background, it is at best naive to emphasize one particular category and think that such reprisals can be justified against its representatives, but not against all others. Because either everyone has rights and is protected when expressing their opinions and public positions, or ultimately no one will have them and some will continue to divide and rule.
And now let’s return to the question of what might really be behind these threats against LGBT activists. It is telling that the authors of these threats not only do not hide their ties to the authorities, but also emphasize them. At the same time, they are not threatening Volodin, Gref, or openly pro-government gay activists like Alexeyev and Krasovsky, but only those involved in opposition activities that are choking the authorities and law enforcement. Threats are also directed at Novaya Gazeta and the Russian Service of Radio Liberty, media outlets that may devote 1/10th of their content to the LGBT issue, but consistently report on abuses of power and law enforcement against various citizens of Russia, including Muslims.
So who, in this case, is interested in targeting opposition activists and media under the guise of fighting against LGBT? The answer is obvious, as is how we should feel about it.
If we intend to live in the conditions of a legal secular state, which is the only realistic form of the rule of law for Russia, whose authorities themselves will not enact Sharia or Canon Law (because then they would have to cut off the hands and heads of all those in power), then all public discussions and decisions of public importance should take place in the legal sphere. And it is in this realm that we are prepared to stand up to LGBT fundamentalists and oppose their plans to impose on society what religious and conservative people consider to be unjust. The final decisions on such issues will be made by the voters, who not only in Russia, but also in many other conservative countries — both Muslim and Christian — are by no means eager to legalize same-sex marriages, adoptions by gay families, and so on.
But what we must definitely and unequivocally reject is reprisals against the opposition and civil activists under any pretext. For those who are interested, these are just pretexts.