LBGT Identity Affirmative
Brought to you by: Matthew, Noah, John, Mason, Jessica, Ruth, Emily, Liam and
Julia
1AC
Contention 1: Policing
Contention 1 is Policing
The surveillance of LGBTs on the internet has not only increased, but is
being used towards abusive ends
Gilreath 14
Shannon Gilreath, a professor of Law and Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies
at Wake Forest University known for his works Sexual Politics: The Gay Person in
America Today (2006) and The End of Straight Supremacy: Realizing Gay Liberation (2011),
“ESSAY: THE INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT ON THE NSA SPYING
SCANDAL,” Summer of 2014, Wake Forest Law Review Association, Lexis Nexis (NV)
Any sort of suggestion along these lines is today met with disbelief. 61 And yet these same ideas about Gays are today expressed by members of the
United States' highest Court.62 Likewise, it
is not outside the realm of possibility that people with Nazi-style
ideas about Gays could get power in this country. American evangelicals have been involved in a long-secret, but now
publicized, lobbying effort to make homosexuality a capital offense in more benighted areas of Africa. 63 Even liberal political leaders,
like President Obama, are cowed by their influence in the United States, claiming to support Gay
rights but nevertheless attending national functions orchestrated by these same anti-Gay forces. 64 An apparently viable
Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee (he won the Iowa caucus), has said publicly that Gays, particularly
those with HIV, should be quarantined. 65 Recently, Glenn Beck, who gave a bizarre performance at the 2013 Value Voters
Summit, in which he claimed that the Holocaust was actually an effort aimed at persecuting Christians, asked his audience to guess what color badges
homosexual internees at concentration camps had to wear for identification purposes. When he revealed that the badges were pink, his audience-folks
who largely set the agenda for Tea Party hopefuls-erupted into laughter, making mock at the mass murder of Gays by the Nazis.66 And, since this is a
symposium about the Internet and its destructive powers, I challenge readers of this Essay to input the search terms "gays need to" into the Google
search engine. What you will find among the auto-filled search terms supplied by Google, based on the most frequent searches beginning with the
phrase "gays need to," are variations on "gays need to die."6 7 These are facts. Again,
to say that these things are reality and
that, thus, Gay people could be oppressed in the ways Hocquenghem identified is not to say Gay
people will be thusly oppressed. Rather it is simply to be honest about the reality of politics and the
role politics plays in shaping what is possible. I think, too, that there is something about contemporary reality that makes the position of Gays even
more chilling, at least in terms of the potential for oppression, than Hocquenghem could have understood. Guy Hocquenghem's most important
contribution to the Gay movement, in my estimation, was his work on Gay history. Hocquenghem was an important voice calling for a concerted effort
at historicizing Gay life. In many ways, what Hocquenghem lamented-that Gays do not have a history in a structural sense-is still very much the case,
despite the literature on the subject that he helped to catalyze. 68 As a people, historically speaking, we are deficient. But this is to speak about history
only in the way social scientists do. In another way, we are quite a long way from the world Hocquenghem pondered in his 1980 interview. The "silence"
Hocquenghem found so problematiC69 is, in fact, impossible today. Hocquenghem said that when "you don't have a direct and very obvious, visible
way of transmitting the gay idea, it just stops. An isolated person is not a gay person."70 He is absolutely right, of course. And what he had to say on
that point is still relevant to the fact of an as-yet deficient Gay historical and cultural memory. But, in
terms of the everyday-the
minutia of everyday lifeHocquenghem, dead now for more than thirty years, could not have
imagined the impact of the Internet on our daily lives. Surely, the Internet has been an important tool. It has meant, for
instance, that the Gay teen isolated in the rural South has found himself instantly in touch with other Gays across the globe. 7' The Internet
has been important for grass roots, civil rights organizing, here and abroad, by Gays and other
oppressed groups; but the degree of the Internet's intrusiveness into virtually every aspect of our
daily lives also means that "silence" and "isolation" are effectively impossible. For example, recently, I did
intensive research on Gay male pornography. 72 What I began to notice was the amount of unsolicited, clearly targeted interaction I began to have with
pornographers: e-mail advertisements, inexplicable Facebook postings offering more and newer pornography, curious Google search returns making
pornographic content the return for virtually every conceivable search. Clearly ,
the work I had been doing on pornography,
making use, as any modern researcher would, of the Internet, was amassed as metadata and
used in a very targeted fashion. The metadata gathered about me, because of my interest in
pornography for purposes of my research, was coded into a profile that was highly specific, if not
entirely accurate. It would have been all the same, of course, had I been using the pornography
in the way it is intended to be used. The point is, others knew about it. And that knowledge has
significant political and social ramifications. For most of our history, Gays have operated with a more or less singular political
strategy. We venture out; we agitate. If and when things get too bad, we can simply return to the Closet. Regardless of the extent to which that was ever
really possible, it is not possible at all now.7 3
The total anonymity of the Closet is totally illusory. Every one of
us has left a Hansel-and-Gretel-style digital trail from whence we came. There is scarcely a
moment when we are not being watched . The data gathered about us , often surreptitiously
(and certainly put to surreptitious uses), is at work .74 Profiles about where we go, what we do, what we read, who
we are, are being constructed.75 As Rudolf Cheim observed, the ends to which these metadata profiles can
be employed are as limitless as they are potentially sinister.76 Thus, it is not entirely accurate to say that
Hocquenghem could not have imagined this development. Of course, Hocquenghem did not have the benefit of Edwin Black's revelations. But did he
need them? After
all, Orwell understood. He described the contemporary American situation with an
eerie precision, in his now-classic 1984.77 We have imported the telescreen7 8 into our lives. Its
influence is now so strong that few of us functioning in this modern world could imagine giving
it up. In a very real sense, as I observed recently to my doctor concerning the legally required
digitization of my medical records-against my will and supremely foolishly in light of the greater
risk digitization poses for compromise and exploitation-we do not even have that choice.79 The fact
that the concentration of all of this information about our lives and habits has moved from its heretofore central site of focus, corporate retailers, to
the government is what makes all of this positively Orwellian.80 The "architecture of oppression," as Edward
Snowden called it, is firmly in place.81 It is in light of this understanding that I hear Hocquenghem's voice most strongly:
History proves that this trend is only getting worse
Knight 14
[Professor of History and American Studies and former Chair of Department of
History at Yale University; Feb, 2014;
http://www.aclupa.org/files/2013/9774/8843/Chauncey_Report_complete.pdf; IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA; 06/24/15; jac]
29. Religiously-inspired hostility to homosexuality also inspired an escalation in antigay policing.
In the late nineteenth century, native-born Protestants organized numerous “antivice” societies to suppress what they regarded as the sexual
immorality and social disorder of the nation’s burgeoning Catholic and Jewish immigrant neighborhoods. Although these organizations focused on
female prostitution and what they regarded as the weakening of moral strictures governing relations between men and women, they also
opposed the growing visibility of homosexuality, which they regarded as a particularly egregious
sign of the loosening of social controls on sexual expression under urban conditions. They
encouraged the police to step up harassment of gay life as one more part of their campaigns to
shut down dance halls and movie theaters, prohibit the consumption of alcohol and the use of
contraceptives, dissuade restaurants from serving an interracial mix of customers, and otherwise impose their vision of the proper social order
and sexual morality. In New York City in the 1910s and 1920s, for instance, the Society for the Suppression of Vice (also known as the Comstock
Society) worked closely with the police to arrest several hundred men for homosexual conduct. In
Massachusetts, the Watch and
Ward Society, established as the New England Society for the Suppression of Vice, conducted
surveillance on virtually all the popular gay bars and gathering places of the time. In Chicago,
the 1910 Vice Commission investigated the city’s homosexual “resorts.” 30. As a result of the pressure from
Protestant moral reform organizations, municipal police forces began using misdemeanor charges, such as
disorderly conduct, vagrancy, lewdness, loitering, and so forth to harass homosexuals. These state
misdemeanor or municipal offense laws, which carried fewer procedural protections than felony sodomy charges, allowed further harassment of
individuals engaged in same-sex intimacy. In some cases, state
officials tailored these laws to strengthen the legal
regulation of homosexuals. For example, in 1923, the New York State legislature specified for the first time that a man’s “frequent[ing]
or loiter[ing] about any public place soliciting men for the purpose of committing a crime against nature or other lewdness” was a form of disorderly
conduct. Many more men were arrested and prosecuted under this misdemeanor charge than for sodomy. Between 1923 and 1966, when Mayor John
Lindsay ordered the police to stop using entrapment to secure arrests of gay men, there were more than 50,000 arrests on this charge in New York City
alone. 31. The social marginalization of gay men and lesbians gave both the police and the public even broader informal authority to harass them. The
threat of violence and verbal harassment deterred many gay people from doing anything that might reveal their homosexuality in public. Gay people
knew that anyone discovered to be homosexual risked the loss of livelihood and social respect, so most gay people were careful to lead a double life,
hiding their sexual orientation from their heterosexual employers and other associates. B. Censorship 32. The growing visibility of lesbian and gay life
in the early twentieth century precipitated censorship campaigns designed to curtail gay people’s freedom of speech and the freedom of all Americans
to discuss gay issues. 33. The earliest gay activists fell victim to such campaigns. In 1924, when the police learned of the country’s earliest known gay
political group, the Society for Human Rights, which had been established by a postal worker in Chicago, they raided his home and seized his group’s 9
files. After the raid, the group ceased publication of its short-lived magazine, Friendship and Freedom. In the 1910s and 1920s, a handful of plays
included lesbian and gay characters or addressed gay themes. But in 1927, after “The Captive,” a serious drama exploring lesbianism, opened on
Broadway to critical acclaim, New York State passed a “padlock law” that threatened to shut down for a year any theater that staged a play with lesbian
or gay characters. Given Broadway’s national importance as a staging ground for new plays, this law effectively censored American theater for a
generation.
This surveillance is not simply about profiling, but rather part of a larger
goal of “perfect surveillance” of the LGBT movement through government
persecution
Thompson 15
Ian S. Thompson, a legislative official in the ACLU’s Washington office who holds
a degree in international politics from Penn State, “‘Perfect Surveillance,’ Says
Edward Snowden, Could Have Snuffed Out the LGBT Movement. He’s Right.,”
February 27, 2015, ACLU, https://www.aclu.org/blog/speakeasy/perfect-surveillance-saysedward-snowden-could-have-snuffed-out-lgbt-movement-hes (NV)
Edward Snowden recently pointed outhow the
victories of the LGBT movement in this country might never
have happened if the government had the ability to conduct “perfect surveillance.” For decades,
LGBT people had to fight official government persecution, including aggressive surveillance and
targeting by law enforcement. Some of the earliest organized advocacy efforts on behalf of LGBT
rights came about in direct response to the intrusive surveillance and persecution that
characterized the lavender scare of the 1950s. During this period, government officials – led by FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover – worked feverishly to ruin the lives of untold numbers of gay men and lesbians
and to intimidate members of groups like theMattachine Society , which dared to advocate for the
basic dignity of gay people. Those who bravely fought back during this period used their constitutional rights to free speech and association to
move the ball forward in critical ways. The very first Supreme Court victory for LGBT people came about during this period when the court ruled in
One, Inc. v. Olesen that a magazine of, by, and for gay people was not obscene and that the U.S. Postal Service could not refuse to distribute it
through the mail. Following its landmark Supreme Court victory, ONE told its readers: For the first time in American publishing history, a decision
binding on every court now stands....affirming in effect that it is in no way proper to describe a love affair between two homosexuals as constitut(ing)
obscenity. As
Snowden made clear in his remarks, this would not have been possible if the
government had enjoyed the unfettered ability to suppress this movement out of existence. This
reality, and the lessons of history, has not been lost on the LGBT movement of today. LGBT advocates and organizations have spoken out against
aggressive law enforcement profiling and surveillance, including against leaders of the Muslim community. It
is important to always
remain mindful of the fact that minority communities cannot enjoy the equality and dignity
afforded them by the Constitution when they are routinely subjected to discriminatory profiling
and perfect surveillance by the government.
That persecution manifests itself in the form of structural violence
perpetuated against LBGT people every day
Padilla, Vasquez del Aguila and Parker 07
Mark B. Padilla, works at the Department of Global and Sociocultural Studies
School of International and Public Affairs Florida International University,
Ernesto Vasquez del Aguila, is a medical anthropologists with experience in
Masculinity, Sexuality, Global Health and Migration and Richard G. Parker, is a
professor of sociomedical sciences and of anthropology, arts, science at Columbia
University, “Globalization, Structural Violence, and LGBT Health: A CrossCultural Perspective,” 2007, The Health of Sexual Minorities, Google Scholar
(NV)
The literature on violence against LGBT persons, although far from comprehensive,
demonstrates that the structural violence faced by LGBT persons is not limited to the
impersonal domain of social, political, and economic inequalities. Indeed, such violence
frequently manifests in very real expressions of physical and sexual abuse against this
population. Although relatively little is known about exposure to violence and abuse from within LGBT communities (as in the case of domestic
violence by sexual partners) or from individuals or groups outside these communities who perpetrate physical violence against LGBT persons, a
growing international human rights literature attests 9 Globalization, Structural Violence, and
LGBT Health 215 to systematic and institutionalized abuses and social cleansing practices
perpetrated by governments or their functionaries (police, military, paramilitary forces, death
squads) against LGBT persons in many parts of the world. Furthermore, the existing literature
on domestic violence in LGBT communities demonstrates the close connections between the
larger social inequalities and silences faced by LGBT persons and the risk of domestic violence
in LGBT communities. Here we summarize this emerging literature, drawing on the few descriptive or ethnographic studies available as
well as the documentation of such human rights abuses now available through international organizations such as Amnesty International. Whereas the
practice of domestic violence among same-sex partners has been well documented in the United States (Merrill & Wolfe, 2000; Relf, 2001a,b), there
is still a lack of literature about battered LGBT persons in many parts of the world. In the United
States, lesbians report pushing or being pushed more frequently than gay men, a pattern that is reflected in
a suggestive study from Brazil, which demonstrated that 20% of the calls to a telephone hotline involved women who were assaulted by their female
partners (Eiven, 2003). Nevertheless,
this may be a reflection of the underreporting of battering among
men, an artifact of the fact that the authorities tend to underestimate partner abuse among gay men, or a consequence of the reduced believability of
battered men in comparison to (heterosexual or lesbian) women (Poorman et al., 2003 ). However, because of the paucity of
literature on LGBT domestic abuse in developing settings, it is unclear to what degree the
patterns observed in the United States are generalizable crossculturally. Some ethnographic
studies suggest that in developing settings underreporting may be similarly pronounced because
prior experiences of persecution or abuse by authorities toward sexual minorities is likely to
result in the fear that admission to same-sex behaviors will result in further police abuse (Kulick,
1998; Prieur, 1998; Padilla, 2007, in press). In addition, the generalized shame and stigma surrounding
nonnormative sexual behaviors and identities is likely to contribute to underreporting. An important
study of abuse in LGBT relationships in Australia, which reported that domestic violence is the third most severe health problem facing gay men today
after AIDS and substance abuse, demonstrates the intimate connections between societal homophobia and the risk of domestic violence (Vickers,
1996). Describing LGBT domestic violence as “the second closet,” the author argues that LGBT persons who abuse their partners often use homophobia
and heterosexism as a weapon of control over the partner in a variety of ways, such as threatening to reveal the partner’s sexuality to friends, family,
employers, or the wider community; convincing their partner that violence is an expression of gay life; or arguing that nobody is going to help or believe
the story of violence due to homophobia (Vickers, 1996). Because of the discretion about the relationship that both partners are supposed to protect,
domestic violence therefore functions as a second closet for many LGBTs who do not reveal their situation owing to the institutionalized homophobia
and heterosexism present in the criminal 216 M.B. Padilla et al. justice system, support services, and the larger society (Vickers, 1996). The
lack
of ability in many cases to discuss such relationships with family and other social peers creates
further barriers to reporting the abuse and to seeking any support systems or programs that may
be available. The situation of domestic violence is further exacerbated by the patterns of hate
crimes, abuse, and persecution of LGBT persons by those outside the community. In the 2001 global report on torture and
hate crimes against LGBT person by Amnesty International, provocatively titled “Crimes of Hate, Conspiracy of Silence,” LGBT populations
are said to be systematically denied human rights and full citizenship throughout the world.
Importantly, the report argues that this denial is often rooted in a conspiracy of silence between
the state, other institutions, and society, and that such silence functions to maintain and
reinforce human rights violations against LGBT persons, such as discrimination in employment,
access to military or state professions, and access to social and medical services ( Amnesty International,
1997). Systematic abuse and discrimination based on sexual identity are often legitimized by law,
policy, and practice in many countries, and torture may even be legitimized when employed
against LGBT persons. A parallel indictment of international human rights abuses published by
the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (2003) argues that torture is a
widespread means for regulating sexuality and enforcing norms of gender and sexuality, and
that the effects of sodomy laws in many parts of the world justifies detention of people based on
their sexual orientation, denial of public services, and the abuse of LGBT persons by police, doctors, and health practitioners. Recently,
additional human rights organizations, such as the Human Rights Watch, have released statements denouncing the systematic torture, persecution,
assassination, and hate crimes against the LGBT population the world over. Their report highlights numerous tragic cases of systematic abuse, such as
one recent atrocity in Sierra Leone in which a lesbian activist—the victim of constant harassment and violence from neighbors and the compliance of
local police and the government—was found murdered after being repeatedly raped and stabbed (Human Rights Watch, 2004c). The graphic nature of
the abuses detailed in this report emphasizes that such violence is rarely based on simple political differences that can be addressed through traditional
mechanisms of legal or policy reform; rather, it is generated by deep hatred and moral outrage that is systemic and pervasive, requiring broad social
and cultural transformation. The
extent of the human rights violations against LGBT persons underlines
the need to consider these phenomena as an additional expression of structural violence that is
expressed in the very physical risks to life and limb that are confronted by LGBT in many
settings as a consequence of institutionalized discrimination. Policies and programs aimed at improving LGBT
health, in addition to providing health services and programs specifically designed for LGBT persons, must therefore also address themselves to
abusive policies of states or international organizations, and seek to apply political pressure 9 Globalization, Structural Violence, and LGBT Health 217
through existing human rights bodies that are increasingly documenting such human rights violations among sexual minorities.
Structural violence outweighs
Lance 13
Mark Lance, is a professor in the Philosophy Department and Justice and Peace
Studies Program at Georgetown University, “On complicity, structural violence,
and ideological blinders,” August 20, 2013, New Apps: Art, Politics, Philosophy,
Science, http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/08/on-complicity-structural-violence-andideological-blinders.html (NV)
Post WWII, Hanah Arendt
made a valiant effort to turn moral and political attention to the ways that
unexceptional individuals performing actions that, when looked at locally, were unexceptional
yet contributed to exceptionally evil systems. Sadly, current attitudes across the professions, literature, the press, and
philosophical ethics suggest that her efforts were a failure. And that is, in my view, a bad thing. The overwhelming majority of the
violence in the world today is what Galtung has labeled "structural violence" - roughly, the point
is that far greater harm is done to people as the result of complex social forces than by individual
actors. And in my view it is a scandal of philosophy that this is not a central issue in applied moral and political philosophy. (Of course there are
philosophers who address such things. But I doubt that anyone could claim that such work is generally treated as central to philosophy.) Consider
racism: enormous harm is done to African American people and the African American community by the
complex effects of the illegalization of drugs by federal and state governments, the prison system
(including both federal and state bureaucracies and private institutions together with their armies of lobbyists and the political system that embraces
both),
the enduring wealth disparities between black and white in the US, the bureaucratization of
policing that encourages easy arrests (hence generally of poor folks), the lack of aid to families with
members in prison, lax funding of drug treatment, the way that jobs are allocated on the basis of
whether one has a history in prison, the US foster care system, etc. The overall harm of this
complex system is vastly greater than the combined harm of every hate group, explicit racist, etc.
And it can go on without anyone having ill intent. The structural violence of the prisonindustrial-governmental-police ... complex can go one without anyone wanting to imprison
disproportionate numbers of African Americans, or setting out with policies having that goal. Similar
points could be made about the millions of deaths each year from poverty, or the ongoing
destruction of our environment, or, indeed, the creeping police state conditions of our society .
These are the pressing moral concerns of our time. People dying in the tens of millions from poverty and
preventable disease, massive social destruction as a result of policing, and an impending
environmental disaster. Since none of these require ill-intent, or projects directly designed to do
evil, it simply follows that if we want to address these concerns seriously, we need to think about
forms of support other than explicit endorsement that our actions give to these systems.
The “rule of law” has empirically pacified the public in order to uphold
existing structural inequalities - challenging the state is key
Gilreath 14
Gilreath, associate professor of women’s gender and sexuality studies, 2014
(Shannon, associate professor of law as well, Wake Forest University “THE
INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT ON THE NSA SPYING
SCANDAL” August 15 2014, https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/handle/10339/39364)
To some extent, one
struggling against the surveillance State feels as if he is in the position of
"shouting against the wind." The sense of futility is often as great as the sense of urgency. How does one, in the face of
seemingly overwhelming governmental power, do anything? At the most basic level, this Essay is one
form of resistance. Speaking out in protest is resistance that is real. From this perspective, Edward Snowden is a
hero. Given the blasé attitude of many Americans toward the government's ever-expanding powers in the name of national security, and given the
government's unquestionable ability to annihilate the individual protestor, Edward
Snowden was shouting against the wind
and knew it. Why do not more people speak up? Why do not more people resist the "turnkey tyranny" Snowden exposed?
One reason is that much of the population does not believe that they are affected by it in any
significant way. Beyond that, the ways in which those of us in the "Land of the Free" are
conditioned to obey authority become palpable and important. Lawyers, as a group, seem to me particularly
brainwashed by the thing they call, with all of the majesty they can muster, "the rule of law." Too often the "rule of law" is simply
the metaphor used to explain allegiance to power without the burden of a guilty conscience.
Blind adherence to the rule of law meant that lawyers and judges could make the Nazi tyranny
seem, well, legal. And American lawyers and jurists are certainly not immune from the seductiveness of the rule of law. U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Stephen Breyer has cited, as evidence of the magnificence of the rule of law, the
reaction to the decision in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 decision in which a 5-4 vote of the Supreme
Court, along ideological lines, handed the presidency to a man who had not actually been
elected. There was no resistance, no rioting, no blood in the streets. Contrasting this with the 1958 Supreme
Court decision of Cooper v. Aaron, in which the Court's integration decision had to be enforced in Arkansas by federal troops, Justice Breyer
concludes that the system works. But is the fact that Americans have had the will to protest bled out of us really a good thing? We are,
after all, a country born from revolution. At the moment Bush v. Gore came down, a moment as notorious as any in Supreme
Court history-a moment in which the Supreme Court effectively appointed a president of its
choosing-there was no resistance. That is a rather remarkable thing, really. As Professor Ann Scales once observed, "Perhaps we
should worry about how little it takes for the legal system to command so much ... dedication. Perhaps we have been bamboozled." Of course, the
seeming inevitability of authority can convince people to accept much more than a judicial
decision. The "rule of law," understood simply as an uncritical obedience to authority, has chilling implications for the
reality of power and its abuses. In Stanley Milgram's now classic work, Obedience to Authority, college students, assigned
the role of "teacher," in an experiment on learning, administered massive amounts of electroshock to other
students, assigned the role of "student," simply because a scientist told them to do it. In a 1973 article about his study,
Milgram said that most of the subjects delivering the shocks to fellow students did so out of a
"sense of obligation." This observation led Milgram to agree with Hannah Arendt's characterization of evil as "banal," meaning that the
capacity for evil does not require any special personal predisposition. "That is perhaps the most fundamental
lesson of our study," Milgram wrote, " ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular
hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when
the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out
actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the
resources to resist authority." It is absolutely critical, then, that we have those resources-that we
work to develop them.
Contention 2: Russia Modeling
Contention 2 is Russia
Human rights violations continue to persist in Russia because of anti-LGBT
laws
Mirovalev 1-21 [Mansur Mirovalev is a journalist at the Associated Press.
“Russia's rising anti-gay hysteria”, 1-21-15,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/01/russia-rising-anti-gayhysteria-201511992033980189.html, msm]
legal codes unfamiliar to laymen and quietly published on a government website in the middle of Russia's
holidays.¶ Mentioned in legislation aimed at decreasing "mortality caused by traffic accidents", the codes - marked from F60 to F69 were from a World Health Organisation list of "mental and behavioural disorders" that include transsexuality, transvestitism, voyeurism
and fetishism.¶ Advocate for LGBT rights Nikolai Alexeyev stages protests and is detained on a regular basis [AFP]¶ As of January 6, Russians with
these "disorders" - along with such conditions as "pathological" gambling, amputated limbs and rare eyesight dysfunctions - were banned from
getting or renewing their driver's licenses.¶ Russia's gay and human rights activists were quick to
condemn the legislation as the latest step in a Kremlin-orchestrated homophobic campaign that has engulfed Russia over the
past two years, breeding violent attacks on gays, prompting their employment dismissals, and even
causing suicides.¶ "This is absolutely empty legislation that is simply aimed at creating intolerance in society, at
stigmatising sexual minorities, although it reaches no practical purposes," Russia's leading advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual
It was just several
Christmas
and transgender (LGBT) rights Nikolai Alexeyev told Al Jazeera.¶ He said the law will fail to bar transgender and transsexual Russians from driving - simply because few have
officially been listed as such.¶ "It will have a very limited impact because [authorities that] issue driving licenses will not be able to reject anyone who does not have an official
diagnosis," said Alexeyev, who has for years been trying to hold a gay pride parade in Moscow, and was often beaten and detained during unsanctioned gay rallies.¶ 'First-rate
the legislation has been hailed by neo-conservatives, pro-Kremlin politicians, and
Orthodox activists as another brick in the wall they hope will shield Russia from same-sex
marriages, sex-change operations, and other "perversions" of liberal Western societies.¶ "This is an absolutely right and timely
decision," Vitaly Milonov, a lawmaker from St Petersburg, Russia's second-largest city, told the Moskovsky Komsomolets
daily. "The doctors and sexologists that oppose it are themselves first-rate perverts."¶ The eccentric, 41-year-old member of the
ruling United Russia party is, perhaps, Russia's number one gay basher.¶ In 2011, he authored a St Petersburg law that banned "homosexual
propaganda" to minors - and became a blueprint for a federal law that made it illegal nationwide
to provide minors with information defined as "propaganda of sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality
and transgenderism".¶ Lawmaker Vitaly Milonov calls homosexuality a 'perversion' AFP]¶ After pop stars Madonna and Lady Gaga spoke in support of
perverts'¶ But
Russia's embattled LGBT community during shows in St Petersburg, Milonov tried to sue them - but Russian courts ignored his requests.¶ 'Homosexual propaganda'¶ The
homosexual propaganda" legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin in 2013 was pushed by the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church
included a ban on holding public events that promote gay rights.¶ The law prompted an international outcry and
condemnation from Western leaders, intellectuals and celebrities.¶ Gay rights campaigner Alexeyev was the law's first victim he was detained and fined after holding a one-man rally protesting the law.¶ In mid-January, Yelena
Klimova - moderator of an Internet portal that has published more than 1,000 heart-wrenching
confessions of Russian LGBT teenagers - has been charged with providing "homosexual
propaganda" to minors and is now facing a fine of up to 100,000 roubles ($1,500).¶ Gay rights activists and
government critics considered the bill part of a Kremlin crackdown on minorities of any kind political and religious as well as sexual - designed to distract public attention from discontent with Putin's rule and official corruption.¶ But
"
and
many Russians saw the legislation as a positive development.¶ Opinion polls conducted in 2012, when the bill was being widely discussed, by Levada Center, Russia's largest
independent pollster, showed almost two-thirds of Russians find homosexuality "morally unacceptable and worth condemning".¶ About a half of those polled were against
holding gay rallies and legalising same-sex marriage. More than one-third considered homosexuality "a sickness or a psychological trauma", according to Levada's survey.¶
Closeted pop stars¶ Surprisingly, shows on Russia's national television often feature male performers wearing drag and makeup and acting effeminately - or scantily-clad female
singers enacting lesbian caresses.¶ Tatu - a duo of straight young women who were often dressed as schoolgirls and acted like two underage lesbians on stage and in music
videos - became Russia's most successful international pop act in the early 2000s. The duo's producer said later the lesbian angle was a marketing gimmick aimed at attracting
more attention. ¶ I feel like a spy on enemy territory. There's psychological pressure, and it drives you mad, like you are in a war zone. And it is a war.¶ - Anton, homosexual man
in Moscow¶ But despite widespread allegations in tabloids that accuse some of Russia's most popular pop stars of homosexual proclivities, none ever came out - perhaps because
such a move would ruin their chances to be seen on TV and tour Russia.¶ Kremlin-approved campaign¶ However, prime-time shows on Russian television often feature
politicians and public figures whose vitriolic speeches fuel homophobia.¶ An anchor with a government-funded television network said in a 2013 talk show that gays should be
prohibited from donating blood and organs for transplants, and their hearts "should be burned and buried".¶ These days the anchor, Dmitry Kiselyov, heads one of Russia's
largest news agencies that broadcasts Kremlin's viewpoint internationally in nine languages.¶ Several lawmakers have said gays contributed to Russia's low birth rates and they
should be barred from government jobs, undergo forced medical treatment, or be exiled.¶ Any attempt to hold a gay pride parade turns into a battle with predictable winners
and losers.¶ Orthodox activists, members of pro-Kremlin youth movements, Cossacks, and nationalists help police disperse unsanctioned gay rallies, while Moscow authorities
have issued a 100-year ban on them because of their "satanic" nature.¶ Apart from public events and figures, rampant homophobia poisons the lives of Russian LGBT
community.¶ "I feel like a spy on enemy territory," Anton, a gay Muscovite in his mid-40s, told Al Jazeera. He refused to provide his last name because of safety concerns.¶
"There's psychological pressure and it drives you mad, like you are in a war zone," he said. "And it is a war."¶ There are no official estimates of how many gays and lesbians live
in Russia, and only a few big cities such as Moscow and St Petersburg have gay nightclubs and gyms.¶ Many of these clubs have recently been raided by mask-wearing men with
baseball bats and pepper spray.¶ Worse than Moscow¶ In other parts of Russia and the former Soviet Union, gays feel even less secure.¶ A Neo-Nazi gang uses social networking
and dating websites to identify gay teenagers, beat and humiliate them in front of a video camera, and post the videos online. Although the gang's leader, Maxim Martsinkevich,
also known as "Tesak" (Cleaver), has been sentenced to five years in jail for "inciting hatred," his followers are still active throughout Russia.¶ Inside story: The punks, the pulpet
and the president¶ Gay rights activists say in Dagestan, a predominantly Muslim region in southern Russia, some homosexual men have been beaten and had their hands cut off,
You don't have any human rights down there," a gay man from Dagestan's
Anything can be done to you with impunity."¶ Anti-LGBT laws and
initiatives are seen as a rollback to the totalitarian Soviet past - and not only in Russia.¶ The 1993 removal of a Stalinist-era law
sometimes by their own relatives, for bringing shame on their families.¶ "
capital, Makhachkala, told Al Jazeera. "
punishing homosexuality with up to five years in jail was seen in Russia as a logical part of democratic reforms that followed the Soviet collapse.¶ In the 1990s, most of the exSoviet states followed suit by decriminalising homosexuality. ¶ Official and public attitudes towards same-sex love prove to be a perfect litmus test of democratic and liberal
freedoms in the former Soviet Union.¶ Gay parades have been held in the three former Soviet Baltic states that are now members of the European Union.¶ But in authoritarian
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, homosexuality is still a crime punishable by jail-time - and corrupt policemen often hunt down gays to extort money, otherwise threatening them
with humiliating criminal charges.
Russian anti-gay laws hinder effective treatment for HIV/AIDS
BEKIEMPIS 14 [Senior writer at Newsweek, “How Anti-Gay Laws Worsen Diseases Like
AIDS and TB”, 6-24-14, http://www.newsweek.com/how-anti-gay-laws-worsen-diseases-aidsand-tb-256145, msm]
Recent anti-homosexuality laws don’t just violate human rights—they might worsen the HIV/AIDS epidemic, a Johns
Hopkins University epidemiologist warns in a PLOS Medicine essay published today.¶ While many countries and communities are expanding civil rights to the
LGBT community, such as marriage equality, some nations including Nigeria, Uganda, Russia and India are criminalizing homosexuality or
intensifying present anti-gay statutes. More nations are poised to follow, putting public health initiatives at risk, Dr. Chris Beyrer writes in “Pushback: The Current Wave of AntiHomosexuality Laws and Impacts on Health.” ¶ “These laws and policies make it much more difficult to provide HIV
services particularly gay and bisexual men who have sex with men, who really need these
services,” Beyrer tells Newsweek. “It can definitely lead to a worsening of the HIV epidemic in these countries.”¶ Try
Newsweek for only $1.25 per week ¶ For example in Nigeria, where homosexuality has long been illegal, the new Same Sex Prohibition Act limits free speech and assembly. Advocates say this might push the LGBT
community and its allies deeper underground, meaning these persons won’t seek HIV-prevention or -treatment services. The law, which President Goodluck Jonathan signed on January 13, has the potential to be
especially damaging to the country that now reels from the second largest HIV epidemic in the world, Beyrer writes.¶ Uganda’s recent anti-LGBT law, signed by President Yoweri Museveni on February 24,
aggressively penalizes homosexuality as well, threatening life in prison for “aggravated homosexuality.” (As in Nigeria, homosexuality was illegal in Uganda before this law.) Beyrer adds in the essay that “the law
also makes failure to report known or suspected homosexual behavior a crime, greatly complicating efforts to work with LGBT populations, provide services, and address, among many other health issues, HIV and
other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). ¶ In the essay, Beyrer writes that it is too soon to track how these new laws have impacted LGBT health care in Nigeria and Uganda. In Beyrer’s opinion, however,
recent events suggest that the future climate will be hostile. On April 3, Ugandan police raided a Makerere University–Walter Reed Army Institute for Research Clinic in Kampala. As the clinic conducts HIV
In Russia, a 2013 law
banning “homosexual propaganda” has also thwarted prevention efforts there. An HIV testing and
counseling clinic in Moscow, with which Beyer collaborated, closed this past fall because clients and clinicians felt unsafe,
he says.¶ An upswing in HIV/AIDS in the LGBT community presents a dire public health problem for all,
Beyrer tells Newsweek. HIV/AIDS patients often have co-infections such as tuberculosis or viral hepatitis . According to
the TB Alliance, “One-third of the more than 33 million people living with HIV/AIDS are also infected with tuberculosis.” So preventing these patients from getting
HIV/AIDS treatment also means that lots of people won’t get treatment for other communicable
diseases.¶ “When you undermine HIV programs you undermine programs for these important
diseases as well,” Beyrer concludes.
research and provides services to gay men, the raid indicates that the impacts of the new law “will be marked,” Beyrer writes.¶ The problem extends far beyond Africa.
Widespread Russian HIV undermines Russian military readiness, and their
economy – the impact is lash-out
Twigg 4 [Judyth Twigg is professor and former interim director at the L.
Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia
Commonwealth University. “National Security Implications of Russia's Health
and Demographic Crisis”, November 2004, PONARS Policy Memo 360,
http://www.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/ponars/pm_0360.pdf, msm]
only 10 to 15 percent of draftees are classified as fully medically fit for¶ duty. The rest are sick, underweight, or for a
health
problems that began to¶ afflict children in ever-increasing numbers during the Yeltsin years will emerge as young¶ adult health consequences,
rendering the situation potentially even more problematic than¶ it is today. While the statistics in this area are notoriously ill-defined and
Even now,
disturbingly large number at the extreme,¶ have psychiatric problems or addictions (narcotics or alcohol) that disqualify them from ¶ service. A decade or more down the road, however, the
unreliable, with¶ the oft-cited half of children currently suffering from some chronic health condition ¶ (undoubtedly including those with easily-correctable nearsightedness and hearing¶ problems), the hard
facts reflect undeniable acceleration in rates of disability,¶ cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease (including tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS)¶
among pre-adolescent and teenage boys. Current medical research suggests a strong¶ likelihood that
these pediatric medical conditions will inspire consequences that cascade¶ into adulthood. In the short and medium-term, for
example, it will be difficult to reverse¶ the damage done by average child height that was five to eight centimeters shorter in ¶ 1999 than it was in 1989, or average chest size that had contracted by five to six¶
centimeters over that same time period.¶ For Russia's armed services, the best case scenario looks like one in which it can¶ somehow offer sufficiently attractive benefits to lure into contract service a significant ¶
percentage of that declining pool of healthy 18 year old men. Recognizing that as highly ¶ unlikely, the military could opt to conscript a much higher percentage of the total 18 year ¶ old cohort than serves today
a large portion of the¶ military budget
will then have to be allocated to nutrition, medical, and even substance¶ abuse programs in order to
maintain troop numbers at desirable levels.¶ The Economic Dimension¶ It is now conventional wisdom that Russia is plagued with the natural resource curse,
into a reduced, mandatory term. Given the rates of disability¶ and morbidity likely to prevail within this population, however,
an¶ abundance of oil and gas resources that make it far too convenient to avoid painful¶ economic restructuring and diversification beyond the natural resource sectors. Most discussions of this issue revolve
around stubborn oligarchs and an intransigent¶ policymaking bureaucracy. Increasingly, however, economic reform is also going to be¶ dependent on the existence of a sufficiently large cohort of vigorous, skilled
young and¶ middle-aged adults. Once again, should current trends continue unabated, the¶ maintenance and further development of this critical population is in jeopardy.¶ The time frame for the drop in
numbers of this age group -- for the sake of¶ illustration, 20 to 39 year old men -- lags behind that of the draft pool, for obvious¶ reasons (it will take longer for the fertility decline of the 1990s to reach this age
level).¶ But the shape and scope of the numerical decline are quite similar, with this cohort¶ beginning its nose-dive in 2010. More important here than quantity, however, is quality.¶ It is true that a significant
portion of Russia's small upper and upper-middle classes has¶ become fashionably health conscious in recent years, probably following Putin's lead.¶ The vast majority, however, continue to cling stubbornly to
counterproductive behaviors¶ (rates of alcohol and tobacco consumption, for example, are among the highest in the¶ world) that result in shockingly high and still-escalating rates of premature mortality¶
precisely among the working-age adult men who matter most to economic development.¶ The chicken-egg problem is a frustrating and perhaps damning one here: economists¶ have shown that improved
economic circumstances lead to better health conditions and¶ health outcomes, at the same time that a healthier population has been cited as an ¶ essential prerequisite to economic growth. If the former applied
to the Russian case,¶ however, we should have seen a significant improvement in morbidity and mortality over¶ the last few years, since living conditions and overall socioeconomic stability have¶ improved for
the majority of the population. Yet male life expectancy has not recovered¶ from its post-1998 drop below 60 years of age, and rates of death by industrial and¶ automobile accident, suicide, homicide, and
cardiovascular disease -- the leading causes¶ of “excess” mortality in the 1990s -- have continued their steady ascent. The hike in the¶ only important and well-publicized population indicator to improve
dramatically in recent¶ years, fertility and birth rate, may be chimeric, due largely to a temporary increase in the¶ number of childbearing-age women and the fallout of deferred family formation during¶ the
the
Russian labor force¶ will shrink in size and quality. Furthermore, most official demographic projections¶ (including those
of the Russian State Statistical Agency) do not take into account the¶ potential impact of HIV/AIDS. As the experience of sub-Sarahan Africa has¶
heartbreakingly demonstrated, HIV/AIDS decimates societies in a manner qualitatively¶ different than most
infectious diseases. Rather than afflicting the usually more¶ vulnerable very young and very old, it
sickens and kills people in the prime of their¶ productive lives. So far, the Russian federal
government and most regional and local¶ governments have chosen to ignore the virus, largely because it has
affected primarily¶ "marginal" population groups: injecting drug users and commercial sex workers. For the¶ last few years, however, important barometers such as the
percentage of pregnant women¶ who test positive for HIV, as well as the overall male to female
ratio of newly detected¶ HIV cases, have seemed to indicate that the disease is spreading beyond
the original¶ high-risk groups and into the general population. Insufficient behavioral surveillance has been done to predict with certainty
how spectacular Russia's showdown with HIV will¶ be. But even the most optimistic current projections , including the most generous¶ scenarios for
negotiation of reduced prices for the antiretroviral medications that can save¶ the lives of HIV-infected people, predict that HIV and AIDS will constitute a
significant¶ drain on the Russian economy in terms of the direct costs to the health care system
and¶ the indirect costs of foregone labor productivity and potential. The Political Dimension¶ While the population and health
1990s, rather than to a sustainable trend of conscious and widespread decisions¶ among Russian women to give birth more than just once.¶ In other words, beginning in 2010 and for decades afterward,
status of ethnic Russians, Slavs, and those of the¶ Orthodox faith continue to decline, the reverse is true of Russia's Muslims. Throughout¶ most of the Soviet period and continuing through the present day, the
regions of Russia¶ that are predominantly Muslim have enjoyed, on average, significantly higher life¶ expectancy and birth rates, and significantly lower morbidity and mortality rates, than¶ those for Russia as a
whole. As is the case globally, the fastest growing religion in Russia¶ is Islam, largely due to demographic factors rather than to conversion. A large¶ percentage of the immigrants (legal and illegal) to Russia that
have mitigated the¶ country's demographic decline over the last decade, compensating at least partially for the¶ overall excess of deaths over births, have been Muslims from the Caucasus and Central¶ Asia.
Indeed, an acceleration of legal immigration is frequently touted as the ultimate¶ solution to Russia's demographic distress.¶ To be sure, hostility toward immigrants and minority ethnic groups predates the¶
global war on terror and Russia's conflict in Chechnya. But Nord Ost and Beslan have¶ upped the ante when it comes to race relations. How will the Russian military react to the¶ probability that it will have to
recruit an increasing number of Russian Muslim soldiers in¶ order to maintain adequate staff levels? How will Russian industry respond to a similar¶ imperative? The ranks of neo-Nazi and skinhead youth
groups across the country, still¶ relatively small but growing at an alarming rate, routinely and violently target nonRussians,¶ particularly those from the Caucasus. Incidents of racial violence, including¶ murder,
are now routine occurrences in Moscow and other large Russian cities. As the¶ ratio of Muslims to Slavs inevitably increases, Russia's political landscape could undergo¶ significant change as a result, with ultranationalist political parties following the lead of¶ their counterparts in France, Austria, and Germany.¶ Another element of the political equation is the discontent over the government's¶ inability to address headon the health and demographic situation, fueled most recently¶ by the summer 2004 decision to monetarize an array of benefits -- including health care¶ for pensioners and the disabled -- that formerly were
provided in-kind at a discounted rate¶ or free of charge. To date, Russia's main efforts to tackle these issues have centered on ¶ ineffective and sloppy health system reform, and pronatalist policies that rarely work
and¶ more often unleash an array of unintended consequences. Over a decade of sustained¶ insult to Russia's human capital has produced a social landscape stratified into a small¶ number of haves, with access
to high-quality health care and ample resources to support¶ any family size they wish, and a mass of have-nots. If the majority of the Russian¶ population disengages from a government it no longer trusts to
provide even a minimal safety net of social protections, the voting public may again be nudged toward sympathy ¶ with right-wing, chauvinist, and markedly anti-democratic political leaders.¶ Relevance for U.S.
any future threat from Russia will probably emerge from its¶ weakness rather than
from its strength. A stable Russia offers the potential for sensible¶ accounting and maintenance
of nuclear materials as well as mutually profitable¶ partnership in the exploration and harvesting
of its own natural resource wealth. Russia¶ also shares long land borders with and wields
considerable influence in countries and¶ regions where the United States holds a direct economic
and/or national security interest -¶ - China, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, to name a few. As a result, cooperation from a¶ stable and
relatively secure Russia is critical in the evolution of many policy areas that¶ are of high priority
to the West.¶ One of the most likely sources of multidimensional instability in Russia in the coming¶ years is the
ongoing and escalating assault on its population numbers and health. The¶ good news is that at least some elements of this crisis
National Security¶ It is now axiomatic that
are amenable to relatively low-cost¶ and cost-effective intervention, policies with which the United States has long and ¶ instructive experience: public health education to curb alcohol consumption and other¶
contributors to accidents and heart disease, the provision of prenatal education and care,¶ continued attention to childhood immunization, and the containment of potentially high prevalence infections such as
HIV and tuberculosis. A small but sustained investment in¶ these oft-neglected "soft-power" issues -- health-related professional exchanges and¶ cooperative health education between the United States and
Russia -- could go a long¶ way toward enhancing Russia's inclination toward stability and productive partnership.
Russian lash-out causes extinction
Nye 4-20 [Joseph Nye is a professor at Harvard University, and Chairman of the
World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government.
“Why Russia’s decline is no cause for celebration”,
http://www.todayonline.com/world/europe/why-russias-decline-no-causecelebration?page=1, msm]
Russia is in longdecline, but it still poses a very real threat to the international order in Europe and beyond. Indeed,
Russia’s decline may make it even more dangerous.¶ Make no mistake: What is happening in Ukraine is
Russian aggression. President Vladimir Putin’s pretence that Russian troops were not participating in the fighting was all but shattered recently, when a Russian
As Europe debates whether to maintain its sanctions regime against Russia, the Kremlin’s policy of aggression towards Ukraine continues unabated.
term
fighter in Donetsk confirmed to the BBC Russian service that they are playing a decisive role in rebel advances. Russian officers, he reported, directly command large military
the threat posed by
Russia extends far beyond Ukraine. After all, Russia is the one country with enough missiles and
nuclear warheads to destroy the United States. As its economic and geopolitical influence has
waned, so has its willingness to consider renouncing its nuclear status.¶ Indeed, not only has it
revived the Cold War-era tactic of sending military aircraft unannounced into airspace over the
Baltic countries and the North Sea; it has also made veiled nuclear threats against countries
such as Denmark.¶ Weapons are not Russia’s only strength. The country also benefits from its
enormous size, vast natural resources, and educated population, including a multitude of skilled
scientists and engineers.¶ But Russia faces serious challenges. It remains a “one-crop economy”, with energy accounting for two-thirds of its exports. And its
operations in eastern Ukraine, including the siege and capture of the important transport centre of Debaltseve in February.¶ But
population is shrinking — not least because the average man in Russia dies at age 65, a full decade earlier than in other developed countries.¶ Though liberalising reforms could
cure Russia’s ailments, such an agenda is unlikely to be embraced in a corruption-plagued country with an emphatically illiberal leadership. Mr Putin, after all, has sought to
promote a neo-Slavophile identity defined above all by suspicion of Western cultural and intellectual influence.¶ Instead of developing a strategy for Russia’s long-term recovery,
Putin has adopted a reactive and opportunistic approach — one that can sometimes succeed, but only in
the short term — to cope with domestic insecurity, perceived external threats, and the weakness of
neighbours. He has waged unconventional war in the West, while pursuing closer ties with the East, raising the likelihood that
Mr
Russia will end up acting as China’s junior partner, without access to the Western capital, technology, and contacts that it needs to reverse its decline.¶ But Russia’s problem is
not just Mr Putin. Though Mr Putin has cultivated nationalism in Russia — according to Harvard University’s Timothy Colton, at a recent meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club,
Mr Putin called himself the country’s “biggest nationalist” — he found fertile ground to plough. Given that other high-level figures — for example, Mr Dmitry Rogozin, who last
October endorsed a book calling for the return of Alaska — are also highly nationalistic, a successor to Mr Putin would probably not be liberal. The recent assassination of former
Russia seems doomed to continue its decline
an outcome that should be no cause for celebration in the West. States in decline — think of the AustroHungarian Empire in 1914 — tend to become less risk-averse and thus much more dangerous. In any case, a thriving
Russia has more to offer the international community in the long run.¶
Deputy Prime Minister and opposition leader Boris Nemtsov reinforces this assumption.¶ So,
—
Russia will follow the US on LGBT rights but US pro-rights action is
necessary to overcome Russia’s claim to Western hypocrisy
Ayres and Eskridge 2-8-14 – law professors at Yale University (Ian and William, “The
U.S. Hypocrisy Over Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws,” https://www.popularresistance.org/the-u-shypocrisy-over-russias-anti-gay-laws/)
Controversy over a Russian law that prohibits advocacy of homosexuality threatens to overshadow athletic competition at the upcoming Sochi Olympics. Thoughtful world
Obama, have criticized Russia for stigmatizing gay identity.
leaders, including President
Many of these critics find it hard to
believe that in 2014 a modern industrial government would have this kind of medieval language in its statutory code: “Materials adopted by a local school board . . .shall
. . . comply with state law and state board rules . . . prohibiting instruction . . . in the advocacy of homosexuality.” “Propaganda of homosexualism among minors is
punishable by an administrative fine.” “No district shall include in its course of study instruction which: 1. Promotes a homosexual life-style. 2. Portrays homosexuality as a
positive alternative life-style. 3. Suggests that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.” “[I]nstruction relating to sexual education or sexually transmitted
diseases should include . . .emphasis, provided in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public
and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense.” Amid the rush to condemn Russia’s legislation, however, it is useful to recognize that only the second quoted provision
comes from the Russian statute. The other three come from statutes in the United States. It is Utah that prohibits “the advocacy of homosexuality.” Arizona prohibits portrayals
of homosexuality as a “positive alternative life-style” and has legislatively determined that it is inappropriate to even suggest to children that there are “safe methods of
homosexual sex.” Alabama and Texas mandate that sex-education classes emphasize that homosexuality is “not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public.” Moreover, the
Alabama and Texas statutes mandate that children be taught that “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense” even though criminalizing private, consensual homosexual conduct
Eight U.S. states, and several cities and counties, have some version of
what we call “no promo homo” provisions. Before the United States condemns the Russian
statute’s infringement of free speech and academic freedom, it should recognize that our own
republican forms of government have repeatedly given rise to analogous restrictions. It is no coincidence
has been unconstitutional since 2003.
that these examples focus on what must and must not be said to children. An explanatory note accompanying the 2013 Russian legislation makes clear that the statute seeks to
Proponents of the U.S.
statutes have offered similar justification. And, like Russian President Vladimir Putin this
month, the U.S. laws warn gay people and sympathizers to “leave kids alone, please.” The underlying
protect children “from the factors that negatively affect their physical, intellectual, mental, spiritual, and moral development.”
ideology of these statutes is the same: Everybody should be heterosexual, and homosexuality is per se bad. This ideology has never rested on any kind of evidence that
homosexuality is a bad “choice” that the state ought to discourage. The ideology is a prejudice-laden legacy of a fading era. (In fact, the strategy is daffy: Even if homosexuality
were a bad lifestyle choice, state laws are not an effective way to head off such a choice.) Putin has assured the International Olympic Committee that the law is merely symbolic.
But in the United States, officially sanctioned anti-gay prejudice has contributed to classroom bullying and to the high level of suicides among gay teens. The actor and
playwright Harvey Fierstein has called on the United States to boycott the Sochi Gamesbecause Russia prohibits “propaganda of homosexuality.” But recall that in 2002 the
United States proudly, and without comment, sent its Olympic athletes to a state — Utah — that prohibits the “advocacy of homosexuality.” Maybe Obama ought to send
there is an important
lesson here. Sometimes the moral failings of others can help us see moral failings in ourselves. It
Olympic delegates Billie Jean King and Brian Boitano to Alabama and Texas. We offer that suggestion somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but
was revulsion toward Nazi Germany’s eugenics policy that, in part, caused U.S. legislatures and courts to renounce state sterilization programs. Opposition to South African
apartheid and the Soviet Union’s totalitarian regime generated greater national pressure for the Eisenhower administration and the Warren court to renounce apartheid in the
Putin’s inability to justify this law puts a spotlight on the inability of Utah, Texas,
Arizona and other states to justify their gay-stigmatizing statutes. They should be repealed or
challenged in court. Just as judges led the way against compulsory sterilization and racialsegregation laws, so they should subject anti-gay laws to critical scrutiny. As things stand, one
American South.
could imagine Putin responding to U.S. criticism by saying: “You hypocrite, first
take the plank out of your own eye.”
Strong US leadership on LGBT rights creates an international norm that
independently solves a host of LGBT human rights violations globally - the
plan is politically popular
BLAKE 15 [Richmond Blake serves as a special assistant in the Office of the
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights. In 2013, he
received the State Department’s Human Rights and Democracy Achievement
Award for his work as a political officer in La Paz. The master’s thesis he coauthored, “Protecting Vulnerable LGBT Populations: An Opportunity for U.S.
Global Leadership,” was awarded Harvard University’s top prize for graduatelevel research in the field of human rights in 2011. “Promoting an LGBT-Inclusive
Human Rights Agenda”, June 2015, http://www.afsa.org/promoting-lgbtinclusive-human-rights-agenda, msm]
The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is not only under violent attack from this barbaric
violent extremist group, but from various hate groups, vigilantes and governments around the world. Human
rights organizations report that so far this year, scores of LGBT persons have been murdered or
imprisoned simply because of who they are and whom they love. More than 75 countries outlaw homosexuality, and in at
least seven of them, the penalty is death.¶ The social and political success of the LGBT movement, notably in Europe and the Americas, has elicited a strong backlash in other
parts of the world. A Pew Research Center survey reports that in many African and Middle Eastern countries, more than nine in 10 people say they do not accept LGBT people as
part of their society.¶ Eager to win votes or to distract from corruption or other government failings, politicians often play to this popular homophobic and transphobic
sentiment. This strategy has resulted in draconian new anti-LGBT laws and frequent arrests around the world, and it exacerbates a cultural climate that not only permits but
the LGBT
community does not have the financial resources or the political clout to defend itself ; and in the
places where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people are most in need, the broader human
rights community often fails to offer meaningful support. With such widespread animosity, the potential for larger-scale arrests,
attacks or even the systematic elimination of LGBT persons remains a serious threat.¶ In the absence of local support for these vulnerable populations, only the
international community, including the United States, can offer the aid this embattled minority group desperately
needs. U.S. leadership, expressed through a strong, sustained diplomatic effort, is required to
reverse the backsliding on LGBT rights and to mitigate the threat of widespread violence. This
human rights priority will necessitate that the United States government employ its full arsenal of
diplomatic tools from robust public diplomacy to foreign assistance. But the persistent challenge for Washington and
encourages harassment and discrimination, which often leads to violence.¶ Providing External Assistance to Support Local Leadership¶ In many countries,
other external actors is how to best offer support without further inflaming the backlash, or opening indigenous LGBT groups up to accusations of being foreign-driven.¶
a U.S. LGBT rights promotion strategy must be flexible, not “one size
Washington should develop country-specific strategies in partnership
with local gay community leaders.¶ Following the lead of local LGBT actors and their allies on these issues is essential, since
Recognizing the inherent risk in providing external support,
fits all.” Mindful that effective interventions vary widely across the globe,
they are the most credible and persuasive voices within their own communities, and have the most finely tuned cultural and political understanding of the opportunities for
An approach that seeks to lift up and empower the local gay community
also offers the long-term benefit of creating powerful, sustainable partners who will become less
dependent on external assistance over time.¶ Supporting Our New Special Envoy¶ The United States has already
taken significant steps to address anti-LGBT violence and discrimination worldwide, and there
LGBT rights promotion in their countries.
is a history of bipartisan support in Congress for diplomatic efforts to protect the international
LGBT community. In 2010, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning anti-gay legislation and encouraging the Secretary of State to closely
monitor anti-LGBT human rights abuses and to work to repeal egregious laws.¶ Mindful that effective interventions vary widely across the globe, Washington
should develop country-specific strategies in partnership with local gay community leaders.¶ Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have been quick to
condemn hate-motivated attacks, and they have led multilateral efforts to codify international recognition of rights for
LGBT persons. With robust U.S. backing, last September the United Nations Human Rights Council approved a resolution calling for an end to violence and
discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development financially support foreign
gay and trans rights organizations, and are also empowering diplomatic missions, using the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor’s small grants program, to support
LGBT rights-promotion initiatives tailored to local contexts.¶ Certainly, Sec. Kerry’s February appointment of Randy Berry as the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights
strong U.S. commitment to LGBT
rights. The position creates a new realm of opportunity for protecting this vulnerable community, by
raising global awareness about its plight, and will develop and coordinate U.S. rapid-response
mechanisms to address new threats. Berry will also amplify the effect of the State Department’s work by raising additional funds to support LGBT
of LGBT Persons in February is a significant diplomatic achievement, and it is an important sign of the
rights promotion initiatives through public-private partnerships.¶ But as important as the creation of the position is to advancing a comprehensive LGBT rights-promotion
strategy, the special representative will need the support of the entire diplomatic service, especially from frontline officers. Every bilateral relationship has its own nuances, and
opportunities for engagement on LGBT issues differ from post to post. Yet there are low-cost options that every mission can immediately pursue, not just to fulfill its obligation
to monitor and report on the status of gay rights, but to protect the LGBT population from the violence and discrimination that plague it.¶ Offering Support in Hostile Anti-
Even in country contexts where public U.S. advocacy for LGBT rights could provoke
a political backlash, there are opportunities for engagement. U.S. embassies can work behind the
scenes to promote LGBT issues within the broader civil society context. Embassies can
encourage existing civil society partners to initiate programming or to speak publicly in support
of tolerance and nonviolence. Finding and amplifying powerful religious or cultural voices that
support protections for the LGBT community could begin to change local attitudes and allow
enough space for local organizations to begin to operate safely in the open.¶ In repressive
environments, the U.S. government can work closely with local LGBT organizations to provide
seed grants to support local research and monitoring of violence and discrimination and
facilitate publication of their findings. Embassies can also provide support for embattled activists to speak at international conferences or
multilateral fora, or with foreign media, to refute the claim of some governments that no LGBT persons live within their borders.¶ U.S. embassies and consulates
can subtly signal support of LGBT rights at representational and public affairs events. Embassy Independence
LGBT Environments¶
Day celebrations, for instance, present an opportunity to expose local political leaders to LGBT advocates and their families. In climates where such individuals are
uncomfortable with coming out, embassies can host cultural events, such as art exhibits, featuring the work of anonymous but local LGBT artists and activists. And when illiberal
politicians call for violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders, or when repressive governments arrest them and hold sham trials, the U.S. government must send
clear and unequivocal signals of its dismay.¶ LGBT organizations that operate in the most repressive environments indicate that it is typically unhelpful for the U.S. government
in the most dire situations or in crisis scenarios, most LGBT
advocates want Washington to take a strong, public role.¶ When I was conducting research in Uganda on effective interventions
to take a public role in support of LGBT rights; however,
to support the LGBT community in January 2011, for instance, local organizations made clear to me that to combat the anti-homosexuality bill then pending in Parliament, they
not only supported, but needed public U.S. engagement. (A version of the legislation was later passed and then ruled invalid by the Constitutional Court in 2014.)¶ Ugandan
activists point to the power of Sec. Clinton’s public pressure on their government as a successful model, and expressed concern about the potential consequences if U.S. public
pressure were to wane. With that in mind, missions representing the U.S. government in hostile environments must work hand in hand with the local LGBT community to
identify the red line at which point the benefit of U.S. public intervention would outweigh concerns of a backlash. Ideally, Washington would also rally like-minded countries to
sign on to the same plan in advance, to facilitate a rapid, multilateral response when crisis-level, anti-LGBT situations arise.¶ U.S. missions in hostile environments must work
hand in hand with the local LGBT community to identify the red line at which point the benefit of U.S. public intervention would outweigh concerns of a backlash.¶ Advancing a
the U.S. government
can play a strong role in accelerating the spread of tolerance. Diplomatic missions can work to empower the local LGBT
Public Diplomacy Approach¶ In countries that provide some legal protections for LGBTs, but where violence and discrimination persist,
community by providing seed grants to nascent organizations or to fund joint projects executed by several fractious groups to encourage the consolidation of political power.
U.S. embassies can arrange educational exchanges to allow local leaders to seek training in the United States on successful advocacy practices that can then be implemented
locally. And by leveraging existing relationships with local law enforcement institutions, missions can conduct human rights training that is inclusive of LGBT rights, to sensitize
local law enforcement to the dangers that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens face and how best to offer them protection.¶ U.S. embassies can also use a wide array of
public diplomacy tools to support the local LGBT community. In fact, last year alone, more than 120 missions engaged in some form of public diplomacy in support of the local
LGBT community. Missions can amplify local organizations’ outreach on their Web platforms or lend credibility to the organizations by hosting events, like film screenings or
research presentations, featuring the participation of high-level embassy personnel, including the ambassador.¶ Embassies can also host prominent American LGBT media,
political or sports personalities, who can use their star power to make personal appeals through local media interviews and other public engagements.¶ An Urgent Need¶
Advocating for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in other societies is extremely difficult—and in many places, it can be dangerous. But the need could
not be greater or more urgent. The advocates I have met in my work with the State Department—a straight South African woman whose sister was a victim of the terribly
misguided “corrective rape” phenomenon, a prominent Ugandan activist who was later brutally murdered in his own home and a Bolivian transgender woman forced to flee
violence in her indigenous community—all press for the same thing: They ask that I share their stories with the American people and the U.S. government.¶ These activists are
not looking to the outside world to solve their problems or to lead their movements. But they are seeking partnership, resources, strategic advice and training, and diplomatic
LGBT rights are now a core component of our efforts to advance human
rights globally—what Sec. Kerry rightly calls “the heart and conscience of our diplomacy.” All U.S. diplomats,
especially those serving in the most anti-LGBT environments, have an opportunity and responsibility to advance this
national human rights priority. ¶
assistance to defend themselves.¶
Plan
Thus the Plan: The United States federal government should substantially
curtail its domestic surveillance of persons based on gender identity and
sexual orientation
Contention 3: Solvency
Contention 3 is Solvency
Breaking away from status quo surveillance solves LGBT oppression
Gilreath, associate professor of women’s gender and sexuality
studies, 2014 (Shannon, associate professor of law as well, Wake
Forest University “THE INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT
ON THE NSA SPYING SCANDAL” August 15 2014,
https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/handle/10339/39364)
I have criticized obedience to the rule of law as a convenient cover for excessive use of power. Certainly, I believe this to be true in many cases. But the
law is also-perhaps unfortunately-the best shot we have at dealing with immediate problems. I echo the late Ann
Scales, who once said that "my heart need[s] the world to change in more immediate and more
enforceable ways than [are] observable from nonlegal political activism." 175 I certainly do not
advocate abandoning the law as an instrument of change. Such is the work of postmodern
theory, mostly the luxury of academics, and also, generally, a university-subsidized collection of
"familiar if fancier reasons for doing nothing."176 As lawyers, we have to continue to use the law, as we know it,
and as we invent it, to respond to governmental anti-equality intrusions into the everyday lives of
citizens. One grassroots possibility would be to pressure Congress to change the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which, as written, requires
telecommunications companies to build their networks in ways that make government
surveillance of Internet activity possible, including the interception of e-mail and web traffic.177
Many of the contributions to this Symposium provide a range of other possibilities. 178
Explicitly banning LGBT profiling on the basis of sexual orientation and
gender identity solves
Thompson 15 (Ian, ACLU Washington Legislative Office, “Abusive Surveillance Is an
LGBTQ Rights Issue,” ACLU, February 27, 2015, https://www.aclu.org/blog/abusivesurveillance-lgbtq-rights-issue, es)
Barred from employment with the federal government. Considered mentally ill by the
psychiatric profession. Seen as criminals under state laws. Subjected to invasive surveillance
and targeting by the FBI. This hostile backdrop of the "Lavender Scare" in the 1950s gave rise to some of the
earliest organized advocacy efforts on behalf of LGBTQ equality. J. Edgar Hoover's FBI and its "Sex
Deviate" program worked feverishly to ruin the lives of untold numbers of gay men and lesbians and to intimidate
members of groups like the Mattachine Society, which dared to agitate for the basic dignity of gay people. A half-century later, this history has not been
lost on the nation's leading LGBTQ equality organizations, which yesterday joined allies in the civil liberties and human rights
community in sending a letter to President Barack Obama, raising serious concerns over revelations that the FBI targeted leaders of the Muslim community for yearslong secret
disturbing pattern, both past and present, of the government engaging in
discriminatory and abusive surveillance against individuals, based not on what they have done but what they
believe or who they are. We know from history and experience that discriminatory surveillance and profiling by law
enforcement agencies has had a disproportionately negative impact on LGBTQ people, particularly
surveillance. The letter notes that this appears to fit a
people of color. The largest national survey of transgender people to date found 22 percent of respondents who have interacted with police reported experiencing bias-based
Remember the police raids and harassment that led to
the eruption of a rebellion at the Stonewall Inn 45 years ago? How about the unlawful sting
operations targeting gay and bisexual men and the profiling of transgender women as sex
workers from our own decade? The harms of ineffective and un-American profiling—regardless of the communities it is directed against—
are of clear concern and importance to the LGBTQ community. So what can be done? The most important
step that the government can take to curb abusive surveillance and profiling is to update existing
harassment, with substantially higher rates reported by respondents of color.
guidance banning racial profiling by federal law-enforcement agencies. The guidance must be
amended to explicitly ban profiling on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,
or national origin, as well as close existing loopholes that permit all forms of racial profiling in
the national security and border contexts. We must learn from past abuses. Minority communities cannot enjoy the
equality and dignity afforded them by the Constitution when they can be routinely subjected to discriminatory profiling for things like "driving while black," "praying while
brown," or "walking while trans."
As a country, we can and must do better.
2AC Policing
2AC - Ethics
Exposure is key – personal enlightenment and resistance against LGBT
injustice is the only way to end it
Gilreath 14
Gilreath, associate professor of women’s gender and sexuality studies, 2014
(Shannon, associate professor of law as well, Wake Forest University “THE
INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT ON THE NSA SPYING
SCANDAL” August 15 2014, https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/handle/10339/39364)
Exposure is critical. The populace must know what is happening to them-why and how. In his book, A
Miracle, a Universe: Settling Accounts with Torturers, Lawrence Weschler asserts, in the context of the state that has tortured, that "[a] military
which would be shown-not just known, but shown-to have indulged in such systematically dishonorable,
disfiguringly dishonorable activities ... [might not only lose its respect and honor, but even] the
populace's suspended disbelief in that fiction."165 One possessed of such knowledge, Weschler says, the populace
possesses "potentially magic truths,"166 necessary to understanding, finally, "the [security State's]
tutelary power over the wider population."16 7 Once these magic truths are disclosed to us, moreover,
"[the meaning and future of militarism itself might be at stake."168 These are high stakes. Consequently, we
must not underestimate how far the government will go to keep the truth from being said. We
must demand that whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden, be treated as such-not as enemies of the American
people. In 2008, Daniel Ellsberg, who famously leaked the Pentagon Papers exposing many governmental crimes and lies regarding the war in
Vietnam, wrote the foreword to a fascinating book by Ann Wright, Colonel, U.S. Army, Ret., and Susan Dixon, profiling numerous George W. Bush
administration officials who acted as whistleblowers or otherwise resigned in protest of the administration's lies and illegalities associated with the Iraq
War. Ellsberg had this to say, specifically about whistleblowers: Whistleblowers are few and isolated in any walk of life, but there have been, until very
recently, many more of them outside the national security establishment than within it, though remarkably, this book has gathered together more of the
latter than would have been possible even a few years ago. No doubt that is because whistleblowers in industry or civilian agencies, though they
generally suffer greatly in their advancement, careers, and personal lives, do not have to face the possibility of prosecution or the almost-certain charge,
however misdirected and unfounded, that they have hurt national security, allegedly endangered troops, shown disloyalty and lack of patriotism, or
(more factually) broken promises to keep secrets on which their clearances and access were based. 169 Surely, the Obama administration's decision to
pursue Snowden for espionage, and to render him effectively stateless, proves the truth of Ellsberg's assertion. But, critically, people
like
Snowden and other government whistleblowers take an oath to uphold the Constitution. That
oath is not to the President or Commander-in Chief. It is an oath to "We the People." On account of that
fiduciary relationship, we, citizens, ought to insist that avenues be available for those working in the
"national security" apparatus to expose governmental crimes and lies. No such mechanism
existed under the Bush administration. Shockingly, no such mechanism exists now. It is worth noting
that it was Vladimir Lenin who first used charges of domestic espionage to silence government
criticism from the inside.17 0 Section 6 of article 58 of the Soviet Criminal Code (1923, 1926) used
espionage to create an apartheid of official secrecy and public ignorance that would become a model in many
other places under the same rubric of "national security." It also introduced a potent xenophobia whereby contact with or interest in any outside place
was in effect criminal. The labels of "terrorist" and "terrorist interests" were given their first blanket use, terms of great convenience, now worldwide.
This description of Leninist and Stalinist despotism in the name of "national security" seems stunningly relevant to the United States at this moment in
light of the "terrorism" furor ignited in the West on September 11, 2001, and, in particular, with regard to the treatment of insider dissenters. The
degree to which Stalin used article 58 to quash free speech is also eerily resonant. 171 It takes a
tremendous degree of courage to do what Snowden did. And the government has responded in a
fashion that unequivocally tells us it will not tolerate-that it will crush-the will to courage. The
bottom line here is that, if we care about keeping our constitutional order alive, we must defend the men and women inside the government who want
to speak out. As
pervasive and invasive as the NSA surveillance program has been revealed to be, we
may not yet have the full picture.
LGBT rights must come first, it’s a matter of ethics
Clinton 11
Hilary Clinton, yes, that Hilary Clinton, secretary of state under the
Obama administration, “Hillary Clinton On Gay Rights Abroad:
Secretary Of State Delivers Historic LGBT Speech In Geneva (VIDEO,
FULL TEXT),” June 6, 2011, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gayrights-speech-geneva_n_1132392.html
I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and
given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights
challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was
still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and
harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and
exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect
human rights at home . Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human
rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though
progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global
Some have suggested that gay
rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of
consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere. The first issue goes to the heart of the matter.
course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They
Yet in the past 60 years,
we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of
dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity. This recognition did not occur all at
once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like
being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not
make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay
rights. It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual
orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a
violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who
harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or
transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when
people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a
violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or
equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are
gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and
dignity.
also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups.
Such homophobia must come first – it’s your ethical duty
Evans 91
Nancy J. Evans, is a professor at Iowa State University for Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies while earning her Ph.D. from the University of
Missouri-Columbia in Counseling Psychology, “Beyond Tolerance: Gays,
Lesbians and Bisexuals on Campus,” 1991, American College Personnel
Association Series, Google Scholar
What motivates heterosexuals to become gay rights advocates? There are certainly more popular and less controversial causes with which one can
become involved. Since
involvement in gay rights advocacy is a moral issue, moral development theory
suggests some possible underlying reasons for such activity. Kohlberg (1984) hypothesized that moral reasoning
develops through three levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. At the preconventional level, moral decisions are based on what is
good for the individual. Persons
functioning at this level may choose to be involved in gay rights issues to
protect their own interests or to get something out of such involvement (e.g., if this issue is particularly
important to a supervisor whose approval is sought). At the conventional level Kohlberg indicated that decisions are made that conform to the norms of
one's group or society. Individuals at this level may work for gay rights if they wish to support friends who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual or to uphold an
existing institutional policy of nondiscrimination. Kohlberg's third level of reasoning involves decision making based on principles of justice. At this
level the individual takes an active role to create policies that assure that all people are treated fairly, and he or she becomes involved in gay rights
advocacy because it is the right thing to do. Although Kohlberg focused onjustice as the basis of moral decision making, Gilligan (1982) used the
principle of care as the basis of her model of moral reasoning. Her three
levels of reasoning are (1) taking care of self, (2)
taking care of others, and (3) supporting positions that take into consideration the impact both
on self and on others. Using this model, individuals at the first level become advocates to make themselves look good to others or to protect
themselves from criticism for not getting involved. At the second level individuals reason that it is their role to "take care of' gay, lesbian, and bisexual
students. The
final perspective leads the individual to believe that equality and respect for
differences create a better world for everyone, and he or she works to achieve these goals. One
could argue that the latter position in each scheme is the enlightened perspective that any
advocate needs to espouse. We should, however, be aware that not every person is functioning at a postconventional level of moral
reasoning and that arguments designed to encourage people. to commit themselves to gay rights advocacy need to be targeted to the level that the
individual can understand and accept. Kohlberg
(1972) indicated that active involvement in addressing moral
issues is an important factor in facilitating moral development along his stages. We can,
therefore, expect that as people become involved in gay rights issues their level of reasoning may
move toward a postconventional level.
2AC – UQ
Despite reforms, the spying of LGBT communities and movements is still
very alive in American surveillance
Daily News Wire Services 95
(Daily News Wire Services, a New York based news company dedicated to the
reporting of politics and other important matters, “Fbi Spying On Aids Activists,
Agency's Own Documents Reveal Freedom Of Information Response,” May 16,
1995, http://articles.philly.com/1995-05-16/news/25673046_1_aids-activists-fbi-documentsaids-coalition (NV)
The FBI is spying on AIDS activists and gay-rights groups, apparently out of fear they might
resort to violence or throw infected blood during demonstrations, according to FBI documents
and a civil-rights group. The documents, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, indicate that
informants gave the FBI information and that the bureau has had its own people at some
meetings. The records involve surveillance of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, in 1990 and 1991. The FBI refused to
release 177 pages of the 199-page file, claiming "ongoing law enforcement activity." The Justice Department told the center in
releasing the file that the FBI also has files on the Gay Men's Health Crisis, the Coalition for
Lesbian and Gay Rights and Senior Action in a Gay Environment, said Michael E. Deutsch, legal director for the New York
City-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which obtained the documents. Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern said the
reports that AIDS activists were being spied upon were "overstated." The FBI's spokesman in New York, Joe Valiquette,
said the FBI had no comment on its surveillance practices. "The Clinton administration is using the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to infiltrate, undermine and discredit its most visible critics among AIDS advocates," ACT UP
member Steve Michael said. One memo shows agents were worried about AIDS contamination at
demonstrations. After a 1990 ACT UP protest outside the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., the FBI's office in Silver Spring, Md., issued a memo
saying: ''No infected blood or used condoms were exhibited or thrown ." Another memo, containing blacked-out material
NEW YORK —
from an informant, describes ACT UP members pouring "theatrical blood over the fence" at a protest near the Capitol in Washington on Oct. 1, 1991. ACT UP is known for loud,
highly emotional demonstrations. Members have carried makeshift coffins during protests, held "die-ins" and chained themselves to the White House gate. "We are loud and
Although
the extent of government investigation of the group remains unclear, public officials have not
hidden their distaste for some of ACT UP's protest antics. "They come to my home and throw condoms around
and behave in a very bad fashion," former President George Bush said in 1992 about protests outside his Maine
angry, and we yell at people," said Ann Northrop, an ACT UP spokeswoman. "If you embarrass the government in public, it is just a given they will spy on you."
summer home.
Government spying of LGBT communities is commonplace in American
surveillance
Styrsky 06
Stefen Styrsky, writer for Gay City News, “U.S. Ordered to Reveal Extent of Gay
Spying,” May 3, 2006, Gay City News,
http://gaycitynews.nyc/gcn_517/usorderedreveal.html
Federal Judge Rosemary A. Collyer of the D.C. District ordered three government agencies to
turn over by the middle of May all documents they have regarding covert surveillance of
domestic LGBT groups. The April 19 order is the culmination of a months-long struggle by the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) to force the Departments of Justice and
Defense to release any information they possess regarding the matter. In December, NBC News
reported that the Pentagon had been monitoring college student groups opposed to the
military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that forbids open service by gay and lesbian personnel.
According to NBC, and later confirmed by a partial release of documents from the Defense
Department, the LGBT law student group at New York University, OUTLaw, was labeled
“potentially violent” by Pentagon officials, who believed “the term Outlaws is a backhanded way
of saying it is alright to commit possible violence and serve as vigilantes...” The Pentagon began an investigation of
OUTLaw when it was learned that the group would be participating in a February 2005 student protest against military recruiters on the NYU campus. Defense intelligence
officials reported that the event “may involve Outlaws,” a possible security threat to the recruiters. A similar assessment was made by the Pentagon regarding a Don’t Ask, Don’t
. Many news reports
conflated that event with the earlier anti-recruiter event that Gay City News confirmed with
campus organizers was the one that alarmed the Pentagon. The earlier student gathering was
considered a “credible threat” for terrorism. There have also been reports of Pentagon
surveillance of student organizations at the State University of New York at Albany and William
Patterson College in Wayne, New Jersey. The targeted student groups were also protesting the Solomon Amendment, which compels
Tell protest at the University of California Santa Cruz. The Santa Cruz group later held a gay kiss-in in the presence of military recruiters
universities receiving federal money to allow military recruiters on their campuses even though the schools have rules requiring all potential employers to adopt a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation. The Solomon Amendment was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. To determine the full
extent of this surveillance, SLDN filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with Justice and Defense. In response, the Department of Justice stated it had not
The National Security Agency, part of DOD, would not
confirm or deny the existence of surveillance activities or whether records of surveillance
existed. SLDN’s lawsuit also seeks to determine what other gay groups, beyond those engaged in protesting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, have been secretly scrutinized.
OUTLaw and the UC Santa Cruz groups were snared in the DOD’s Threats and Local
Observation Notice (TALON) program originally established as part of the government’s
widening effort to investigate sources of domestic terrorism by foreign sources. Similar Pentagon
conducted a search of its files, but was confident no such records existed.
investigations of anti-war protestors and peace activists during the Vietnam War led to Congressional hearings and limits on the type of information the Defense Department
could collect about U.S. citizens. In a February letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department acknowledged that it had inappropriately gathered
. Documents already released do not indicate
how the surveillance was conducted, whether through monitoring of e-mail, phone
conversations, photographs, video, or listening devices. Nor do the documents reveal how the
gathered information was to be used. In the case of the NYU protests, the Pentagon was tipped to the student group’s schedule by an unnamed einformation on the student protestors. What remains unknown is the extent of the operation
mail source. What these documents do reveal is a U.S. military unfamiliar with the LGBT community. “The DOD is pretty clueless about who they should be monitoring and
why,” said Steve Ralls, spokesman for SLDN. In particular, Ralls referred to the Pentagon considering the name OUTLaws as somehow indicative of the group’s antigovernment, potentially violent philosophy, rather than a reference to their uncloseted sexual orientation. Only the Defense Intelligence Agency, a part of DOD, returned calls
for comment. According to the DIA’s FOIA office, no surveillance documentation or evidence of programs was uncovered in a records search. Ralls at SLDN said his organization
had yet to receive notification from the DIA. In an e-mail to Gay City News, DOD spokesman Commander Gregory Hicks said that it was a mistake the gay groups fell under the
We have taken very quick and thorough measures to ensure that our TALON records
now have the foreign terrorist threat nexus that it was set for in the first place... Less than 2 percent of the total
TALON program. “
number of TALON reports did not comply with present directives. All of those have been removed from our database,” Hicks wrote. All branches of DOD must complete a
thorough review of their records by May 4, and the deadline for the DIA unit of Defense is April 27. Collyer imposed a May 11 deadline on the Justice Department.
2AC – Link
Law enforcement and surveillance causes the oppression of LGBTs
Trager 15
AJ Trager, “Policing Gender And Sexuality In 2015,” April 16, 2015, Between the
Lines,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/publication/publications_38274?accountid=1
4667 (NV)
DETROIT - Historically, the LGBT community has had a long and sometimes very violent track record with
law enforcement. Throughout the United States, laws requiring people wear two to three items of gender appropriate clothing were common all the way up until
the 1960s. These laws most significantly impacted LGBT people, particularly trans gender and gender nonconforming individuals. This version of policing gender
and sexuality often resulted in police entrapment, police harassment, police raids, violent
arrests, beatings, sexual assaults and collective rape. Perhaps the most famous police harassment event was the one that led to the
Stonewall nots in June 1969 in NYC, an event often seen as the tipping point to the modem LGBT lights movement. Today Michigan enforces gender
and sexuality by maintaining the assumption that heterosexual and cis-gender people are better
than lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals. With marriage equality currently absent in the state and no state laws
protecting LGBT individuals, discrimination against LGBT people is perfectly legal despite strong efforts from
advocacy and ally groups to educate and change this. "These laws are civil in nature and they affect every aspect of our lives. They
collaterally result in criminal consequences for the most targeted and marginalized among us," said Yvonne Siferd at a recent criminal justice symposium held at the University
This vehement belief in the superiority of
heterosexual relationships is heavily rooted in our insistence on the gender binary and
underlines our belief that we are entitled to police transgender bodies as well as queer people's
sexuality, criminally and socially." In the U.S. laws born out of religious doctrine often prohibited specific sex acts such as sodomy or "un-natural"
acts. Even though it was illegal for a married couple to commit sodomy or have oral intercourse
too, the effect was solely to police gay and sometimes lesbian sexuality. In the early years of the
country, the punishment for these acts was sometimes death. These two laws are still on the books in Michigan despite being
of Michigan-Dearborn. Siferd is director of victim services at Equality Michigan. "
struck down in 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirty-four years after Stonewall, in 2003, the Wayne County Sheriff's Department raided the Power Plant, a private LGBT club
m Detroit, whose members were primarily black gay men, lesbians and trans women. Between 50 and 100 officers entered the club and over 350 people were handcuffed, forced
to lie down on the floor and detained for up to 12 hours. They were left to sit in their and others ' mine and waste, and some were kicked m the head and back, slammed into
Officers on the scene were heard saying tilings like, 'It's a bunch of fags' and, 'Those
fags in here make me sick.' Like the Stonewall police officers, these officers claimed to be enforcing building and liquor codes. Discrimination,
harassment and abuses like the one at the Power Plant undermine effective policing by
weakening community trust, reducing reporting of crimes by victims in the LGBT community
and challenging law enforcement's ability to effectively meet the needs of members of their
communities. Reports And Statistics According to the 2013 FBI Hate Crimes statistics, LGBT communities were the second most impacted population for the second
walls and verbally assaulted.
year in a row. First place went to people where the hate crime involved their race, the tim'd their religion. These numbers are actually lower than what was reported by the
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, which reported 2,001 victims and survivors of hate violence in 2013 compared to the FBI's statistic of 1,402. The FBI relies on
.
LGBT survivors of hate crimes prefer to report to LGBT organizations over law enforcement. "Given
the LGBTQ community's past and present issues with law enforcement, it isn't all that surprising," Siferd said. " Another reason for the discrepancy
is the ignorance and bias of law enforcement regarding LGBTQ communities, particularly when
it comes to bans issues. There is often a culture of victim blaming. 'If you didn't act like that,' or,
'Maybe you were asking for it by dressing like that. ' There is also a significant lack of training about LGBT people, culture and issues
local law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes and keep up with the federal law, however, the NCAVP relies on the reporting from LGBT community organizations
for law enforcement. " A recent 2015 report released by the Wilhams Institute at UCLA School of Law documents ongoing and pervasive discrimination and harassment by law
Key findings from the report have
found that more than one-fifth of LGBT people who interacted with police reported
encountering hostile attitudes from officers and 14 percent reported verbal assault by the police.
enforcement of the LGBT community, especially among LGBT people of color and transgender individuals.
Nearly half, 48 percent, of the LGBT violence survivors who interacted with police reported that they had experienced police misconduct, including unjustified arrest, use of
excessive force and entrapment. Forty-six percent of transgender respondents reported being uncomfortable seeking police assistance, 22 percent reported that they had been
harassed by law enforcement because of bias and 6 percent reported having been physically assaulted by an officer.
2AC – Internal Link
The government’s unfair surveillance of LBGT populations results in an
increased amount of unwarranted arrests and higher rates of incarceration
Kopansky 14
(Dina, J.D. Candidate, Temple University Beasley School of Law, “LOCKED OUT: HOW THE
DISPROPORTIONATE CRIMINALIZATION OF TRANS PEOPLE THWARTS EQUAL ACCESS
TO FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING,” Temple Law Review, HeinOnline, Fall 2014, es)
Law enforcement officers often enforce social order by policing small infractions. 129 Frequently, such minor
offenses are not clearly defined, giving the police significant freedom to decide who to stop for these petty offenses.130 This discrimination
often "determine[s] both the initiation and outcome of interactions" with the police.131 The same types of
discrimination and stereotyping that lead to higher rates of poverty and homelessness for trans people also increase the rate of targeted policing. 132
For example, trans
people are sometimes arrested for being in the "wrong" bathroom, although
"there is generally no law requiring individuals who use bathrooms designated as for men or
women to have any particular set of characteristics." 33 Trans people report routinely being
arbitrarily stopped by law enforcement for wearing tight clothes, having condoms,134 waiting for
public transportation, buying groceries,135 or just walking down the street. Stops are often based
on "how visible an individual's perceived gender variance is."' 137 While sumptuary laws-laws requiring people to
wear a certain number of articles of gendered clothing at all times or risk arrest-no longer exist in America,138 police continue profiling
trans people based on their perceptions about appropriate gender presentation.139 Law
enforcement officers frequently rely on assumptions about trans people to profile them as sex
workers,140 whether or not they are engaging in sex work or any criminal activity at all.141 For
trans women in particular, gender presentation is often linked to assumptions about sexual
activity, leading not just to sex work-related arrests but also "quality of life offenses including
'lewd conduct'... [and] 'public indecency." 142 Due to a presumed connection between "sex work,
the drug trade, and violent crime," trans people are swept up within a larger system of regularly
policing the poor, particularly in communities of color.143 Once arrested, fear of "hyper-gendered (and gender policed)
spaces" is a driving force for many trans people to plead guilty to crimes they never committed.
144 While taking a plea speeds up court proceedings and avoids additional time in jail awaiting trial, these pleas have significant
consequences for trans people far beyond the immediate issue.145 Trans noncitizens often risk deportation,146 while
trans people receiving public benefits contingent on their criminal records risk losing them. 14 7
Overpoliced through discretionary laws and afraid of incarceration, many trans people get caught in a cycle of
criminalization. 148 Sixteen percent of trans respondents to a national survey reported having
been incarcerated, far higher than the incarceration rate for non-trans people.149 This rate rises dramatically for trans
people of color, as nearly half of black trans respondents (forty-seven percent) reported having been incarcerated.150 While there are no
exact numbers on how many trans people have been involved at different levels of the criminal
justice system, the most recent studies indicate that trans people, especially trans people of color, are stopped
by the police, arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes at much higher rates than the general
population.151 Such disproportionate criminalization, paired with associated employment barriers
and rampant housing discrimination, makes access to affordable housing an enormous
challenge for many trans people.
2AC – Impact
Policing causes violence, inequality and aggression against LGBTs
Moodie-Mills 14
Aisha Moodie Mills, writer for the Center for American Progress, “Infographic:
Why Are So Many LGBT People and People Living with HIV Behind Bars?,” May
7, 2014, Center for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2014/05/07/88950/infographic-whyare-so-many-lgbt-people-and-people-living-with-hiv-behind-bars/ (NV)
The pervasive profiling, arrest, and incarceration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people and
people living with HIV, or PLWH—especially those who are people of color—are not simply a response to higher rates
of illicit behavior within those communities. The range of unequal laws and policies that
dehumanize, victimize, and criminalize people because of their sexual orientation, gender
identity, or HIV status perpetuates these high rates of contact with the criminal system. In fact, one study found that a
startling 73 percent of LGBT people and PLWH have had run-ins with police in the past five years.
Police, for example, often profile transgender women and use possession of condoms as
evidence of prostitution-related offenses and grounds for arrest. Additionally, PLWH in 36 states can be
charged with felonies for having consensual sex, biting, and spitting—even when there is no transmission of the virus. And
LGBT youth are more likely to be arrested for status offenses—charges that relate to family rejection and
hostile school climates, such as running away, sleeping outside, violating curfew laws, and truancy infractions—than criminal
activity. What’s more, LGBT people and PLWH often experience police misconduct such as false arrests and verbal,
physical, and sexual abuse while in police custody. They also face harsh sentences, experience a lack of
appropriate healthcare, and are sometimes placed in solitary confinement as a safeguard—although this isolation is often more
punitive and stigmatizing than protective. These cycles of criminalization and discriminatory treatment of
LGBT people and PLWH often trigger a lifetime of economic and social instability. We can and must
dismantle these cycles through federal policy measures that address abusive policing practices,
improve conditions
for LGBT prisoners and immigrants in detention, decriminalize HIV, and prevent LGBT
youth from coming
into contact with the system in the first place.
That persecution has justified mass violence and animosity towards LGBTs
Mitchell 13
Koritha Mitchell, is an associate professor at Ohio State for African-American Literature and
obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, “Love in Action: Noting Similarities
between Lynching Then and Anti-LGBT Violence Now,” Summer of 2013, published by The
John Hopkins University Press, Project Muse (NV)
The height of mob violence cannot be understood in terms of extralegal mobs or extremist groups like the Ku Klux Klan because ordinary citizens
participated in lynchings, and sheriffs and politicians often joined mobs or gave their blessing.37 Being vulnerable to ordinary citizens is bad enough;
having that vulnerability condoned by authorities intensifies the insult and injury and encourages more violence.
Today, LGBT people
routinely experience hostility not only from peers but also from police, teachers and employers,
and public servants. Turning to the police for help when one has been the target of violence
should be a viable option, but LGBT people have learned they cannot take this right for granted.
Given their “long histories with . . . discrimination and violence from the police,” many LBGT people are hesitant to call them at all. NCAVP found that
victims contacted police only 52% of the time. “Of the survivors and victims that reported, only 43% experienced courteous attitudes from the police”
(NCAVP 19). Meanwhile, 38% reported that officers were indifferent,38 and 18% reported hostility (36). When
the police are hostile or
indifferent 56% of the time, the incident for which one sought their help can suddenly become the initial assault. Additional
violence can come in the form of excessive force and unjustified arrest. These and other examples of
professional misconduct occur when “officers allow homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic attitudes to interfere with their role” (NCAVP 37).
Unfortunately,
these prejudices have long shaped the way law enforcement officials carry out their
duties. As NCAVP reminds us, police officers have routinely raided establishments that welcome LGBT
people “since the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement” (37). 699 Again, the message is clear: authorities, no less than peers, hold
LGBT communities in low regard. Abuse or indifference from the police ensures that no one can
escape this message. Considering young people’s experiences also sheds light on hostile settings created by authorities. As Aisha Moodie-
Mills of the Center for American Progress explains, “Much of the focus on school climate for gay and transgender youth is about bullying and
interactions among peers. But a recent study in the Journal of Pediatrics found that administrators, teachers, and law enforcement officials
disproportionately punish students who are assumed to be gay or transgender” (37). Furthermore, “school discipline policies that remove students from
the classroom, rather than address the antigay climate that sparked the situation, restrict their ability to learn and thrive academically” (Moodie-Mills
27). Even worse, “such disciplinary responses can fuel a school-to-juvenile justice pipeline for gay and transgender youth that results in unfair
The nation fuels
animosity toward LGBT populations in countless ways, but American courts offer a particularly
poignant example of how thoroughly hostility is endorsed. Attorneys defending murderers have
at their disposal the “gay panic defense,” any number of “strategies that rely on the notion that a
criminal defendant should be excused or justified if his violent actions were in response to a
(homo)sexual advance” (Lee 475). Its successful invocation rests on American acceptance of “the idea that a nonviolent homosexual
criminalization” (27). These practices reflect a lack of investment in making learning environments safe for all students.
advance by a gay man can cause a heterosexual man to panic and respond with fatal violence” (Lee 476). The history of these judicial strategies reveals a
shift in emphasis. Initially, defendants linked their claims “to criminal law defenses based on mental deficiency, such as temporary insanity or
diminished capacity. More
recently, such defendants have used gay panic to bolster claims of
provocation and self-defense” (478). Even more recently, “trans panic” defenses have emerged.
Each iteration of this defense blames the victim for his own death; i.e., “if he hadn’t made a pass
at me, I wouldn’t have killed him” or “if he hadn’t lied about being a woman, I wouldn’t have killed him” (Lee 478).39 While
generally ineffective when linked to claims of mental defect, these defenses have been relatively successful when accompanying claims of provocation
(Lee 478). Even
as the debate rages about whether these defenses should be permissible at all, the
fact that they are, and have been used to exonerate murderers, illustrates that an apparently
heterosexual person can expect some understanding if they kill an LGBT person. Indeed, the
United States creates and perpetuates a climate in which those who are deemed straight have a
“state-sanctioned monopoly on violence.”40 The fact that “monopoly” is no exaggeration becomes clear when one considers
CeCe McDonald and the New Jersey 7. In describing the events that led to McDonald’s arrest, columnist Akiba Solomon asks, if a group of strangers
verbally and physically assaults you, and “if one of the bullies pulls you toward him . . . and then receives a fatal stab in the chest with the scissors you’ve
taken out of your bag to defend yourself, should you be the only person arrested?” A group of white women and men taunted and attacked an African
American transgender woman, but she was the only one arrested. This outcome can be tolerated only in a society that insists that certain people are
always suspect and disposable. As Kimberlé Crenshaw explains in a slightly different context, cultural beliefs are projected onto marginalized bodies, so
they are deemed to be guilty based on “who they are, not by what they do” (1271, 1280). In McDonald’s case, there were clear signs of self-defense, 700
including her brutally slashed face, but police officers still apparently saw her as the only criminal present. Now she is incarcerated. Activist Mercedes
Allen rightly suspects that many who might otherwise be outraged and advocate for McDonald’s release are ambivalent or apathetic because she was
arrested and charged. Many Americans cannot shed “the belief that a person convicted of crime deserves the punishment somehow” (Allen). Yet, being
invested in the idea that those convicted deserve their punishment should make Americans more diligent about addressing institutional bias. Especially
when racial profiling is rampant, and police and prosecutors are rewarded for pursuing the most vulnerable populations,41 all of our nation’s -isms will
determine who is arrested and charged and who is not. Though
the prosecutor insists that “gender, race, sexual
orientation and class are not part of the decision-making process,” 42 Akiba Solomon and
activist Janet Mock need not exaggerate to assert that, as a black trangender woman, “CeCe
McDonald is being punished for surviving.”43 The same can be said of the New Jersey 7,
lesbians who resisted victimization when they were harassed on the street.44 When hostility
undergirds the practices of police, teachers, administrators, attorneys, and judges, the United
States punishes LGBT people for surviving.
The Holocaust is an accurate and necessary analogy in the context of
homosexual internet monitoring
Gilreath 14
Shannon Gilreath, a professor of Law and Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies
at Wake Forest University known for his works Sexual Politics: The Gay Person in
America Today (2006) and The End of Straight Supremacy: Realizing Gay Liberation (2011),
“ESSAY: THE INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT ON THE NSA SPYING
SCANDAL,” Summer of 2014, Wake Forest Law Review Association, Lexis Nexis
Certainly, analogies to the Holocaust present their own problems. They can be used , of course, in totally
insensitive and unscrupulous ways, as in Senator Ted Cruz's faux filibuster of the Affordable Care Act, in which he referred to those,
apparently members of his own Republican party, who refused to join him in his filibuster efforts as akin to WWII-era Nazi sympathizers. My own
previous efforts at using
the Holocaust to explain the real dangers of so-called hate speech in the
United States have not been universally appreciated. I have some sympathy with the point of
view that overuse of the Holocaust as an explanatory paradigm for the dangers of oppression
can run the risk of turning the Holocaust into a political cliché. But there is risk in not invoking it and
analyzing the relevance of this period to our modern lives. What happened in Europe, sixty-odd
years ago, did not happen that long ago. And it did not affect Jews only. Homosexuals, among other groups, were
systematically hunted and exterminated by the Nazis in the project that has come to be known
universally as the Holocaust. Refusing to understand the lessons of the Holocaust for modern people is to risk assigning the Holocaust
to a position bordering on religious fanaticism something so sacred that it cannot be interrogated or critically analyzed. To do so is to rob
subsequent generations of the lessons necessary to stop something like it from happening again.
As Guy Hocquenghem put it in an April 1980 interview in the magazine Christopher Street, " As long as gay genocide [in the
Holocaust] is not officially acknowledged, it could happen again." Specifically, Hocquenghem continued as follows:
This is not to say that it will happen, but that somehow the political forces against us can keep it
in mind. Perhaps I sound like a doom-sayer. But if you put these two ideas together-gays having become "visible" in
American society without having acquired any significant political protection or status, and this
new role of "scapegoat," in which gays seem to have replaced the traditional scapegoat, the Jews you cannot be unaware of a dangerous trend. If there really is a social crisis beginning, gays are
in a position similar to that of the Jews in pre-Nazi society. They are suspected of being a powerful and secret
"conspiracy," supposedly rich-or at least luxury consumers-and the most advanced innovators of the capitalist economy. Just the right image to make
us scapegoats both for public immorality and for inflation.
Even if there is no evidence of malicious actions by a state actor –
agencies like the NSA have the potential to aid the government in
oppressive actions
Gilreath 14
Shannon Gilreath, a professor of Law and Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies
at Wake Forest University known for his works Sexual Politics: The Gay Person in
America Today (2006) and The End of Straight Supremacy: Realizing Gay Liberation (2011),
“ESSAY: THE INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT ON THE NSA SPYING
SCANDAL,” Summer of 2014, Wake Forest Law Review Association, Lexis
My devotion to Hocquenghem aside, many Gay intellectuals with whom I have discussed this topic believe that what I am describing here is so outside
of the bounds of reality as to be academic only. Maybe this reaction simply proves Hocquenghem's point about Gays' historical deficiencies. But, to be
fair, Gays are not the only Americans whose engagement with their own history can only be fairly described as amnesiac. It
seems to me that
the extent Snowden has been dismissed or trivialized has been because many Americans believe
in American exceptionality. Whatever we may be, we are not them-those other regimes where
suppression of dissent is the rule. At bottom, many Americans simply do not believe that
America is oppressive. Simply because a government is not acting despotically at any given
moment, however, does not mean that it does not have the capability to act in such a way. This is, I
think, what Edward Snowden meant by his carefully intelligent description of the "architecture of
oppression." And, on that score, Snowden's observations are hardly new. In 1975, and specifically in reference to a predigital
NSA, Senator Frank Church warned: "I know the capacity that there is to make tyranny total in
America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate
within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss ." To Edward
Snowden's contemporary iteration of that warning, President Obama has responded that the NSA surveillance
programs are necessary for national security and specifically for the apprehension or thwarting of
terrorists. Americans are thus soothed because they think they know what terrorists look like.
Terrorists-today, anyway-are almost always aliens and always Muslim, or at least infected by fanatical Muslim ideology. The definition of
"terrorist," however, is grounded on sands every bit as shifting as those upon which liberty rests .
President Reagan, for example, once called opponents of apartheid in South Africa "terrorists." A terrorist by one man's definition
is as likely to be another man's hero as he is certain to be another man's son. In this, as in all things, history matters.
AT: Same-sex marriage solves
Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn’t address the deeper threats to LGBT
communities’ survival, self-determination, life chances, and dignity
Arkles 13
(Gabriel, Acting Assistant Professor of Lawyering at NYU School of Law, “MARRIAGE AND
MASS INCARCERATION,” New York University Review of Law & Social Change, lexis, 2013, es)
In considering marriage litigation, it is critical to consider its impact on the most vulnerable members of LGBT communities and on other marginalized communities. My
skepticism about the struggle for "same-sex" n1 marriage is grounded in my work against
criminalization and imprisonment, particularly as they affect transgender people of color. The United States incarcerates
more people per capita than any other country in the world. n2 California, the seat of the controversy leading to Perry v. Brown,
n3 held more people in prison than any other state in the country until recently. n4 We do not know how many trans people are in
prisons and jails, but we know that the number is high. A San Francisco study found that 65% of trans women and 29% of trans
men had a history of incarceration. n5 A national study found that 16% of trans people had a history of
incarceration; while a lower rate than the San Francisco study, this percentage is still much higher than the overall rate of
incarceration in the United States. n6 Conditions of confinement for all prisoners are violent and
at times deadly. n7 Conditions for incarcerated trans people, especially trans people of color, are [*14] particularly
damaging and dangerous. n8 Most trans women (59%) in California men's prisons have been
sexually assaulted. n9 Some people in California women's prisons, including African-American trans men, have been
subjected to nonconsensual sterilization. n10 At worst, marriage can aggravate mass-incarceration.
Reinforcing the dignity attached to one particular form of state-sanctioned, normative relationship
may further the marginalization and criminalization of those people who continue to fall outside of those
norms, including many low-income trans people of color. At best, marriage is a diversion of resources desperately
needed elsewhere. While marriage may have some marginal benefits for those incarcerated
trans people who seek to marry legally and who do not encounter other impediments n11 to doing so, it will not address the
greatest threats to their survival, self-determination, life chances, and dignity. The focus of those
seeking gender and sexual justice should not be on expanding the definition of marriage, but on
ending the privileging of certain types of relationships over others and addressing issues
identified as priorities by communities experiencing intersections n12 of oppression. Marriage is a
privileged status, as the holding in the Ninth Circuit's Perry v. Brown decision reinforces. If marriage "is the principal manner in
which the State attaches respect and dignity to the highest form of a committed relationship and
to the individuals who have entered into it," n13 then it follows that other [*15] relationships and the
people in them are "lower" and thus less deserving of respect and dignity. If the importance of
marriage is emphasized and its scope expanded to encompass some gays and lesbians, then condemnation of other
arrangements for one's sexual, reproductive, affectionate, family, and economic relations might
be strengthened. The privilege our society grants to marital relationships does not and will not
encompass expanded kinship networks, the house and ball community, n14 poor Black single mothers, sex workers, and any number of others.
n15
Miscellaneous Cards
Internet surveillance effects all minorities – not just the homosexual
community
Gilreath, associate professor of women’s gender and sexuality
studies, 2014 (Shannon, associate professor of law as well, Wake
Forest University “THE INTERNET AND INEQUALITY: A COMMENT
ON THE NSA SPYING SCANDAL” August 15 2014,
https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/handle/10339/39364)
In this Essay, I have three principal aims. First, I
reconceptualize what is really at stake in the debate over the
collection and storage of the personal information of Internet users, particularly in the context
of the large-scale surveillance of Americans by the U.S. government, recently revealed by former
National Security Agency ("NSA") contractor Edward Snowden.' I am suggesting in this Essay that privacy is not an adequate
paradigm for understanding what is at stake in the question of government electronic surveillance. Instead, I believe what is really at
stake, if the NSA spying program goes unchecked, is nothing short of the American commitment
to equality itself.2 Second, I endeavor to frame the risk, thus identified, in terms of a historical and
continuing technologization of oppression in the name of national security. Finally, I outline some strategies
for intervention and resistance. While I use the particular dangers posed to Gays 3 (the people about whom and for whom I
always write) to prove my argument, the insights I provide here are relevant to all vulnerable
minorities, all of whom have much to lose as the State's oppressive capabilities increase
exponentially via the Internet.
---Economy Module
Increasing gay rights and liberty is critical to the economy
Badgett 14
M.V. Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst famously known for her work on the correlations between
LGBTs and economics, “The New Case for LGBT Rights,” November
20, 2014, New America, https://www.newamerica.org/newamerica/the-new-case-for-lgbt-rights/
What’s the secret to convincing the world to back a movement? Figure out how it could impact the global bottom line. Economic
reasoning
is part of what propelled the modern women’s empowerment movement. And now, it’s
informing an emerging argument for LGBT inclusion: Unequal treatment of LGBT people, as it
turns out, can cause economic harm, leading to lower economic output for individuals, businesses, and
even countries. And on the flip side, inclusive policies can boost a country’s GDP. This argument is taking shape as treatment
for LGBT people is deteriorating or stagnating in many places around the world. In Egypt last month, eight men were sentenced to three years in jail
after showing up in a video of what looked like a “gay marriage” to Egyptian officials. Over the last year or so, countries as diverse as Russia, Uganda,
Nigeria, and Brunei have implemented new laws that increase penalties for homosexuality or for supporting rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) people. Anti-LGBT arrests, discrimination, harassment, and violence are pervasive – cropping up in schools, workplaces, health
care facilities, and within families. More: Here is what's next for the LGBT movement. So how does this translate into economic loss? The
link between discrimination and the economy can be direct. Those eight men sitting in an
Egyptian jail, for example, will not be contributing to the economy for three years and instead
create an avoidable cost for the government. Their skills and knowledge might be less valuable
when they get out, and if future employers are likely to discriminate against people assumed to
be gay, their options might be limited to work in less productive jobs. In other cases, links are indirect, though
still strong: Injuries from physical violence or the mental health effects of stigma will mean poorer health for LGBT workers, in turn reducing their
productivity at work. The numbers back up these contentions. Even
though the LGBT community is a relatively small
percentage of any country’s population, the economic costs from unequal treatment can add up
quickly. More broadly, disadvantaged workers can be bad for business. Absenteeism, low productivity, inadequate training and high turnover make
for higher labor costs and lower profits. Multinational companies know they’ll have trouble convincing an openly gay executive to accept a transfer to a
country that is LGBT intolerant. Tour operators steer LGBT tourists away from hotels and attractions in unfriendly countries. The numbers back up
these contentions.
Even though the LGBT community is a relatively small percentage of any country’s
population, the economic costs from unequal treatment can add up quickly. A recent World Bank case study
of the cost of stigma and LGBT exclusion in India shows how the losses could be calculated. Similar studies of gender inequality
and other forms of discrimination have shown the billions of dollars lost by national economies
from discrimination. Unfortunately, data on LGBT people in India are not available to estimate the effects
as precisely in that study. But my own back-of-the-envelope calculation using what we do know
about the costs of discrimination and big health disparities for LGBT Indians gives us a good
idea of how large the effect could be. Even with conservative assumptions that make costs low,
the estimated losses to the Indian economy range from 0.1 percent to 1.4 percent of national
output, a meaningful loss that no country--rich or poor--would want to bear. The bottom line: India could be throwing
away more than $26 billion a year by stigmatizing LGBT people. Luckily, there’s a way to recoup those costs: A study that I co-authored, just released
by USAID and the Williams Institute at UCLA, finds that countries
that treat LGBT people equally also have better-
performing economies. In our study of 39 countries, we compared a measure of rights granted by each nation related to homosexuality—
decriminalization, nondiscrimination laws, and family rights—to GDP per capita and other measures of economic performance. The positive
link between rights and development is clear: countries that come closer to full equality for
LGBT people have higher levels of GDP per capita over the 22 years we studied. Even after we take into account other
differences across countries that matter for GDP growth, like capital stock and international trade, we still find a strong positive effect of gay rights.
Each additional right is associated with a $320 increase in per capita GDP, or about 3 percent of
the average output produced by an economy. Countries that treat LGBT people equally also have
better-performing economies. A better environment for LGBT individuals can be an attractive
bargaining chip for countries seeking multi-national investments or even more tourists. On a recent
trip to Peru, I talked with people in businesses, universities, and government ministries who expressed concern that because their country lags behind
many other South American countries on LGBT rights, they fear they could be less competitive globally. They
are right to be worried.
A conservative climate that keeps LGBT people in the closet and policymakers from recognizing
the human rights of LGBT people will hold their economy back from its full potential. Of course,
passing a nondiscrimination law may not lead to an immediate boost in economic output (although less discrimination should eventually lead to more
output). Another explanation for our findings is that countries may become more concerned about minority rights as the country gets richer and less
worried about economic subsistence. The 39 growing countries we studied averaged one right for LGBT people in 1990, but the average was more than
three rights by 2011. Still,
considering the economic perspective on human rights is valuable because it
challenges us to think about these issues in a different way – to think about how much we all
lose when any group is denied full and equal participation in society. Discrimination and
violence against LGBT people who could contribute more to a country’s economy has put many
of the world’s economies in a kind of permanent recession. The road to recovery is clear.
Causes World War 3
James, 14 - Professor of history at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School who
specializes in European economic history (Harold, “Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to
world war?” 7/3, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like1914-a-prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/)
Some of the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are now re-emerging. Then an
economically declining power, Britain, wanted to use finance as a weapon against its larger and faster
growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America is in turn obsessed by being overtaken by China – according to some calculations, set to become
the world’s largest economy in 2014.¶ In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear both as dangerous
weapons of mass destruction, but also as potential instruments for the application of national power.¶ In managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of
foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The United States provided that
support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the “Dollar Trap.”¶ Geo-politics is
intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are
playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up
the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to create a new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the
existing (American-based) agencies.¶ The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic tussle.
Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But financial pressure can be much more
powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the world economy.¶ The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea.
President Vladimir Putin’s calculation in response is that the European Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn into a
The threat of systemic
disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty, one that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis
of the summer of 1914. At that time, no one could really know whether clashes would escalate or not. That
boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more developed and complex financial markets of Europe and America.¶
feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the 1960s, when the strategic doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction left no doubt that
The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to achieve
advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is inevitably a gamble, and raises prospect that
others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same sort of operation. Just as in 1914,
there is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice, even though the game may be fatal.
any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate.¶
2AC Russia Modeling
2AC – Link
US leadership is key to international LGTB liberation from oppressive
political discrimination – current progress isn’t enough – the US must act –
now is key
Greenberg 14 [Rabbi Steven Greenberg is a senior teaching fellow at Clal-The
National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, co-director of Eshel, an
Orthodox LGBT community support and education organization and serves on
the faculty of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. “Why Obama
must act on LGBT rights overseas”, 10-27-14, http://www.sunsentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/opinion/fl-jjps-greenberg-1029-20141027story.html#page=1, msm]
When I was a young man, still in the closet, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the most prolific authorities on Jewish law of the 20th
century, described gay people as rebels against God. Grossly misinformed about the phenomenon, Rabbi Feinstein posited that
homosexuals were possessed of a demonic urge to destroy civilization. Ten years later, the characterization of homosexual desire in
Orthodox Judaism moved from a portrayal of vicious evil to a serious, but ordinary sin. Later, the language shifted from active
sinfulness to sickness, as putative reparative therapies claimed to offer cures to what was deemed a mental illness. Recently, a
majority of Orthodox rabbis have rejected these bogus therapeutic claims and some are beginning to describe homosexuality "as
simply a part of the human condition."¶ The arc described above is a piece of a larger American story, and it is still in motion. There
is much work to do in my own community to move more Orthodox leaders to this last and most realistic portrayal of sexual
orientation. Eshel, an organization I helped to found four years ago, is working to encourage Orthodox leaders to take responsibility
for the well-being of LGBT young people in their communities and schools, to offer them what every young person needs most, a
secure sense of self-worth and hope for a good future.¶ cComments¶ ADD A COMMENT ¶ 0¶ However, while we continue to press for
greater understanding and acceptance for LGBT people here in America, many of the LGBT people living across the
globe are untouched by the last fifty years of social progress. Same-sex loving people who live in traditional
communities in Africa, India and Asia are still commonly perceived by powerful religious and political leaders
as demonic, corrosive threats to their respective societies and face devastating, if not deadly, threats.
Tens of thousands of people are actively intimidated, humiliated, brutally assaulted and even killed by
family members, peers and, in many cases, by police and other government officials — simply
because of who they are or whom they love. In 77 countries, people can be arrested for having sex
with someone of the same gender. In five of those countries, a person can be put to death for being lesbian, gay, bisexual
or transgender.¶ Last February, Ugandan President Museveni signed into law the Anti-Homosexuality Act, which punishes same-sex
sexual behavior with life in prison and makes it illegal for organizations to provide services like health care to LGBT people or
promote their human rights. On June 30 this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a bill banning
the "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors," thus opening a new, dark chapter
in the history of gay rights in Russia.¶ All of this feels disturbingly familiar. In the summer of 1935 in
Germany the Third Reich's Ministry of Justice revised and strengthened Paragraph 175, a provision of the German criminal code
established in 1861 that punished homosexuality. Months later, on Sept. 15, 1935, new laws were instituted at a party rally in
Nuremberg. The Nazis revoked Reich citizenship for Jews and carried pernicious racial theories into law.
Just shy of 80 years ago, Nazis
began what would be their systematic persecution and selective extermination of
homosexuals along with their murderous war on the Jews by carrying into law portrayals of both Jews and homosexuals
as demonic threats to the German people.¶ The policies of Uganda and Russia and 75 other countries all over the world that
criminalize homosexuality are treading this path of demonization of difference and enshrining it into law. The Jewish community
bears a covenantal duty to God and to the memory of millions not to stand idly by the degradation of our fellows. As proud
Americans we are called to global leadership on the human rights issues of our day.¶ The urgency of this moment presses upon me,
not only as a Jewish American, but as a child of a Holocaust survivor. My mother and aunt were among the 1,300 hidden children
who were saved by ordinary French citizens and brave resistance workers — people who risked their lives daily for an Abrahamic
ethic of welcome and a biblical notion of human value and dignity.¶ I and all the children and grandchildren of those 1,300 saved
souls can no longer thank the many resistance workers in France who risked life and limb for our families, but we can support the
brave human rights workers today in Uganda and Russia and around the world, who are working to turn around pernicious laws and
to change the cultures where they live. We can champion the courageous justice workers, from Kampala to Cairo, and from
Mombasa to Moscow, who often risk their lives to fight the cultural and institutional forms of bigotry that continue to plague the
world today. Presently, there is no high level U.S. diplomat whose job is to coordinate global efforts to defend the
rights of LGBT people.¶ I feel very proud that a few months ago, my Senator, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, took on this
challenge. He introduced a new bill in the Senate that aims to promote LGBT rights around the world. Several weeks later it was
introduced in the House of Representatives. If it passes, the International Human Rights Defense Act will make preventing and
responding to discrimination and violence against the LGBT community a foreign policy priority, and will ensure that our
government devises a global strategy to achieve those goals. It will also create the permanent position of a "Special Envoy for the
Human Rights of LGBT People" in the State Department.¶ We all are aware of the challenges of the present Congress.
While the bill was introduced with support on both sides of the aisle in the House, it does not yet have bipartisan support in the
Senate, and so it faces a steep uphill battle on the Hill. I urge all Americans to press their members of Congress to support this bill
and I urge the Jewish community to join American Jewish World Service's We Believe campaign, which is fighting for this and other
legislation that promotes the rights of women, girls and LGBT people in the developing world.¶ In the meantime, President Obama
can put a vital aspect of this bill into action immediately by appointing a Special Envoy for LGBT rights in the State Department. The
Obama administration has a legacy of leadership on this issue — and now has an opportunity to
provide high-level diplomatic attention to a situation that unfortunately appears to be worsening in much of
the developing world.¶ I am calling on President Obama to insure that the U.S. leads global efforts to
promote the rights of sexual minorities and to end the deadly demonization of LGBT people in
much of the developing world. With the President's continued leadership on this issue, we can make
America a beacon of light and hope for LGBT people worldwide.
American commitment to LGBT rights spills over to Russia
Angelo and Gaylord 14 [Angelo is the executive director of Log Cabin
Republicans. Gaylord is advocacy counsel at Human Rights First and leads the
organization’s campaign to combat violence against LGBTI people globally.
“Protecting LGBT rights should be permanent part of U.S. foreign policy”, 7-1814, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/212587protecting-lgbt-rights-should-be-permanent-part-of-us, msm]
“It's normal that you were beaten because Russian people hate fags.”¶ “We should take you to the
streets and stone you to death — how many like you are there?”¶ “This thing is an abomination. …
We get information from sources interested in seeing the society cleansed.Ӧ These quotes from Russia, India, and Nigeria, not
delivered by homophobic thugs but by the actual police and government officials tasked with protecting
their citizens, are chilling reminders of the struggles facing LGBT people around the world. Every day, we
know that people are facing discrimination and violence based on their sexual orientation and/or
gender identity. We know that gay men are being lured into situations where they will be beaten and
humiliated on camera. We know that lesbians are being violated with corrective rape in order to “turn
them straight.” And we know that transgender people live under the most extreme risk of violence at
the hands of private citizens and even state authorities. ¶ The past two years have brought a sharp regression on the
rights of LGBT people in many parts of the world. Countries as important and populous as Russia, India, and Nigeria have passed new
laws that severely restrict the rights of their LGBT citizens, sometimes making them criminals by
definition. What’s worse is that these laws are spreading as nearby nations have introduced copycat laws, often as an attempt to impress their powerful
neighbor.¶ The
United States has a unique role to play in combatting these awful truths and doing
what it can to make life better for LGBT people worldwide. It is imperative that the U.S.
government stands united in the commitment to combat discrimination and violence directed
toward people simply because of who they are or who they love. ¶ Although we are living in an age, it seems, of
unprecedented partisanship, protecting the human rights of LGBT people is an issue that we all can agree
on. Yesterday, the International Human Rights Defense Act was introduced on a bipartisan basis, led by Congressman Tierney of Massachusetts and
Congressman Gibson of New York. This bipartisan introduction sends the message that the United States intends to
continue to be a beacon of hope that will work to defend the rights of the most vulnerable as a
crucial part of its foreign policy vision.¶ The bill, which was first introduced in the Senate last month by Sen. Ed Markey (DMass.), will ensure that the U.S. Department of State continues its efforts to combat abuses against LGBT people and
provides additional tools for that work. It will also create a special envoy in the State Department charged with reporting on and responding to
issues of violence and persecution affecting LGBT people. ¶ US human rights promotion influences Russia ¶ Cohen 12
[Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. – Visiting Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign and National Security Policy, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation. “Promoting Human Rights in Russia Through the Sergei Magnitsky Act”, 5-25-12,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/promoting-human-rights-in-russia-through-the-sergei-magnitsky-act, msm]¶ Protection
of basic human rights, including the right to own property, is an important issue for those who hold American values close to
heart. In
Russia, human and property rights violations are undermining the state and preventing
investment and business development.¶ The poor state of the rule of law and pervasive corruption—including
the failing court and law enforcement systems—are at the heart of persistent rights violations . They are challenging everyday
Russians as well as Western and domestic investors. Russian top leaders, including both Presidents Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, have bitterly
complained about the state of affairs but did little to improve things. ¶ Congress
should press for trade reforms that are in the best interests of
the United States while supporting the cause of human rights for all. The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act (S. 1039),
and its sister legislation introduced in the House of Representatives, is drafted in response to the death of Sergei Magnitsky in detention following his
whistle-blowing on massive fraud allegedly committed by Russian officials. It provides a practical and balanced way forward and accommodates
Russian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) while signaling long-term American commitment to the rule of law.¶ Human Rights and
the Sergei Magnitsky Case¶ Sergei Magnitsky was a 37-year-old attorney who uncovered a giant corruption scheme that involved embezzlements of
$230 million from the Russian Treasury by law enforcement and tax officials. After making accusations, he was arrested on fabricated tax evasion and
tax fraud charges.¶ Magnitsky died in isolation at a Russian prison where he was denied medical care and beaten mercilessly by guards; an investigation
by the Russian Presidential Council on Human Rights has confirmed as much. This has not resulted in the punishment of those involved. Those that
were in power remain in power, and some have even been decorated or promoted. Earlier this month, Russian state prosecutors dropped charges
against the chief doctor at the prison where Magnitsky died after the statute of limitations expired. The physician had been accused of negligence
resulting in Magnitsky’s death.[1] Other officials implicated in the affair have been promoted instead of being punished.¶ Another case the legislation
could be applied to is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky, chairman and CEO of the Yukos oil company, was once Russia’s wealthiest man. In
2003, he was arrested on charges of tax fraud, and in 2005 he was sentenced to nine years in prison. At a second show trial in December 2010, he was
sentenced to 14 years in prison. In 2006, Yukos was auctioned off at a rock-bottom price to Rosneft, Russia’s state-run oil company. Yukos
shareholders, including many American small investors and mutual funds, were effectively expropriated by the Russian government without
compensation.¶ In reality, Khodorkovsky ran afoul of the Putin administration due to his calls to curb corruption and because some of Putin’s
associates coveted parts of Yukos. The show trial was used to intimidate and control other oligarchs that might have disobeyed the Kremlin. Amnesty
International recognized Khodorkovsky as a political prisoner. Russia remains the only G-8 country with political prisoners.¶ U.S. Response to the
Outrage¶ The Obama Administration fears that the increased pressure on Russia to get its act together will fracture its hallowed “reset” policy. This is
why the Administration pressured Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D–MA) to postpone the vote on the Magnitsky Act.¶
However, it is no longer time to play softball in the human rights arena. The Magnitsky bill has prominent
supporters: David J. Kramer, the president of Freedom House and former assistant secretary of state for human rights in the George W. Bush
Administration, has stated that the Magnitsky bill has “done more for the cause of human rights [in Russia] than anything done” by the two previous
Administrations.[2]¶ Yet in late July 2011, the State Department placed some 64 Russian officials involved in Magnitsky’s murder on a visa blacklist.
This brought about some protests on the Russian side, but it was most likely a preemptive attempt by this Administration to keep the Magnitsky Act
from passing.¶ The bill is aimed at human rights abusers not only in the Magnitsky case, and not only in Russia, but around the globe. Individuals guilty
of massive human rights violations would be refused visas, and their assets within the preview of the U.S. government would be frozen. Russia has
threatened to retaliate “asymmetrically” if the legislation is passed. It has already banned U.S. officials prosecuting Viktor Bout, an arms trader known
as the “Lord of War,” from entering Russia.[3]¶ What the
U.S. Should Do¶ Develop new measures to protect human
rights in Russia and elsewhere. Targeted legislation like the Magnitsky Act would be a more effective way to
encourage Russia to respect the rights of its citizens. As seven leaders of Russia’s pro-democracy
movement observed: “We, leading figures of the Russia political opposition, strongly stand behind efforts to remove Russia from the
provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. Jackson-Vanik is not helpful in any way—neither for promotion of human rights and democracy in
Russia, nor for the economic interests of its people.… [M]uch more effective are targeted sanctions against specific officials involved in human rights
abuse, like those named in the Senator Benjamin Cardin’s list in the Sergey Magnitsky case.”[4] By doing so, the U.S. would comply with its WTO
obligation to offer permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to America’s trading partners, thereby allowing U.S. firms the best chance to compete for
business in Russia. Extending PNTR to Russia would also promote transparency, property rights, and the rule of law. ¶ Cooperate with Western banking
regulators, intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies to track Russian state and oligarch money laundering activities, corruption, and unfair
competition practices. The Obama Administration should prioritize gathering and acting on intelligence on questionable Russian activities. The U.S.
should lead an international effort among law enforcement agencies to prevent and stop complex transnational crimes[5] and those that involve current
or former Russian government officials, oligarchs with close ties to Russia’s political leaders, intelligence operatives, and persons with ties to organized
crime.¶ Target blatant and systematic abusers of human rights that prefer to spend their time or keep their financial resources in the West. The U.S.
should also reach out to and coordinate with allies in Europe and elsewhere that are promoting pieces of legislation similar to the Magnitsky Act.
International cooperation will go a long way in deterring gross violations of individual rights, including property rights. This is the way for the U.S. and
its allies to project their values in the 21st century.¶ A Message of Support¶ America
should not ignore the subject of the rule
of law—including individual rights, human rights, corruption, and organized crime—in its relationship with
Russia. Congress should take action against those tyrants that systematically violate the natural rights of people not just in Russia
but across the globe. The Sergei Magnitsky Act not only empowers Congress to take action against such individuals but sends a message that the
U.S. will support those who value the rule of law and freedom worldwide.¶ By taking action on
human rights front and center, and then addressing the PNTR issue before Russia officially joins the WTO, Congress and
President Obama can both protect U.S. interests in the global marketplace and maintain America’s stature as a nation
that believes in and actively defends human rights.
US LGBT leadership spills over to Russia
BLUEPRINT FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS 15 [BLUEPRINT
FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS, January 2015, “How to Stop Russia
from Exporting Homophobia”,
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/HRF-LGBT-Blueprint.pdf,
msm]
Obama publicly expressed concerns about the situation of
Russia's LGBT community, stating: “Nobody's more offended than me by some of the anti-gay
and lesbian legislation we've been seeing in Russia.” This personal leadership by the president helped to focus
global attention on Russia's restrictive legislation. It followed the publication on December 6, 2011 of a
Presidential Memorandum directing all federal agencies to take steps to protect the human rights of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender persons abroad. The Memorandum was an historic step forward for LGBT people worldwide as well as for U.S.
global leadership on human rights. It reflects a “whole of government” approach to advancing the
rights of LGBT people, and calls for reporting by federal agencies on implementation of the Memorandum. The mandates of the Memorandum
provide the policy framework for U.S. government efforts to halt the spread of restrictive propaganda and
similar laws inspired by Russia, in particular through its directives to combat criminalization of LGBT
conduct abroad and to meaningfully respond to human rights abuse of LGBT persons abroad.¶ The first section of the December 2011 Presidential Memorandum
calls for “Combating Criminalization of LGBT Status or Conduct abroad.” This should be understood to
include work against propaganda laws as these laws have the effect of criminalizing any
expression of personal identity, which is indistinguishable from criminalizing LGBT status.
Recommendations¶ The President should continue to seek out opportunities to publicly express concerns
about the protection of the human rights of members of Russia's LGBT community as well as the spread of
In the lead-up to the Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia, President
Russian-inspired oppression to neighboring countries.¶ The President should task agencies implementing the 2011 Memorandum to report specifically on the steps each agency
is taking to confront the situation in Russia and stop the spread of oppression to surrounding countries.
US international commitment is key
AP 14 [Associated Press, “Obama uses embassies to push for LGBT rights
abroad”, 6-28-14, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/28/obama-gayrights-abroad-embassies-activism, msm]
President Barack Obama's administration has taken the US gay rights revolution global, using American embassies across the world
as outposts in a struggle that still hasn't been won at home.¶ Sometimes US advice and encouragement is condemned as
unacceptable meddling. And sometimes it can seem to backfire, increasing the pressure on those it is meant to help.¶ With gay
pride parades taking place in many cities across the world this weekend, the US role will be more
visible than ever. Diplomats will take part in parades and some embassies will fly the rainbow flag along with the Stars and
Stripes.¶ The US sent five openly gay ambassadors abroad last year, with a sixth nominee, to Vietnam, now awaiting Senate
confirmation. American diplomats are working to support gay rights in countries such as Poland, where
prejudice remains deep, and to oppose violence and other abuse in countries like Nigeria and Russia, where gays face lifethreatening risks.¶ "It is incredible. I am amazed by what the US is doing to help us," said Mariusz Kurc, the editor of a Polish gay
advocacy magazine, Replika, which has received some US funding and other help. "We are used to struggling and not finding any
support."¶ Former President George W Bush supported Aids prevention efforts globally, but it was the Obama administration that
launched the push to make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights an international issue.
The watershed moment came in December 2011, when then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton went to the United Nations in Geneva
and proclaimed LGBT rights "one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time".¶ Since then, embassies have been opening
their doors to gay rights activists, hosting events and supporting local advocacy work. The State Department has since spent $12m
on the efforts in over 50 countries through the Global Equality Fund, an initiative launched to fund the new work. ¶ Just weeks after
the supreme court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act last June, consular posts also began issuing immigrant visas to
the same-sex spouses of gay Americans.¶ boise idaho same-sex marriage gay marriage¶ Same-sex marriage supporters gather on the
steps of the Idaho statehouse in Boise. Photograph: Kyle Green/AP¶ One beneficiary was Jake Lees, a 27-year-old Englishman who
had been forced to spend long periods apart from his American partner, Austin Armacost, since they met six years ago. In May Lees
was issued a fiance visa at the US embassy in London. The couple married two weeks ago and are now starting a new life together in
Franklin, Indiana, as they wait for Lees' green card.¶ "I felt like the officers at the embassy treated us the way they would treat a
heterosexual couple," said Armacost, a 26-year-old fitness and nutrition instructor. "It's a mind-boggling change after gay couples
were treated like legal strangers for the first three centuries of our country's history."¶ Some conservative American groups are
outraged by the policy. Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, calls it "a slap in the face to the majority of
Americans", given that American voters have rejected same-sex marriage in a number of state referendums.¶ "This is taking a flawed
view of what it means to be a human being male and female and trying to impose that on countries throughout the world," Brown
said. "The administration would like people to believe that this is simply 'live and let live.' No, this is coercion in its worst possible
form."¶ The American efforts are tailored to local conditions, said Scott Busby, the deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the State Department. Ambassadors can decide individually whether to hoist the rainbow
flag, as embassies in Tel Aviv, London and Prague have done, or show support in other ways.¶ While some gay rights activists say
support from the US and other western countries adds moral legitimacy to their cause, it can also cause a
backlash.¶ Rauda Morcos, a prominent Palestinian lesbian activist, said local communities, particularly in the Middle East, have to
find their own ways of asserting themselves. She criticized the US and western efforts in general to help gay communities elsewhere
as patronizing.
Signals of US support for LGBT equality influence Russia
Handerhan 14 [Caitlin Handerhan '15 is a fellow at the Cornell Institute for
Public Affairs. While pursuing her master's degree at Cornell, Caitlin is
concentrating her studies on human rights and social justice. A 2013 graduate of
Mercyhurst University, she holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science. “No
Homo Promo”: American Hypocrisy and LGBT Rights in Russia”, 2-26-14,
http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/no-homo-promo-american-hypocrisy-andlgbt-rights-in-russia/, msm]
As the images of medal winning performances in Sochi fade in to memories, the Russian Olympic team continues to celebrate their
esteemed position as the winner of the most gold medals and tops the total medal count. However, this high level of athleticism
during the 2014 Olympics does little to improve Russia’s image which has been marred by political contention.¶ The
international condemnation in question arose from numerous state and non-state actors in reaction to Russia’s
2013 policy known colloquially as the Russian anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) law; the new law
prohibits
of information to minors about non-traditional sexual relationships, publically
speaking in favor of non-traditional relationships, and carrying out any public support or rallies
for LBGT rights. This law, passed unanimously by the Russian Duma with the expressed support of President Vladimir Putin,
extends across the Russian state, and is in line with policies already put into effect by many regional governments. ¶ Criticism of
the oppressive law has been amplified within the international community by Russia’s hosting of the 2014
Olympic Winter Games, yet few realize that the polices they now condemn in Russia are almost identical
to those in effect in Utah during the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City.¶ At the time of the Salt Lake City Games, the state of Utah
the dissemination
was one of eight states to have anti-LGBT propaganda laws on the books similar to the Russian laws currently causing controversy.
What is more, in 1993 the Russian Federation decriminalized LGBT relationships while the United States Supreme Court did not
officially rule on this until 2003, when it struck down a Texas law that made LGBT relationships illegal in the court case Lawrence v.
Texas. When the United States hosted the Olympics in 2002, there were more draconian laws on the books in parts of the country
than in Russia today.¶ Eight states (Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina) have laws
currently on the books, often referred to as ‘No Homo Promo’ laws. Similar to the Russian law, these statutes were intended to
protect minors from neutral information and any positive portrayal of LGBT lives.¶ However, there are marked differences between
the Russian and American laws. Most notably, the Russian laws were passed by the highest legislative assembly in Russia, the Duma,
whereas the laws in the United States were passed on a state level. This is a salient difference because the laws are not broadly
applicable in the United States, and individual liberty has the opportunity to be protected by the federal government. Additionally,
the laws in Russia are applied to an individual’s right to express support for the LBGT community, while the US laws are targeted at
educational policy.¶ (AP Photo/Morry Gash)¶ (AP Photo/Morry Gash)¶ Also of note is the enforcement of the laws in the United
States with little recourse, violent or otherwise, for those considered to be ‘in violation’ of the law. This is juxtaposed with many
accounts of arrests and suppression in Russia, most notably the public whipping of peaceful protestors from the band Pussy Riot in
Sochi during the second week of the Games.¶ While the United States condemnation of Russia’s LBGT policies could
be considered hypocritical, it marks a
significant change in American attitudes towards progressive
policies. While LGBT rights in Russia are trending downward, the opposite can be said of LGBT rights in the US. With swelling
grassroots support for marriage equality being validated in the appellate court systems, it seems that the United States is
moving toward an unprecedented level of support of marital rights for its LGBT citizens. Sadly, the
same cannot be said for Russia¶ Now that the games in Sochi are coming to a close, it is important to still stand
with Russia’s LBGT community. While the the pursuit of Olympic glory ends, the fight for LBGT equality in
Russia is just beginning.
The US can lead on LGBT rights but domestic anti-gay policies undermine
foreign credibility
Encarnación 14 [Omar G. Encarnación is Professor and Program Chair of
Political Studies at Bard College and author of Spanish Politics: Democracy After
Dictatorship and The Myth of Civil Society: Social Capital and Democratic
Consolidation in Spain and Brazil. “Gay Rights: Why Democracy Matters”,
Journal of Democracy July 2014, Volume 25, Number 3,
http://www.journalofdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Encarnacion-25-3.pdf,
msm]
The West’s newfound stress on gay rights faces an uphill battle.¶ Given
the West’s own checkered history with
homosexuality, many¶ countries targeted by the West for their anti-gay policies have pointedly¶
questioned whether Western leaders have the moral authority to lead¶ the world on the issue of
gay rights, as Obama discovered during his¶ 2013 visit to Africa. Although the president was greeted like a rock star¶ everywhere
he went, he was pointedly rebuked whenever he raised the¶ issue of gay rights. A memorable clash with Senegal’s President Macky¶
Sall took place at a joint press conference. After Obama urged the country¶ to decriminalize homosexuality,
he was told that Senegal was in no¶ hurry to do so. “On homosexuality, Mr. President, you did make a long¶
development on this issue,” Sall noted. The retort alluded to the fact¶ that Obama did not officially embrace same-sex
marriage until the 2012¶ presidential campaign.¶ It is also the case that within the West the issue of homosexuality¶
remains far from being settled, a fact demonstrated by the rise of a robust¶ international anti–
gay-rights movement. Having experienced significant¶ setbacks at home, U.S. organizations opposed to gay rights have¶
been fanning the flames of homophobia abroad, and their handiwork is¶ evident in the string of anti-gay legislation currently making
its way¶ through several African states. According to Mother Jones, “perhaps¶ the biggest actors in Uganda’s gay rights drama are
American evangelicals¶ who travel there every year by the thousands to spread their Gospel¶ from the far pastures of Charismatic
Christianity.” Principal among¶ these groups is the International House of Prayer, a Kansas City–based¶ mega church that since
1999 has “poured millions of dollars into Uganda—much¶ of it filtered into local churches and missions with explicitly¶ anti-gay
agendas.
The US needs to lead the way on LGBT human rights promotion but a clear
domestic commitment is key to international credibility
Morgan 14 [Joe Morgan is a writer and journalist who has been with Gay Star
News for the past three years. “Hillary Clinton: ‘US must lead the way on gay
rights’”, 6-12-14, http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/hillary-clinton-us-mustlead-way-gay-rights120614, msm]
the United States must lead the way on gay rights worldwide.¶ Hotly tipped to
We have a long way to go,’ I don’t want to mislead anybody,’ Clinton
said at the Chicago Harris Theater, when asked about the march for equality.¶ ‘This is going to be an ongoing struggle and the
United States must be on the front lines.’¶ Traveling the world, Clinton said she had noticed an ‘increasing backlash’ against the LGBTI
Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said
run for president, the former First Lady is promoting her new memoir Hard Choices.¶ ‘
community.¶ As Chicago Sun-Times reports, it ‘led to her to laying out a platform for gay rights before world leaders in Geneva.’¶ ‘I began to vigorously protest with
Some countries just need to be brought along. Others are just
cynical.¶ ‘Like what Putin’s doing in Russia with all these laws against the LGBT community.
That is just a cynical political ploy.¶ ‘I’ve gotten into shouting matches with top Russian officials. But I realized unless there was an
argument made, a platform created, we wouldn’t have as strong of a case.’¶ Back in 2011, Clinton famously announced
‘gay rights are human rights’.¶
governments in many parts of the world,’ she added.¶ ‘
Increasing international pressures give the US the clout to cause LGBT
activism to spillover
Muse-Fisher 14 [Andrew, Staff Writer; 05/09/13;
http://prospectjournal.org/2014/05/09/the-struggle-for-rights-within-ugandas-lgbt-community-anamerican-debate-relocated/; THE STRUGGLE FOR RIGHTS WITHIN UGANDA’S LGBT
COMMUNITY: AN AMERICAN DEBATE RELOCATED; 06/25/15; jac]
In late 2009, the Ugandan parliament introduced a bill that would allow life imprisonment of homosexuals, and in some instances,
the death penalty. Though the bill expired after having been tabled for two years, the Ugandan parliament passed a similar bill in
late 2013. [1] President Yoweri Museveni, after some hesitation, signed the bill into law in early 2014. [2] Though it may appear as if
the president and parliament were just acting to meet the demands of the Ugandan majority, there is much more going on in the
background. In the battle over LGBT rights in Uganda, those in favor of the bill have received support from American evangelical
missionaries. On the other side of the debate, those against the bill have heard support from international groups and individuals,
including U.S. President Barack Obama. Indeed, it appears that this is not simply Uganda’s fight, but also represents an
international “spillover” effect from the ongoing debate over LGBT rights in the United States.¶ Prior to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
introduced in 2009, homosexuality was already illegal in Uganda. The point of the bill was to go one step further and make
“aggravated homosexuality” punishable by death. [3] “Aggravated homosexuality” is defined as repeated homosexual behavior
and/or homosexual behavior by people who are HIV positive. [4] To many, this came as an extreme addition to an already draconian
set of laws. The law outlawing homosexuality had been in place for nearly a century, so the sudden necessity of a new law suggests it
is politically motivated; the old law is still an effective discriminatory instrument. A window into those considerations might be
found in the fact that Minister of Parliament David Bahati, before introducing the bill, attended a meeting with evangelicals from the
United States who promote converting homosexuals to heterosexuality through prayer. [5] The timing was symbolic in that Bahati,
when proposing the bill, chose to highlight a link between American evangelical influence and the bill, albeit indirectly.¶ American
voices also spoke against the legislation. Both Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton were quick
to warn the Ugandan parliament against passing the bill. Furthermore, Congress reacted by
passing a resolution to advise Uganda and other countries against taking such extreme action
against the homosexual community. [6] If stern words from the American government were not enough to cause
hesitation within the Ugandan leadership, others have raised the issue that the legislation might conflict
with the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which allows participating countries to receive
preferential access to U.S. markets. [7] It then became a question of whether or not Uganda wanted to risk its
preferential economic status in order to further suppress the rights of homosexuals. Ultimately, those speaking against the
legislation succeeded in suppressing the bill long enough so that it expired. This, however, did not prevent increased homophobia in
the country, nor did it prevent the resurgence of the bill in 2013.¶ The Anti-Homosexuality Bill introduced in 2013 is very similar to
the 2009 bill, though the punishment of execution was taken out, possibly in response to the outrage of international organizations.
Despite the changes, the bill met similar opposition. [8] Secretary of State John Kerry compared the law to
apartheid, while the World Bank withheld a $90 million loan that would have gone towards
improving health in Uganda. [9] With these and other sanctions facing the nation, it would seem that the Ugandan
parliament would have acted quickly to vote the bill down. This assumption seemed especially valid in light of a change of heart on
the part of some of the American evangelicals. When the second version of the bill surfaced and gained traction, evangelical groups
in the U.S. claimed they neither played a role in influencing the passing of the bill nor support its harsh punishments. [10] Not
everyone abandoned their support for the old position: pastor Scott Lively for instance, who gained support for the bill in 2009
continued to openly support the bill. [11] At the same time, Bryan Fischer from the American Family Association mistakenly
celebrated the passing of the bill in 2012 as a chance for the U.S. to do the same. [12] That is, Fischer saw Uganda’s progress against
the LGBT community as an example of what the U.S. could achieve. With such contradicting opinions from evangelical groups, and
international groups taking a strict stance against the bill, it is surprising that the bill passed in December of 2013. In the end, it was
left to President Museveni to decide the fate of the bill. At first, he was hesitant because a quorum was not present when the vote on
the bill occurred; eventually he agreed to sign the bill into law if he could be offered proof that homosexuality was not genetic. [13]
After consulting a committee of scientists, Museveni signed the bill. He sent a letter to President Obama stating, “Their unanimous
conclusion was that homosexuality, contrary to my earlier thinking, was behavioral and not genetic. It was learnt and could be
unlearnt.” [14] The Anti-Homosexuality bill became law, yet neither parliament nor the Ugandan people offered any major
opposition. Instead, the law seemed to reflect the will of the country’s Christian majority.¶ Uganda’s population is 85% Christian,
which gives power to religious officials in shaping public opinion, especially on an issue concerning sexuality. [15] It is not surprising
that religious beliefs openly overlap with politics and that a majority then is in favor of limiting the rights of homosexuals. It is quite
possible the evangelicals used this to their advantage in supporting the bill. Evangelicals spread their message largely through
broadcasting networks that air mostly religious programming. This programming is a mixture of moderate and more conservative
belief structures that, to the audience, are nearly indistinguishable. Evangelicals use these and other networks to gain funds, which
then go into social and religious programs as well as toward reinforcing the viewpoints of these groups. [16] This task is made easy
by the fact that the majority is already Christian. Why would parliament or the president refuse passage of the bill when the
Christian majority wants it? Lydia Boyd makes the argument that the people are not only in favor of the bill because of religious
beliefs. Boyd states that it is also because of a Ugandan mentality that promotes respectability and limits freedom based on the idea
that too much independence causes problems within society. [17] Though it is not clear whether it is religious beliefs or Ugandan
mentality that is more prominent in shaping opinion against homosexuals, the two have enough overlap to help explain this
common opinion. This opinion, regardless of the law, is a major factor in reducing the social acceptance of the homosexual
community. When the law passed, a Ugandan tabloid responded by listing the names of 200 people it believed were homosexual.
This caused Ugandans to act out violently against those listed, as well as other members of the Ugandan LGBT community. [18]
Even when the 2009 version was tabled, some Ugandans denounced the homosexual community, declaring them sub-human,
threats to children, and “un-African.” [19] These declarations testify to the fear and hate Ugandans directed towards homosexuals,
the sentiment providing a reason for the bill itself, and its passage providing reassurance for the outraged. In passing the bill into
law, parliament was only working to mitigate the fears of the majority of the people.¶ With the wants of the Ugandan people met, the
question remains of the role of the United States in the debate over homosexuals in Uganda. Evangelical missionaries used religious
and social values of the Ugandan people to promote and influence the passing of the bill, while the U.S. government appealed to
Uganda’s existing trade agreements and need for aid. The fact that either of these groups played such a large role in Uganda’s debate
is reminiscent of the debate over gay marriage in the U.S. The opposing sides are the same, but there are two main differences: the
setting and the stakes. In the U.S., homosexuals were and are fighting for marriage equality. In Uganda, homosexuals were fighting
to avoid life in prison. The outcomes, however, differ greatly. Before Uganda passed the Anti-Homosexuality bill, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down DOMA, moving in the exact opposite direction. Because of this, the
U.S. has established a stronger platform to make similar advances on an international scale.¶ It is
not unheard of that the United States has used the conflicts of other nations to promote its values, but it is still uncommon
for the U.S. to take such a solid stance when LGBT rights are concerned. It was only relatively
recently that Obama came out in favor of gay marriage and what’s more, Americans, regardless of
political party, are increasingly likely to support marriage equality. The country is making steady
progress to the extent that its message of equality is spilling beyond its borders. If the U.S.
government keeps up its support for the LGBT community, its efforts, though against the will of
the Ugandan people, may yet stand as a precedent to continue speaking out against countries
that discriminate against and diminish the rights of LGBT communities.
Western pressure is crucial to LGBT rights in Russia
Badash 13 [David, “Russian LGBT Journalist: Pressure From West Is Working
— ‘They’ve Really Squirmed’”, 8-23-13,
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/russian-lgbt-journalist-pressurefrom-west-is-working-theyve-really-squirmedvideo/politics/2013/08/23/73743, msm]
A Russian LGBT journalist last night said the pressure from the West on Russia is working. “They’ve really
squirmed,” Masha Gessen told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes last night. Hayes has been devoting a good deal of his coverage to President Vladimir Putin’s war on gays, and the
boycotts in the West.¶ Gessen, who two decades ago was a journalist in the U.S., says she is moving to New York because Russia is working on legislation that would allow the
As long as the pressure is on, it’s not going to make them reconsider
it will possibly make them dial back the campaign of hate, and it can prevent the
passage of further laws, including the law on removing children from same-sex families.Ӧ Gessen
notes that Putin and his supporters have been able to target and marginalize LGBT people in Russia
because “it felt like no one was watching.”
government to remove children from the homes of LGBT or same-sex parents.¶ “
those [existing] laws. But
2AC – I/L
Anti-LGBT rights laws in Russia increase the rate of HIV and AIDS spread
The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting 14 [PCCR, “Russia: Anti-Gay
Policies and a Surge in HIV”, 11-17-14, http://pulitzercenter.org/project/eurasiarussia-LGBT-outreach-prevention-HIV/AIDS-epidemic, msm]
grassroots activists began training each other to prevent a worsening AIDS epidemic in
Russia. NGOs built partnerships as a new wave of advocates worked tirelessly to educate the population to prevent HIV. Most activism was
generated within the nascent LGBT community, which focused heavily on outreach and prevention.¶
Today the activists have gone underground, new federal anti-gay “propaganda” laws promote
homophobia, and the government crackdown on the LGBT community is fueling a worsening
AIDS epidemic. According to the doctor in charge of Russia’s Federal AIDs Center, Vadim Pokhrovsky, “Our
region is the only part of the world where the number of new cases keeps increasing and the
treatment does not reduce mortality.” Information campaigns and training programs have
stopped and the rate of infection increased last year by 10 percent. The number of Russians who
died from AIDS in 2013 increased 15 percent.¶ In November 2013 two masked men with bats and guns entered the LaSky community
A decade ago,
center in St. Petersburg. The center was an oasis to provide HIV prevention services to the LGBT community. Two were injured, and one activist was shot in the eye, losing his
sight. University professors active in the LGBT community have been told to stop all education or outreach concerning sexuality and health. Many have lost their jobs. Politicians
The suppression of outreach and education means that Russians are
no longer talking about HIV and AIDS. Most people at risk are not tested, are increasingly marginalized, and don't even know
how HIV is spread.
once active on these issues have been ostracized.¶
2AC – HIV
ussia Military
HIV undermines Russian readiness
Holachek 6 [Colonel Jeffrey Holachek, “Russia’s Shrinking Population
and the Russian Military’s HIV/AIDS Problem”, THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF
THE UNITED STATES”, msm]
the cornerstone of the Russian¶ military’s current reform strategy,
the use of more contract and less conscript soldiers, only¶ superficially addresses the issue of Russia’s falling population. In 15
short years, the number of 18-¶ year old males in Russia will shrink by 50 percent. Both the size
and fundamental approach Russia¶ uses to man its military will soon be forced to change. In fact, a day is
soon coming when the Russian military will no longer be able to count on a steady ¶ supply of young
Russian males to fill the ranks of its army, something that has been a hallmark of¶ Russian
military strategy for hundreds of years. This is no small change. It will require a¶ fundamental rethinking of how Russia approaches
military solutions to its national security¶ requirements. A large, easily replaceable but less trained force will have to give way to a smaller,¶ better trained, and more professional one. Russia’s
military education system will have to address¶ the problem of developing a cadre of professional
enlisted soldiers, something it has never done.¶ Instead of laboring to maintain today’s inefficient and socially unpopular million-man-plus sized¶ force of
mostly conscripts, Russia needs to cut the size of its military and professionalize now. Soon¶ it will not have a choice.¶ Maintaining a
healthy force is an implied task of any military commander. Yet the Russian military¶ does not seem to be taking adequate measures
to keep its soldiers healthy. To some degree, this¶ may be a result of Russia’s traditional approach towards
the expendability of its conscripted¶ manpower. This might help to explain why conscripts are not tested for HIV or
hepatitis during their¶ service and, if found somehow to be HIV positive, they are immediately released from the military ¶ without treatment. This shortsighted approach is not the way to stop HIV/AIDS, an
epidemic that, if¶ left to spread, could threaten Russia’s economic and national security. The Russian military’s current¶ strategy is antithetical to the manpower
Although it has been tinkering with reform for the past four years,
realities it faces.¶ Primarily because of statistically unsound HIV surveillance, the Russian military’s HIV/AIDS problem ¶ is difficult to accurately define. If the UNAIDS mean estimate of a 1.1 percent prevalence
there are thousands of Russian soldiers on
active duty who are currently HIV-positive, the majority¶ of whom do not know that they are
infected with the disease. Given the lack of ART and the¶ likelihood they would face immediate release from active duty, there is no motivation for
these¶ soldiers to seek voluntary testing. Hence, the disease spreads, abetted by the lack of an
adequate¶ HIV/AIDS prevention strategy.¶ Upon returning from a visit to the United Nations in September 2005, President Putin convened a¶ special Saturday
rate is¶ accurate, given that the majority of HIV-positive Russians are under 30 years of age, it is likely that¶
session of his top advisors to discuss how to stop Russia’s declining health situation.¶ Central to the discussion was Russia's HIV/AIDS epidemic. Soon thereafter, President Putin publicly ¶ announced a severalfold increase in HIV-related funding.
HIV wrecks the Russian military – its an existential impact
The International Conflict Research Group 2 [“HIV/AIDS AS A THREAT
TO GLOBAL SECURITY”, November 2002,
http://www.yale.edu/icrg/ICRG_2002_POSTCONF_PROCEEDINGS_WO_SLEWIS.pdf, msm]
the most pessimistic prospect of these three countries is actually in Russia. Russia still controls¶ significant
nuclear, chemical and biological stockpiles, with economic and governance pressures that would
be¶ daunting without this new menace. The vulnerabilities it already possesses are exacerbated
by an HIV/AIDS¶ prevalence rate, which has quintupled since 1997. The average life expectancy of
Russian males has fallen to¶ 62 years. The healthcare infrastructure is crumbling and starving for funds.
Russia and Ukraine have the¶ fastest growing HIV rates in the world.¶ Up to one third of Russian
military recruits are already deemed unfit owing the effects of prior drug use –¶ chronic hepatitis or HIV. And as reported by the NIC study,
“amongst enlisted men, ground troops have the ¶ 10¶ largest number of infections.” Think about
what that means for the numbers of troops available to patrol¶ Russia’s borders and to protect
WMD.
Perhaps
HIV and AIDS will WRECK Russia’s military and significantly undermine its
ability to project power in its Sphere of Influence
Ambrosio 13 [Thomas Ambrosio, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal
Justice and Political Science, North Dakota State University, “The Geopolitics of
Demographic Decay: HIV/AIDS and Russia's Great-Power Status”,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2747/1060-586X.22.1.1, msm]
The impact of HIV/AIDS on the Russian economy will have serious¶ reverberations in the
Russian military. The ongoing plight of the Russian¶ military with regard to equipment,
technology, and personnel is well¶ known (Zoltan, 2005). The need to deal with its growing healthcare crisis¶ will most likely put
increasing stress on the budget of the Russian government.¶ This in turn will hamper Russia’s ability to
purchase new equipment¶ or upgrade its existing equipment to compete militarily on the world
stage.¶ Moreover, Russia’s ability to maintain or increase its influence throughout¶ the globe—for example, through financial
aid and trade—will likewise be¶ hampered. While its military strength compares favorably to those states¶ in its de facto sphere of influence, Russian foreign policy
makers will¶ increasingly find their policy goals frustrated by Russia’s aging and underequipped¶
military.¶ HIV/AIDS will have a direct impact on Russia’s military effectiveness¶ in the coming
decades. Soldiers in general are especially at risk of HIV/¶ AIDS infection because of a number of
higher-risk factors, such as the¶ average age of soldiers (adults in their late teens to mid-twenties are the¶ most sexually active, and in Russia, this is
the generational cohort with the¶ highest rates of HIV/AIDS); loneliness as a result of being away from home¶ for the first time,
mixed with reckless independence caused by the absence¶ of parental supervision; a reliance on
and availability of prostitutes to fulfill¶ sexual needs and to relieve stress; and an “ethos of risk
taking” prevalent¶ among military personnel, which makes them more likely to engage in¶ risky
behavior (Elbe, 2002). This is particularly true for the Russian armed¶ forces.¶ According to a spokesperson for the military’s
Prosecutor’s Office,¶ “the armed forces mirror the state of contemporary Russian society” ¶ (“Drug Addiction, Alcoholism Soar in
Ranks of Armed Forces,” BBC¶ Summary of World Broadcasts, May 25, 1999). Crime and drug use (especially¶ IV drug use) have hit crisis levels in the
Russian military and are spreading¶ at “a truly unprecedented rate” with “the peak [being] still in
[the] future”¶ Downloaded by [] at 12:53 25 June 2015 ¶ HIV/AIDS AND RUSSIA 17¶ (Borisov, 1999). A special hearing of the Russian Duma found that the¶ number of drug users drafted into the
Russian military triples or quadruples¶ with every conscription cohort (Prooskov, 2002). Eduard Vorobiyev,¶ deputy chairman of the Duma’s Defense Committee (which organized the¶ special hearing), said that
“the spread of drug addiction now poses a threat¶ not only to public health and the economy, but to the nation’s security and ¶ its capacity to defend itself” (Suleimanov, 2002). The seriousness of the¶ problem is
not surprising: morale among military personnel continues to¶ decline as military hazing occurs unabated; soldiers have inadequate¶ access to health care; and, in general, soldiers are underfed, overworked,¶ and
underpaid. While possibly overstating the case, the liberal Duma¶ member Boris Nemtsov summed up the state of the Russian military¶ bluntly: “We must admit that the army is filled with kids whose families¶
could not afford the 5,000-dollar bribe it takes to dodge the draft or¶ criminals who were just released from prison and are looking for work”¶ (Zaks, Agence France Presse, December 5, 2001). Many of these
It is not known how many
HIV/AIDS victims are active members of¶ the military, but it is clear that the number is rising
significantly. While it¶ is not at a crisis level at the moment, the Deputy Director of the military’s¶ hospital in Podolsk, which specializes in diagnosing HIV/AIDS, reported¶ that “the ratio
of HIV carriers that we’ve diagnosed to the number of¶ unsuspecting carriers in the army is
about one to ten” (Fyodorov, 2001). Of¶ those who have been officially identified as being HIV positive, over
30¶ percent were infected while in the military (Gavrilov, 2005). If these trends¶ continue (and there is little
reason to believe that they will not), the Russian¶ military should begin to suffer from many of the same
problems now seen¶ in African countries with high rates of HIV/AIDS, such as a need for¶ additional resources to recruit and
soldiers turn¶ to drugs, sometimes exchanging military hardware for drugs, to deal with¶ their depressing situation (Fyodorov, 2001).¶
train replacements for those too sick to¶ maintain their military status; increasing staffing problems to replace¶ officers and highly specialized staff; increased absenteeism and reduced¶ morale because of
sickness of individual soldiers and heavier workloads¶ for healthy soldiers; fear of caring for injured soldiers and concerns about ¶ the military’s blood supply; and disputes between civilian and military¶ officials
A further¶ consequence of increasing rates of HIV/AIDS in the military
is the fact that¶ those who are at a higher risk of contracting the virus while serving will¶
eventually leave military service and return to their normal lives, thus¶ furthering the spread of
HIV/AIDS in the general population.¶ Already Russia is facing a conscription problem, with
widespread,¶ dodging of military service. However, health issues are increasingly¶ becoming a problem:
over how best to deal with the problem (Elbe, 2002).
in 2002, according to the head of the Main Organization¶ and Mobilization Directorate of the Armed Forces General Staff,¶ Lieutenant General Vasiliy Smirnov, “33 percent of the Russian citizens are¶ subject to
being drafted for military service or relieved for health reasons,¶ or have a deferment” (“Press Conference with Lieutenant General Vasily¶ Downloaded by [] at 12:53 25 June 2015 ¶ 18 THOMAS AMBROSIO¶
Smirnov, Chief of the Main Organization and Mobilization Directorate of ¶ the Armed Forces General Staff,” Official Kremlin International News Broadcast,¶ October 4, 2002). More recently, one the Russian
military’s top medical¶ officers, Major General Valeriy Kulikov, announced that the number of¶ draftees rejected because of HIV infection increased by a factor of 27¶ between 2000 and 2005 (Boykewich, 2005a).
the Russian military has insufficient funds to effectively¶ screen its
conscripts (“Russia Lacks Funds for Effective Health¶ Screening of Military Conscripts,” BBC Monitoring International Reports,¶ April 5, 2005). As Russia’s population
continues to shrink and the pool of¶ eligible conscripts as a percentage of those called up gets
Even with these numbers,¶ Kulikov admitted that
smaller, the¶ Russian military will find itself with personnel problems. This means that¶ Russia’s ability to
project power, even within its sphere of influence, will¶ come under strain as the availability of
conscripts is reduced and, more¶ importantly, as highly skilled soldiers become increasingly
scarce. Consequently,¶ Russia’s military might, already weakened vis-à-vis the other¶ great powers (and, most starkly, against the United States), will mostly¶ assuredly
continue to decline in the coming decades.
2AC – Russia Military Good
Russian decline is the biggest existential impact – nuclear war, disease,
terrorism, prolif, crime, nuclear reactor meltdowns, and ecological
disasters
Oliker 2 [Olga Oliker is director of the Center for Russia and Eurasia and a
senior international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation. “Assessing Russia’s
Decline: Trends and Implications for the United States and the US Air Force”,
2002 RAND, msm]
The preceding chapters have illustrated the ways in which Russia’s
decline affects that country and may evolve into challenges
and dangers that extend well beyond its borders. The political factors of decline may make Russia a less
stable international actor and other factors may increase the risk of internal unrest. Together and sepa- rately,
they increase the risk of conflict and the potential scope of other imaginable disasters. The trends of
regionalization, particu- larly the disparate rates of economic growth among regions com- bined with the politicization of regional economic and
military inter- ests, will be important to watch. The
potential for locale, or possibly ethnicity, to serve as a rallying point
for internal conflict is low at pre- sent, but these factors have the potential to feed into precisely the cycle of instability
that political scientists have identified as making states in transition to democracy more likely to become involved in war.
These factors also increase the potential for domestic turmoil, which further increases the risk of
international conflict, for instance if Moscow seeks to unite a divided nation and/or demonstrate globally that its waning power remains
something to be reckoned with. Given Russia’s conventional weakness, an increased risk of conflict carries with it an
increased risk of nuclear weapons use, and Russia’s demographic situation increases the
potential for a major epidemic with possible implications for Europe and perhaps beyond. The
dangers posed by Russia’s civilian and military nuclear weapons complex, aside from the threat
of nuclear weapons use, create a real risk of proliferation of weapons or weapons materials to
terrorist groups, as well as perpetuating an increasing risk of accident at one of Russia’s nuclear
power plants or other facilities. These elements touch upon key security interests, thus raising serious
concerns for the United States. A declining Russia increases the likelihood of conflict—internal or
otherwise—and the general deterioration that Russia has in common with “failing” states raises se- rious
questions about its capacity to respond to an emerging crisis. A crisis in large, populous, and nucleararmed Russia can easily affect the interests of the United States and its allies. In response to such a scenario, the
United States, whether alone or as part of a larger coalition, could be asked to send military forces to the area in
and around Russia. This chapter will explore a handful of scenarios that could call for U.S. involvement. A wide
range of crisis scenarios can be reasonably extrapolated from the trends implicit in Russia’s decline. A notional list
includes: • Authorized or unauthorized belligerent actions by Russian troops in trouble-prone Russian regions
or in neighboring states could lead to armed conflict. • Border clashes with China in the Russian
Far East or between Russia and Ukraine, the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, or another neighbor
could escalate into interstate combat. • Nuclear-armed terrorists based in Russia or using
weapons or materials diverted from Russian facilities could threaten Russia, Europe, Asia, or the
United States. • Civil war in Russia could involve fighting near storage sites for nuclear, chemical,
or biological weapons and agents, risking large-scale contamination and humanitarian disaster. •
A nuclear accident at a power plant or facility could endanger life and health in Russia and
neighboring states. • A chemical accident at a plant or nuclear-related facility could endanger life
and health in Russia and neighboring states. • Ethnic pogroms in south Russia could force refugees into Georgia, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, and/or Ukraine. Illustrative Scenarios • Economic and ethnic conflicts in Caucasus could erupt into
armed clashes, which would endanger oil and gas pipelines in the region. • A massive ecological
disaster such as an earthquake, famine, or epidemic could spawn refugees and spread illness
and death across borders. • An increasingly criminalized Russian economy could create a safe
haven for crime or even terrorist-linked groups. From this base, criminals, drug traders, and terrorists
could threaten the people and economies of Europe, Asia, and the United States. • Accelerated
Russian weapons and technology sales or unautho- rized diversion could foster the proliferation of
weapons and weapon materials to rogue states and nonstate terrorist actors, increasing the risk
of nuclear war.
2AC – AT: Russia won’t reform
Russia is open to change but internal efforts alone will fail – leadership is
key
Sinelschikova 2-16 [Yekaterina Sinelschikova, “Do Putin’s comments mark a
turning-point for LGBT rights in Russia?”, 2-16-15, Russia Beyond the Headlines,
http://rbth.com/society/2015/02/16/do_putins_comments_mark_a_turningpoint_for_lgbt_rights_in_russia_43759.html, msm]
Putin has called for Russians to rid themselves of aggression toward sexual minorities, sparking discussion of a
possible softening of the country’s official stance on homosexuality.¶ In a film about the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi
broadcast by Russian TV channel Rossia-24 in early February, the Russian president said that is "each person's business" to
choose what kind of sexual life to have, underling that there is no criminal prosecution for homosexuality in Russia. "¶ And now about the law on
Russian President Vladimir
sexual minorities […] Both traditionally oriented people and non-traditionally oriented people should get rid of their aggression, treat each other in a simpler way," said Putin. ¶
state policy toward Russia’s LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community has been consistently
draconian in recent years, as a result of which the country has become the target of sustained criticism from Western governments and prominent supporters of gay
The
rights, much of it aimed at the now-infamous law prohibiting the "promotion of non-traditional sexual relations among minors," signed by Putin in summer 2013. ¶ The Russian
However, commentators interviewed by RBTH believe that Russian
society is not yet prepared to revise its homophobic attitudes, and responsibility for altering
public perception is likely to fall initially upon the authorities themselves. ¶ A wave of homophobia ¶ "Why do these
leader’s call for tolerance sounds almost revolutionary in this context.
people form same-sex marriages and essentially don't want to have children, but say, ‘Give us other people's [children]’?" asked Communist lawmaker Mikhail Zapolev
indignantly in July 2013. ¶ Immediately after Russian parliamentarians had voted for the law prohibiting "gay propaganda," they had a new cause for concern – France legalized
same-sex marriage. Out of fear that children would be "artificially compelled" to embrace "non-traditional sexual behavior" a ban was slapped on adoptions by same-sex couples,
as well as by the citizens of those countries that recognize same-sex marriages. Founder of project to aid LGBT teens fined by court ¶ Since then, a number of people have been
held accountable under the law on "gay propaganda." They include the founder of the Internet project Children-404, Yelena Klimova. (Deti-404.com supports LGBT children
and provides free psychological and legal assistance to them). ¶ The country has also witnessed the emergence of groups of activists engaged in "forced outing," who identify gay
people and publicly disclose this information without their consent. ¶ There was also a proposal made at the State Duma to ban homosexuals from being blood donors. Still,
there is no longer any discussion in the lower chamber of the parliament of any updates to the legislation concerning LGBT people, said Konstantin Subbotin, a member of the
State Duma's committee on issues concerning family, women and children. ¶ What is behind mass hysteria? ¶ Yet for many outside Russia, the widespread social hysteria in the
country over the LGBT issue is puzzling. Natalya Zorkaya, the head of the social and political studies department of the Levada Center, says that "it is ignorance and fear, rather
than a conscious stance that stands behind the hysteria about 'propaganda’.” Full story: LGBT rights in Russia ¶ Most people in Russia were quite intolerant toward LGBT people
even before the "anti-gay" campaign was launched, explains Zorkaya. ¶ But people assumed it did not concern them, and it was only when this issue was brought into the public
sphere that the anger became apparent. "This confirms the level of support for the anti-homosexual laws," says Zorkaya. ¶ However, according to Nikolai Alexeyev, an activist
with the LGBT movement and the founder of the human rights project GayRussia.ru, to a certain extent government figures have taken advantage of the issue over the last few
years out of expediency. ¶ "The wave of political homophobia is a reaction to the activities of the LGBT movement" as well as the desire, given the acuteness of the theme, "to
amass some political capital," says Alexeyev. ¶ "Quite a few contemporary politicians have risen [to prominence] on the back of this topic, which guarantees media attention for
While some may see Putin’s comments as a sign that the
political wind could be changing in Russia, Natalya Zorkaya says are no guarantees that homophobia in
society will decrease. Related: Glittering gong for monster movie v monstrous new driving law Russians have less dislike for nudists than for transsexuals - poll
them," he said. ¶ Government has reason for change of tack ¶
Back to hostility: the roots of Russia’s anti-gay attitudes ¶ "People thought that their supposedly stable, decent existence was the most important achievement of the last era, but
Russia’s LGBT community, however, the
and they are anticipating further political statements that will contribute
to the growth of tolerance. "Putin was more reserved on this issue, and now he has swung to the liberal side," says Nikolai
now, during the crisis, when there is no more stability, negative sentiment will only grow," said Zorkaya. ¶ For
president’s comments have not come as a surprise,
Alexeyev.
2AC – Russian Law Spills Over
Russian anti-LGBT law spills over to a laundry list of other countries
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 14 [“Spread of Russian-Style Anti-Propaganda
Laws”, 2-27-14, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/spread-russian-styleanti-propaganda-laws, msm]
The international LGBT community has watched in horror as Russia’s brand of discriminatory
propaganda¶ legislation has taken root outside its borders . The flagship piece of that legislation, the federal law banning¶
“propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors,” has become a chief Russian export. Since
the law¶ went into effect, in June, 2013, legislators from Eastern Europe to Central Asia have begun to emulate the ¶
Russian Duma by introducing nearly identical versions of the law to their legislative bodies. ¶
Armenia¶ In August 2013, Armenian authorities briefly introduced a law¶ aimed at protecting Armenian
family values from public¶ promotion of “non-traditional sexual relationships.” If passed,¶ the law
would have introduced fines of $4,000.00 against¶ violators. Mere days after the introduction, officials removed¶ the bill from consideration, insisting that
international¶ pressure played no part in its removal, and that it was¶ shelved solely for its shortcomings.¶ Belarus¶ In July 2013, the Belarusian parliament proposed
a gay¶ propaganda law in the name of protecting traditional family¶ values. The Liberal
Democratic Party claimed that “under the¶ guise of protecting the rights of sexual minorities, is
the¶ promotion and advocacy of homosexuality, especially among¶ minors, thus destroying the
family and public morality.”¶ Initial reports suggested that the law would be introduced into¶ the National Assembly in late 2014, thus far, however, it has¶ not received
consideration.¶ Kazakhstan¶ In May 2015, Kazakhstan’s Constitutional Court invalidated a¶ bill entitled “On
protection of children from information¶ harmful to their health and development.” Modeled
after¶ Russia’s infamous law, the bill would have introduced a ban¶ on the promotion of “nontraditional sexual orientation.”¶ Ostensibly withdrawn due to vague wording, the bill would¶ have complicated a hopeful Olympic host site bid. ¶ Kyrgyzstan¶ In
May, 2014, Kyrgyz lawmakers again introduced legislation¶ that would target freedoms of speech and
assembly of LGBT¶ persons and allies within the country. If passed the law would¶ be significantly
more severe than the Russian propaganda¶ law that serves as its inspiration. Unlike the version signed¶ into law by
Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2013, the¶ Kyrgyz bill would make all information regarding¶ “nontraditional sexual
relationships” illegal, whether in the¶ presence of minors or not. Additionally, violations of the law¶ could
be punished with prison sentences up to one year in¶ addition to fines. One year after its introduction, the Kyrgyz¶ Ministry of
Justice expressed an opinion that the law would¶ violate the country’s ongoing human rights commitments.¶ The bill nevertheless remains active in the legislative¶ process, thus far passing the first of three
Latvia¶ In November 2013, Latvia’s Central Election Commission¶ allowed anti-LGBT groups to
begin collecting signatures for a¶ referendum introducing a measure banning gay propaganda.¶ The
proponents of the referendum needed to collect 30,000¶ signatures to move forward in the legal process before a¶ November 2014 deadline. Ultimately their efforts failed.¶ Lithuania¶ In March 2014,
the Lithuanian Parliament deliberated upon¶ amendments to the Code of Administrative
Violations that¶ would have levied harsh fines against participants in public¶ acts that violate the
constitutionally established value of¶ family. The amendment would have augmented a 2010 law¶
regarding protection of minors against detrimental effects of¶ public information, by providing
punitive guidelines to be used¶ against individuals and organizations. Posters, placards,¶ slogans, lyrics, and public speeches
would have fallen under¶ the vaguely-worded bill. Ultimately the amendment did not¶ receive enough support for consideration, but the core law¶ remains in effect.¶ Moldova¶ In June 2013,
Moldovan lawmakers passed a bill banning the¶ promotion of “relationships other than those
linked to¶ marriage and the family.” Only four months later the clause¶ was removed, despite strong objections
from the Orthodox¶ Church and officials in Moscow. The removal was likely due¶ to a desire on the part of
leadership to gain membership in¶ the European Union. Some municipal laws, however, are still¶ in effect.¶ Ukraine¶ Draft Law No.
parliamentary¶ readings.¶
1155, entitled “On the Prohibition of¶ Propaganda of Homosexuality Aimed at Children” was¶ submitted to the Verkhovna Rada in late 2012. Fortunately,¶ the bill was removed from consideration in April, 2014.
The¶ law would have banned any information that could "do harm¶ to physical and psychological
health, moral and spiritual¶ development of the child, as well as form misconceptions¶ about the
social equivalence of conventional and¶ unconventional sexual relationships, and in the future
to¶ influence their choice of sexual orientation." If made into law,¶ the bill would have banned positive or
neutral statements¶ made in print, on air, or as part of any public demonstration¶ or action, and
levied fines against first time offenders and¶ mandated jail terms for repeat offenses.¶ *Crimea¶
a transitional¶ period of integration of Russian
laws into Crimea was begun.¶ As the federal law banning “propaganda of nontraditional¶ sexual relations to minors” continues to be codified in¶ Russian law, it is in effect in
Following a controversial annexation of Crimea by the¶ Russian Federation and a disputed referendum,
Crimea.
2AC – AIDS Impact
The spread of AIDS causes mutations that risk extinction
Ehrlich and Erlich 90
Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, Professors of Population studies at Stanford University, THE
POPULATION EXPLOSION, 1990, p. 147-8
Whether or not AIDS can be contained will depend primarily on how rapidly the spread of HIV can be slowed through public education and other measures, on when
The virus has already shown
itself to be highly mutable, and laboratory strains resistant to the one drug, AZT, that seems to slow its lethal course
have already been reported." A virus that infects many millions of novel hosts, in this case people, might evolve
new transmission characteristics. To do so, however, would almost certainly involve changes in its lethality. If, for instance, the virus
became more common in the blood (permitting insects to transmit it readily), the very process would almost certainly make it more lethal. Unlike the
current version of AIDS, which can take ten years or more to kill its victims, the new strain might cause death in
days or weeks. Infected individuals then would have less time to spread the virus to others, and there would be strong selection in favor of less lethal strains
(as happened in the case of myxopatomis). What this would mean epidemiologically is not clear, but it could temporarily increase the
transmission rate and reduce life expectancy of infected persons until the system once
again equilibrated. If the ability of the AIDS virus to grow in the cells of the skin or the
membranes of the mouth, the lungs, or the intestines were increased, the virus might be
spread by casual contact or through eating contaminated food. But it is likely, as Temin points out, that acquiring
those abilities would so change the virus that it no longer efficiently infected the kinds of cells it now does and so would no longer cause AIDS. In effect it would
produce an entirely different disease. We hope Temin is correct but another Nobel laureate, Joshua Lederberg, is worried that a relatively
minor mutation could lead to the virus infecting a type of white blood cell commonly present in the lungs. If so, it might be transmissible
through coughs.
and if the medical community can find satisfactory preventatives or treatments, and to a large extent on luck.
AIDS spread and mutations will cause extinction
Lederberg 91
(Joshua Lederberg, Molecular biologist and Nobel Prize winner in 1958, 1991
In Time of Plague: The History and Social Consequences of Lethal Epidemic Disease, p 35-6)
Will Aids mutate further ? Already known, a vexing feature of AIDS is its antigenic variability, further
complicating the task of developing a vaccine. So we know that HIV is still evolving. Its global spread has meant
there is far more HIV on earth today than ever before in history. What are the odds of its
learning the tricks of airborne transmission? The short is, “No one can be sure.” But we could make the same
attribution about any virus; alternatively the next influenza or chicken pox may mutate to an
unprecedented lethality. As time passes, and HIV seems settled in a certain groove, that is momentary reassurance in itself. However, given its other
ugly attributes, it is hard to imagine a worse threat to humanity than an airborne variant of AIDS.
No rule of nature contradicts such a possibility; the proliferation of AIDS cases with
secondary pneumonia multiplies the odds of such a mutant, as an analogue to the
emergence of pneumonic plague.
2AC – Russia SV Add-on
Violence perpetuated against Russian LGTB people is the worst form of
suffering possible
Human Rights Watch 14 [Human Rights Watch, 2014, “License to Harm:
Violence and Harassment against LGBT People and Activists in Russia”,
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5492910a4.pdf, msm]
Violence and Harassment against LGBT People¶ LGBT
people in Russia face stigma, harassment, and
violence in their everyday lives, and¶ most people who spoke with Human Rights Watch said that
this intensified in 2013. In¶ some cases they were attacked by anti-LGBT vigilante groups that sprang
up in late 2012¶ across Russia. These groups consist of a network of radical nationalist men who lure
gay¶ men and teenage children on the pretext of a fake date, hold them against their will, and¶
humiliate and expose them by videotaping the encounter. Such encounters have often¶ involved
perpetrators pouring urine over their victims and in some cases forcing them to¶ drink it. Assailants
often hit and kicked the victims; in some cases they hit their victims¶ with dildos or forced them to hold and pose with
dildos; stripped them naked; painted and¶ drew slurs on them; and/or sprayed them with construction foam in the genital area.¶
Hundreds of such videos have been posted online.¶ The suffering of victims of group vigilante attacks cannot be
underestimated. Twenty-two¶ victims interviewed by Human Rights Watch told us they
developed anxiety and became¶ depressed as a result of the attacks. Others said they stayed at
home because they were¶ too frightened to go outside. In addition to lasting emotional trauma,
some vigilantes’¶ victims also described the physical injuries they sustained, including bone
fractures and¶ facial injuries.¶ In other cases, LGBT people described being physically attacked by
strangers on the¶ subway, on the street, at nightclubs, and, in one case, at a job interview. The
assailants¶ did not hide their homophobic motivation. Most interviewees told Human Rights
Watch¶ that their attackers often used offensive, obscene language related to their sexual¶
orientation, for example calling LGBT people “pedophiles,” “perverts,” or abnormal. ¶ Although for
the past decade activists involved in public LGBT gatherings have faced¶ hostility from Russian authorities and anti-LGBT counterdemonstrators, almost all¶ activists told Human Rights Watch that the number of attacks on public
LGBT events had¶ risen in the past two years and that in 2013 anti-gay activists had attacked just about
every¶ public demonstration in favor of LGBT equality of which they were aware.¶ The vast majority of
LGBT activists interviewed by Human Rights Watch had been attacked¶ at least once during
public events in support of LGBT equality in 2012 and 2013 in several cities, including Voronezh, Moscow,
Novosibirsk, and St. Petersburg. They said that antigay¶ counter-protesters routinely harass them, use
offensive homophobic language, or¶ threaten them with physical violence. Police consistently fail
to take adequate measures to¶ prevent or redress the harassment and attacks.¶ Human Rights Watch
documented seven cases in which vicious smear campaigns sought¶ to pressure LGBT people or
supporters of LGBT rights to resign from their jobs as educators¶ in schools, universities, or
community centers for children. In almost all cases the¶ campaigns accused the victims of trying to
spread what they called propaganda. Most¶ eventually lost their jobs.
Russia’s anti-LGBT policies lead to the worst conditions for structural
violence to occur
Keating 14 [Joshua Keating is a staff writer at Slate focusing on international
affairs. “The Chilling Effects of Russia’s Anti-Gay Law, One Year Later”, 10-9-14,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/09/russian_lgbt_activists_on_t
he_effects_of_gay_propaganda_law.html, msm]
Sitting in the food court of a Moscow shopping mall, Konstantin Yablotsky reflected on the effects of the Russian
government’s
hostility to what it calls “gay propaganda” over the past year.¶ “People have become more closed, more
depressed, less out than they were,” he said. “The law makes our activity more difficult, because we
never know when the red button will be pressed.”¶ Advertisement¶ Russia’s law prohibiting “the
promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships,” better known as the “gay propaganda law,”
was passed last summer. Ostensibly focused on “protecting children from information advocating for a denial
of traditional family values,” it was vague and general enough that no one seemed exactly sure
what “gay propaganda” was, or how strictly the regulations would be enforced. A year later, Russia’s
LGBT activists are starting to get a better idea.¶ There have been a number of cases of the law being directly enforced.
Activists in Askhangelsk, in northwestern Russia, and Kazan, in the central republic of Tartarstan, have been fined for holding signs at
gay rights rallies. A newspaper in the far eastern Khabarovsk region was fined for publishing an interview with a teacher who said he was fired for being
gay. The manufacturer of a children’s game that included portrayals of same-sex relationships was fined. And authorities
have opened
an investigation into a series of children’s books by acclaimed novelist Lyudmila Ulitskaya because,
prosecutors claim, they promote tolerance of gay relationships.¶ But the activists I spoke with said the
chilling effect of the law was more pernicious than the prosecutions it has spawned. Now, venues
refuse to book LGBT events for fear of running afoul of the law or because they seem to present
a security risk. (A September gay rights event in St. Petersburg came under attack by anti-gay activists who doused participants in liquid and
sickening gas.)¶ Yablotsky is the head of Russia’s LGBT Sport Federation and one of the main organizers of the Open Games, an athletic competition for
LGBT athletes that was held shortly after the Sochi Olympics. The Open Games faced an uphill battle when a number of the venues it had booked
canceled their reservations at the last minute. Then police
ordered venues to be evacuated supposedly after
receiving reports of terrorist threats. “All of our venues, sports venues, eating venues, hostels, canceled on us,” he says. The
federation, which has been active since 2010 and has organized more than 20 events, has lately had better luck working with small, privately owned
venues.¶ Andrei Obolensky, chairman of the LGBT rights group Rainbow Association, told me: “ We
used to do a lot of film
screenings as a form of education, but now we can’t show a film unless it gets a certificate from
the state confirming that it can be publicly shown. A lot of smaller places that could show films
will not allow it in their facilities anymore.” He continued, “Police will attend some our events to check
passports.” The event could be shut down if underage attendees were present. Local authorities
will also “refuse permits for any kind of rally or to register any organization.”¶ Obolensky also said that
even liberal opposition groups are sometimes reluctant to associate themselves with the gay
rights cause and that “many Russian journalists don’t like to cover LGBT questions. They fear
being punished by this homophobic law.” He also noted that the movement has been hurt by an increasing number of activists
choosing to emigrate.¶ There are regional differences as well. Gay rights groups in St. Petersburg and the northwestern city of Arkhangelsk are more
established and have been permitted more latitude than those in Moscow, for instance. But overall, Obolensky says, the situation facing activists is “the
same as in the rest of society. The area for acceptable discussion is getting smaller and smaller every day.” ¶ There
have been several
documented cases of openly gay teachers being fired for taking part in activism, with Alexander Ermoshkin, a
geography teacher from Khabarovsk who was fired after participating in a gay rights flash mob, being the best publicized. ¶ LGBT sports federation head
Yablotsky, who teaches chemistry at a Moscow high school for students with disabilities, says he was asked to resign after what he assumes was a
“command from upstairs,” but for now he’s staying put. He says he doesn’t hide his sexuality, but there are limits. “If I were to walk along the corridors
of my school holding hands with my husband, that would be considered a promotion of non-traditional family values,” he said. “I won’t be fired because
I’m out and gay and promoting non-traditional family values at school. Then there would be a court case. All the authorities like to say at international
high-level meetings that there is no discrimination in Russia. So it would be on disciplinary stuff: if I forget my lesson plan or I’m five minutes late to
class.Ӧ Lena Klimova, the founder of Children-404, an online support group for gay teens, says the
law’s effect on young people
has been palpable. “Teenagers say their situation has gotten worse,” she wrote to me from Nizhny Tagil in Central
Russia, where she lives. “They feel like outcasts, and now the law confirms that.”¶ Klimova, who was charged and
brought to court under the “gay propaganda” law but was ultimately found not guilty, feels there’s a direct link between the political
climate and a rise in hate crimes, including a rash of cases involving far-right groups using social
media to lure gay teenagers so they can physically assault them. “People have grown very angry,
and now even the mere word ‘gay’ is taken as propaganda,” she says.
Russian restrictions on LGBT activists are the worst types of structural
violence – people live in fear
Topping 4-6 [Alexandra Topping is a news reporter for the Guardian. “Russian
LGBT activists describe victimisation, repression … and hope”, 4-6-15,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/06/russian-lgbt-activists-
describe-victimisation-repression-and-hope, **We don’t endorse gendered
language in the card, msm]
London stretches out below the window of the Stonewall meeting room on the 13th floor of a Waterloo tower block, and a group of
10 Russian human rights defenders admire the view. “London is the capital of Great Britain,” says Sergei Alekseenko, the director of
the Maximum LGBT organisation, dusting off his high school English with a smile. He adds, in Russian: “It’s good to be here.”¶ The
10 activists are here to mine the experience of the UK’s largest LGBT rights organisation, which since it was founded in 1989 has
seen the introduction of legislation allowing gay couples to adopt and the introduction of gay marriage, and to see if lessons learned
in Britain can help combat an ever more repressive situation in their home country.¶ These are dark times for human
rights activists in Russia, and particularly those advocating for the LGBT community. A series of laws,
including the requirement for NGOs receiving international funding to register as “foreign agents” in 2012 and a ban on gay
“propoganda” the following year, have left organisations facing hefty fines and increasing marginalisation.
A pervasive tone of homophobia has emboldened violent vigilantes.¶ “Of course people are scared,”
says Alekseenko, his arms folded across his chest. “Three or four years ago there were radical individuals, but now
they form groups. They makes threats on social media, they publish details of activists, of their
families, they threaten physical violence. Only a stupid person would not be afraid.” ¶ Thanks to
private donors Stonewall has welcomed the activists to its London hub for a week of workshops and training on subjects from
security to influencing power and media skills. Founded by a small group of activists fighting for the repeal of section 28 of the 1998
Local Government Act, which, like Russia’s 2013 law, aimed to prevent the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools, they hope they
have something to give.¶ Russian activists take part in a workshop at Stonewall’s London offices¶ Russian activists take part in a
workshop at Stonewall’s London offices. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian ¶ The previous day was spent learning about
media strategies, and being given tips by a former ITN news journalist on how to look, stand and sound when giving interviews to
camera. By the end of the week, Stonewall’s Russian guests were learning what makes a good campaign ; the importance of using
evidence, targets and goals; and ways of winning powerful allies. “It’s really a big opportunity for us to get knowledge that is difficult
to get in Russia,” said Olesya Yakovenko of the Russian LGBT Network.¶ “It’s about giving them skills and confidence, something
concrete. It’s about them hearing our experiences, including those things we got wrong,” says Caroline Ellis, a senior director at
Stonewall. “We know that not everything will necessarily translate, so we’re here to learn too.”¶ Russia passes law banning gay
'propaganda'¶ Read more¶ By being in London, and agreeing to speak to the Guardian, the Russian activists know they are taking a
significant risk, but they want their voices to be heard.¶ Having any kind of a voice is increasingly difficult, says Tatiana Vinnichenko,
the chair of the Russian LGBT Network and director of the Arkhangelsk-based organisation Rakurs, which has been forced to
register under Russia’s “foreign agents” law.¶ “It used to be much easier,” she says, proudly wearing a new T-shirt with the slogan
“Some girls marry girls. Get over it”. “In the past, people thought they could make things better, things could improve. Now people
are tired of fighting and getting nowhere.Ӧ The activists tell stories of their organisations being investigated, of constantly moving
goalposts, of being watched. One organisation was deemed to be engaging in political activity for having LGBT books, and an activist
who is also a teacher, is in under investigation to ensure she is not promoting homosexuality.¶ Protesters take part in a London rally
against Russia's gay 'propaganda' law in 2103¶ Protesters take part in a London rally against Russia’s gay ‘propaganda’ law in 2103.
Photograph: Rex Features¶ Dissent has also become an expensive business, says Anna Annenkova, from the Side by Side
international film festival, which was fined 400,000 roubles (£4,700) in June 2014 after being named as a “foreign agent”. ¶ “The
first impact is of course financial, it is a huge effort to pay these fines, but the second is cultural,” Annenkova says. “To people in
Russia ‘foreign agent’ means a spy, someone who wants to destroy the country. It’s really negative publicity.”¶ The ability to
demonstrate has also been heavily curtailed, she adds. In the past protesting could carry a 500 rouble fine, now anyone holding a
placard can face a penalty of 30,000 roubles, a good month’s salary. ¶ The activists all fear the growing intolerance in
Russian society, citing the case of Vladislav Tornovoi, a young gay man killed in a homophobic
hate crime in Volgograd in May 2013. According to the investigation, he was raped with beer bottles and set on
fire; a rock was brought down repeatedly on his head until he was dead.¶ Three men were later quietly
tried and convicted with long jail sentences, but reaction to the murder from some was congratulatory.¶ From left to right, Anna
Annenkova, Olesya Yakovenko, Tatiana Vinnichenko, Nika Yuryeva and Sergei Alekseenko. ¶ From left to right, Anna Annenkova,
Olesya Yakovenko, Tatiana Vinnichenko, Nika Yuryeva and Sergei Alekseenko. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian ¶ Anton
Krasovsky, the former editor-in-chief of pro-Kremlin cable channel Kontr TV until he came out as gay on air, after which he was
fired and the channel closed, wrote in the Guardian that news reports of the murder were followed with comments such as: “Putin
did warn us that if the homos raise their heads, the Russian people will take up arms. One head has rolled.”” He added: “How did it
come about that today in Russia a good gay person is a dead gay person?” ¶ Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia. It was
decriminalised in 1993 and removed from the list of mental illnesses in 1999. Since the passing of the homosexual “propaganda” law,
however, there has been a hardening of public opinion. Polls suggest 68% of the public support the legislation.¶ A 2013 survey by the
Pew Research Centre revealed that 74% of Russians believed homosexually should not be accepted, compared with 60% in 2002. ¶
Russia fails in bid to halt UN staff benefits for same-sex couples¶ “Young people are the worst affected,” says Nika
Yuryeva, of Coming Out LGBT group, which has been fighting attempts to classify it as a “foreign agent” since March 2013. “There
is much more aggression among young people, much more hate crime. It’s noticeable to
everyone that the last 18 months have got much worse.Ӧ Activists fear further crackdowns may
be in the pipeline. A draft law banning “undesirable foreign organisations”, which the Duma passed after
a first reading in January, could ban any international organisation that “poses a threat to the defence
capacity and security of the state or to public order, or to public health”.¶ The human rights
activists holed up at Stonewall fear the laws that legalised homosexuality in the 1990s could be under
threat. The Kremlin increasingly portrays human rights as a western imposition, arguing that homophobic laws are a defence of
local culture and values against western imperialism. “Propaganda works,” says Vinnichenko. “They only have to put out
homophobic material and people themselves will beg Putin to change the law.”
2AC Solvency
2AC – AT: Circumvention
Gay rights won’t be circumvented – gay marriage proves
French 15
Lauren French, a Congress reporter for Politico, “GOP Congress shows little
appetite to fight gay marriage ruling,” June 26, 2015, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-congress-no-fight-gay-marriage-ruling119474.html (NV)
Leading Republicans issued restrained responses to the historic Supreme Court ruling on samesex marriage, an indication that the issue is unlikely to be a priority for the GOP-led Congress.
Republicans broadly said they would accept the 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court, even if the
law diverged from their personal beliefs on marriage. Speaker John Boehner said in a statement he
was “disappointed” with the decision. But the Ohio Republican gave no indication the House
would consider legislation pushed by some conservatives to strip federal courts of jurisdiction
for marriage-related litigation or block the use of federal funds to enforce a same-sex marriage
ruling. Story Continued Below “All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect. I am,
however, disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the
institution of marriage,” Boehner said. “My views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man
and one woman, and I believe Americans should be able to live and work according to their beliefs.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
— who signed an amicus brief from Republicans urging the high court to maintain state-level bans on same-sex marriage, including his own — said
after the decision that it should be up to voters to decide the confines of marriage. “I disagree with the Court’s ruling. Regardless
of one’s
personal view on this issue, the American people, through the democratic process, should be
able to determine the meaning of this bedrock institution in our society,” McConnell said. He
added, “I also believe that America is big enough to accommodate the views of all citizens—
that’s why going forward I hope the courts will continue to defend the important principle of
religious liberty for all, regardless of their views on marriage.” Some conservatives called for a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage or allow states to do so, but there does not appear to be an appetite in Congress to take up that cause. Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-S.C.), the 2016 presidential contender, said he would “respect” the decision and
called a constitutional amendment campaign “a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail.” “Furthermore, given the quickly
changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of threefourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress,” Graham said. The response is in stark contrast from how congressional Republicans
responded a day earlier to another significant ruling from the court. After justices upheld a key provision in Obamacare ensuring that people would still
have access to federal subsidies for insurance, some Republicans quickly vowed to use the budget process to try and blunt the health care law, though
such an effort will be futile at least until the next president takes office. But on
Friday, all but the most hard-line social
conservatives were either silent about the same-sex marriage verdict or said the decision settled
the issue. Much of the criticism from Republicans was centered on what they see as a growing
trend of “judicial activism” from the court. Conservatives have jumped on Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by
President George W. Bush, for ruling with the court’s more progressive judges on Obamacare.
2AC – Ext: Solvency
Federal policy can solve inequality and aggression against LGBTs
Moodie-Mills 14
Aisha Moodie Mills, writer for the Center for American Progress, “Infographic:
Why Are So Many LGBT People and People Living with HIV Behind Bars?,” May
7, 2014, Center for American Progress,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2014/05/07/88950/infographic-whyare-so-many-lgbt-people-and-people-living-with-hiv-behind-bars/ (NV)
The pervasive profiling, arrest, and incarceration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people and people living with HIV,
or PLWH—especially those who are people of color—are not simply a response to higher rates of illicit behavior within
those communities. The range of unequal laws and policies that dehumanize, victimize, and
criminalize people because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status perpetuates these high rates of
contact with the criminal system. In fact, one study found that a startling 73 percent of LGBT people and PLWH have had run-ins
with police in the past five years. Police, for example, often profile transgender women and use
possession of condoms as evidence of prostitution-related offenses and grounds for arrest. Additionally, PLWH in 36
states can be charged with felonies for having consensual sex, biting, and spitting—even when there is no transmission of the virus. And LGBT
youth are more likely to be arrested for status offenses—charges that relate to family rejection and hostile school climates, such as
running away, sleeping outside, violating curfew laws, and truancy infractions—than criminal activity. What’s more, LGBT people and PLWH often
experience police misconduct such as false arrests and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse while in police
custody. They also face harsh sentences, experience a lack of appropriate healthcare, and are sometimes placed in solitary confinement as a
safeguard—although this isolation is often more punitive and stigmatizing than protective. These cycles of criminalization and
discriminatory treatment of LGBT people and PLWH often trigger a lifetime of economic and social
instability. We can and must dismantle these cycles through federal policy measures that
address abusive policing practices, improve conditions
for LGBT prisoners and immigrants in detention, decriminalize HIV, and prevent
LGBT
youth from coming into contact with the system in the first place.
High change of solvency via the legal system means that you are
personally responsible to engage in the Aff
Clinton 11
Hilary Clinton, yes, that Hilary Clinton, secretary of state under the Obama
administration, “Hillary Clinton On Gay Rights Abroad: Secretary Of State
Delivers Historic LGBT Speech In Geneva (VIDEO, FULL TEXT),” June 6, 2011,
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gay-rightsspeech-geneva_n_1132392.html (NV)
Reaching understanding of these issues takes more than speech. It does take a conversation. In fact, it takes a constellation of conversations in places big and small. And it takes
But progress comes from changes in laws.
In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed,
broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other
kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of
equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about
change dissipate. Many in my country thought that President Truman was making a grave error
when he ordered the racial desegregation of our military. They argued that it would undermine unit cohesion. And it wasn't until
he went ahead and did it that we saw how it strengthened our social fabric in ways even the supporters of the policy could not foresee. Likewise, some worried in
my country that the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don’t Tell” would have a negative effect on our armed
forces. Now, the Marine Corps Commandant, who was one of the strongest voices against the
repeal, says that his concerns were unfounded and that the Marines have embraced the change.
a willingness to see stark differences in belief as a reason to begin the conversation, not to avoid it.
Finally, progress comes from being willing to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. We need to ask ourselves, "How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love? How
would it feel to be discriminated against for something about myself that I cannot change?" This challenge applies to all of us as we reflect upon deeply held beliefs, as we work to
embrace tolerance and respect for the dignity of all persons, and as we engage humbly with those with whom we disagree in the hope of creating greater understanding. A fifth
and final question is how we do our part to bring the world to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Yes, LGBT people must help lead this effort, as so
many of you are. Their knowledge and experiences are invaluable and their courage inspirational. We know the names of brave LGBT activists who have literally given their lives
those who are denied rights are least empowered
to bring about the changes they seek. Acting alone, minorities can never achieve the majorities
necessary for political change. So when any part of humanity is sidelined, the rest of us cannot
sit on the sidelines. Every time a barrier to progress has fallen, it has taken a cooperative effort
from those on both sides of the barrier. In the fight for women’s rights, the support of men remains crucial. The fight for racial equality has
relied on contributions from people of all races. Combating Islamaphobia or anti-Semitism is a task for people of all faiths. And the same is true with this
struggle for equality. Conversely, when we see denials and abuses of human rights and fail to
act, that sends the message to those deniers and abusers that they won’t suffer any
consequences for their actions, and so they carry on. But when we do act, we send a powerful moral message. Right here in Geneva, the international
for this cause, and there are many more whose names we will never know. But often
community acted this year to strengthen a global consensus around the human rights of LGBT people. At the Human Rights Council in March, 85 countries from all regions
supported a statement calling for an end to criminalization and violence against people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. At the following session of the
Council in June, South Africa took the lead on a resolution about violence against LGBT people. The delegation from South Africa spoke eloquently about their own experience
and struggle for human equality and its indivisibility. When the measure passed, it became the first-ever UN resolution recognizing the human rights of gay people worldwide. In
the Organization of American States this year, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created a unit on the rights of LGBT people, a step toward what we hope will be
the creation of a special rapporteur. Now, we must go further and work here and in every region of the world to galvanize more support for the human rights of the LGBT
community. To the leaders of those countries where people are jailed, beaten, or executed for being gay, I ask you to consider this: Leadership, by definition, means being out in
front of your people when it is called for. It means standing up for the dignity of all your citizens and persuading your people to do the same. It also means ensuring that all
citizens are treated as equals under your laws, because let me be clear – I am not saying that gay people can’t or don’t commit crimes. They can and they do, just like straight
I say supporting human
rights is your responsibility too. The lives of gay people are shaped not only by laws, but by the
treatment they receive every day from their families, from their neighbors. Eleanor Roosevelt, who did so much to
people. And when they do, they should be held accountable, but it should never be a crime to be gay. And to people of all nations,
advance human rights worldwide, said that these rights begin in the small places close to home – the streets where people live, the schools they attend, the factories, farms, and
offices where they work. These places are your domain. The actions you take, the ideals that you advocate, can determine whether human rights flourish where you are.
AT: Status Quo Solves
The current ban doesn’t solve – loopholes
Berman 14 (Taylor, “U.S. to Ban Profiling Based on Religion, Gender, Sexual Orientation”,
1/16/14, http://gawker.com/u-s-to-ban-profiling-based-on-religion-gender-sexual-1502540915,
accessed 6/29/15)
Expanding a limited 2003 ban, the Justice Department will soon prohibit federal agents from
profiling suspects b ased on national origin, religion, gender, and sexual orientation .
The Bush administration's ban applied only to race, allowing federal agents to specifically target
Muslims in terrorism cases and Latinos for immigration investigations.¶ From the New York Times:¶ President
George W. Bush said in 2001 that racial profiling was wrong and promised "to end it in America." But that was before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.
After those attacks, federal agents arrested and detained dozens of Muslim men who had no ties to terrorism. The government also began a program
known as special registration, which required tens of thousands of Arab and Muslim men to register with the authorities because of their nationalities. ¶
"Putting an end to this practice not only comports with the Constitution, it would put real teeth to the F.BI.'s claims that it wants better relationships
with religious minorities," Hina Shamsi, a national security lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the Times.¶ But
a critical
part of the ban's expansion is still unknown. As it stands now, the prohibitions on racial profiling do
not apply to cases involving national security, which has been an obvious cause for concern for
Arab and Muslim rights groups. The rule also applies only to traffic stops and arrests, not surveillance.¶ "Adding religion
and national origin is huge," Linda Sarsour, advocacy director for the National Network for Arab American Communities, told Times.
" But if they don't close the national security loophole, then it's really irrelevant ."
2AC – Exts: Economy
Data supports our advantage – LGBT inclusion is directly tied to a strong
economy
Higginbottom 6-16 [Karen Higginbottom is a freelance journalist who writes
about HR and employment topics for Thomson Reuters GRC and supplements
for The Times. “What Can Politicians Teach Business About Leadership?” 6-1615, http://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhigginbottom/2015/06/16/canpoliticians-teach-business-about-leadership/, msm]
The US economy could save $9 billion annually if organizations were more effective at
implementing diversity and inclusion policies for their lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) staff,
according to data released by Out Now, a LGBT research and marketing consultancy.¶ The data is taken from the world’s
largest LGBT research project LGBT2020, and for the first time it measures the savings in dollar terms for companies who encourage
an inclusive working environment where LGBT employees are comfortable to be themselves at work.¶ The research ‘LGBT Diversity: Show Me
The Business Case’ reveals that in multiple countries around the world, LGBT staff who are able to be openly
LGBT with all their work colleagues are significantly more likely to remain in their current
employment than staff who are ‘not out to anyone’ at work. It also found that investment in the
effective implementation of diversity and inclusion policies reaped significant cost savings for
companies due to improved staff retention.¶ The research estimated that organizations of 10,000 employees in the US were
able to save between $127,000 to $944,000 and larger companies with 250,000 employees could save between $3.2 million to $23.6 million. Total
national US savings were measured at $8.93 billion.¶ In the UK, the research estimated that UK companies with 250,000
employees could save between $1.7 million to $12.4 million with total national savings for the UK measured at $1.02 billion. The analysis for savings
relied on two third-party sources for the US and UK. The Center for American Progress undertook detailed analysis on the expected costs to replace
workers at all skill levels and the research used their 16.1% estimate for its tables in setting the lower level replacement cost for lost LGBT staff. On the
upper end, the report adopted the national average figure arrived at in the UK by Oxford Economics in 2014. For national average savings figures, the
report applied a midpoint estimate between these two outlying figures. Measurements and valuations in the report were limited to full-time employees
only.¶ “This report for the first time enables companies to see exactly why investing in a more equitable and supportive workplace for everyone is
a sound business investment that demonstrates solid returns,” said Ian Johnson, chief executive of Out Now. “As well as boosting staff retention which
delivers significant savings for business, providing a workplace environment where LGBT people are supported to be themselves also has
a
significant and powerful effect on motivating LGBT individuals by making them feel part of a
team and boosting productivity.Ӧ The research also revealed how comfortable LGBT employees
feel about ‘coming out’ at work among the ten profiled countries worldwide. India is the country that achieved the lowest score on the
number of respondents who felt able to come out to all at work (8%) and Australia scored highest (51%). The report also found that workers in some
countries, especially India (9%) and Brazil (20%) face substantial obstacles coming out to all at work and respondents in Italy are also more likely to not
be out to anyone as LGBT at work (32%).¶ The LGBT2020 study
also asked respondents about the level of
homophobia they faced in the workplace. It makes grim reading: the country with the greatest amount of observed
homophobia at work is Brazil (68%), closely followed by India (61%). The least amount of homophobia at work was observed in Germany with a quarter
of respondents reporting they had seen or heard homophobic behavior at work. ¶ The LGBT2020 study also highlighted concerns that bisexuals,
trans and gay employees have about the impact of coming out at work on their promotion
prospects. Data from the US revealed that 55% of trans respondents think that if they come out as trans at
work this might have an effect on prospects for future promotions. This compares to 40% for bisexuals, 30% for
gay men and 24% for lesbian respondents. Bisexuals are often the least-discussed letter of the LGBT acronym. The study found that many bisexuals
report they are poorly perceived by heterosexual people who think they are actually gay but have not come to terms with that fact. Bisexuals were also
concerned they face rejections by homosexual people for being too opportunistic, the study found. It appears that organizations still have work to do to
foster and encourage a workplace where employees feel comfortable being out regardless of their sexual orientation.
The World Bank agrees
The World Bank 14 (The World Bank, “Why it should consider gay
rights,” April 25, 2014, The Economist,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/feastandfamine/2014/04/worldbank)
SIR - On
behalf of the LGBT activists that were at the World Bank spring meeting and who had the
Kim’s attempts to
address discrimination against gays in Uganda and elsewhere will hurt the bank’s objectives
regarding development. You argued against the World Bank’s involvement in “gay rights”, and
perpetuated several misconceptions, inaccurately describing the courageous activists that met Mr Kim, and oversimplified their
opportunity to engage with the president of the bank, Jim Kim, we would like to respond to your leader arguing that Mr
campaign for more effective safeguard policies. You criticised the bank’s postponement of a loan to Uganda in response to the government’s passage of
its Anti-Homosexuality Act, and
asserted that the bank was prioritising “gay rights” over poverty alleviation. Although
you attempted to downplay the importance of addressing discrimination in Uganda by citing the
pervasive discrimination found against women and others around the world, it is precisely this
prevalence of discrimination that makes this problem too big to ignore. In fact, the sexual
orientation and gender identity (SOGI) activists you referred to have asked the bank to address
both gender and SOGI together in its efforts on discrimination. These communities face similar
structural discrimination and marginalisation that lead to the inability to escape the poverty
cycle. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that discrimination can lead to extreme poverty. In India, estimated costs of
homophobia could be near 2% of GDP. The bank simply cannot afford to ignore discrimination
if it hopes to achieve its goals of ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity. You also quoted the bank’s
Articles of Agreement, which outline its purpose as an institution focused solely on “economic considerations” and “not a place for political advocacy.”
Limiting the bank’s mission to what is written in the Articles, however, would mean that it should still be focused on rebuilding Europe after the second
world war. Neither “poverty” nor “shared prosperity”—both goals the bank has adopted over the past two decades—appear in the Articles. The
institution has evolved since they were first drafted. The past 70 years have provided a wealth of research and lessons
learned that demonstrate the links between poverty and discrimination. The World Bank has already adopted several social and environmental
safeguard polices that “condition” its funds on certain procedures that both it and borrowers must follow. They require due diligence and action plans
when a country anticipates having to resettle people for a project, or when indigenous peoples might be affected. These policies have been replicated at
nearly all development institutions, and although not perfect, are essential in preventing harm and providing opportunities for affected communities to
engage in the development process and share in its benefits. You think that the safeguards should be eliminated in order to be a more attractive lender.
Such a race to the bottom would, however, be counterproductive, and would ultimately undermine the World Bank’s efforts at poverty reduction.
Instead it
must work in countries to ensure safeguards are effective and responsive to the needs of
marginalised communities. For the first time, the bank is undertaking a comprehensive review
of all of its social and environmental safeguard policies. Despite its efforts in recent years to
“mainstream gender” in its work, the World Bank has never adopted a mandatory policy on how
to ensure its projects and programmes are gender inclusive and avoid exacerbating inequalities
that lead to poverty. Furthermore, it has entirely overlooked the inclusion of sexual and gender minorities in its broader agenda. The Uganda loan
demonstrates that the bank currently has no way to ensure its projects avoid inequalities on the ground or contribute to possible human-rights
violations on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. Rather
than being cancelled, the loan has been put
on hold to allow the bank time to research the effects that the loan would have on SOGI
communities. To make this research systematic prior to this stage in loan disbursement, the
World Bank must adopt a safeguard policy on gender and SOGI that would prevent exclusion
and recognise these individuals as important stakeholders in its work. Despite your implication,
the activists who visited Washington are not asking the bank to divest from countries like
Uganda. Rather they are asking it to go into complex, discriminatory societies with their eyes open and to anticipate the risks before further
marginalising vulnerable communities. We continue to believe that the World Bank should do everything in its
power to ensure that its investments are not creating or exacerbating existing inequalities, that it
uses its power and influence to encourage its clients to ensure equitable distribution of economic growth benefits, and that the institution
itself respects the rights of individuals, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, or gender
identity.
AT: Human Rights Promotion CP
Diplomacy = Backlash
The CP makes it worse – active promotion through diplomacy only prompts
backlash that is guised as nationalism by the EEU countries
Rohrich 15 (Kyle, senior fellow Humanity in Action, “Human Rights Diplomacy Amidst
"World War LGBT": Re-examining Western Promotion of LGBT Rights in Light of the
“Traditional Values” Discourse”, 3/15/15,
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/588-human-rights-diplomacy-amidstworld-war-lgbt-re-examining-western-promotion-of-lgbt-rights-in-light-of-the-traditionalvalues-discourse, accessed 6/29/15)
Western governments have used human rights diplomacy (4) as their primary mechanism to
promote LGBT rights internationally. (5) This strategy has been successful in the EU’s sphere of
influence, encompassing EU member states, associates, and aspirant countries. However, LGBT rights promotion has
prompted a backlash in countries within the Russian sphere of influence (Eurasian Economic Union
well as in “battleground” countries not aligned with either the EU or EEU.
In these countries, anti-LGBT opposition movements supplant progress made by local LGBT rights
groups. In 2013, for instance, 50 LGBT individuals demonstrating in a pride parade in Tbilisi, Georgia, barely escaped the wrath of thousands of
member states and associates) as
anti-LGBT protestors led by Georgian Orthodox priests. In May 2014, Kazakhstan’s first ceremonial same-sex marriage resulted in a brutal murder and
a brick blockade of a gay nightclub in Almaty. (6) (7) (8) ¶ In reaction to recent advancements and regressions on LGBT rights worldwide, diplomatic
actors have amplified their positions on LGBT issues. (9) World Bank President John Kim Yong warned that restricting sexual rights “can hurt a
country’s competitiveness” in applying for assistance, and Western foreign affairs ministries stepped up criticism of governments that restrict the rights
of LGBT individuals. At the same time, in Eurasia, lawmakers from EU member state Lithuania to Russian ally Kyrgyzstan proposed anti-LGBT
propaganda legislation. (10)¶ Whereas
the West endorses LGBT equality as a universal human right,
active promotion of this belief has triggered reactionary responses from typically
non-Western countries, whose populations have not experienced dramatic shifts in public
opinion toward LGBT rights as populations have in the West. The result is disturbing . “LGBT
rights” are increasingly associated with concepts of nationalism and state sovereignty. Popular fervor
against Western encroachment has resulted in a competing ideology hostile to LGBT rights,
guised as nationalism. The hidden hand in this traditional values movement is none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin,
whose state-by-state tailored “traditional values” promotion aims to link LGBT rights as
Western encroachment in sovereign affairs. If the West really does care about the status of LGBT
must adjust its strategy to destroy this dangerous linkage. The livelihood of tens of
millions of LGBT individuals throughout Eurasia and the rest of the world depend on it.
individuals, it
Unpopular – Links to Politics
Reaction to SCOTUS ruling proves LGBTQ rights are contentious in
Congress
Davis 6/26 (Susan Davis is the chief congressional reporter for USA TODAY. "In Congress, gay marriage decision highlights
divide between parties," June 26,2015. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/26/gay-marriage-ruling-congressreaction/29328161/ jsk)
<WASHINGTON —
Lawmakers' reaction to the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage fell
along familiar party lines, with Democrats cheering the decision as an historic event for civil
rights while Republicans chastised the Court for judicial overreach. The sharp contrast
highlights the divide between the two parties on social issues.¶ For gay lawmakers, however, the ruling was
particularly momentous.¶ "As children we are taught the founding principle of our nation, that all Americans are
created equal, and this ruling is a modern reflection of the Declaration of Independence and the inalienable
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," said Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., who married
his long-time partner, Randy, last year. ¶ Maloney is one of seven openly gay lawmakers serving in Congress. Six serve in the U.S. House, and Democrat
Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin serves in the Senate.¶ Democrats
across Capitol Hill celebrated the ruling.¶ "This is a
momentous day in our country's pursuit of equality and justice," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, DMinn., whose home state already recognized same-sex marriage.¶ Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., released a two word statement: "Love wins!"¶
Conservative lawmakers, however, reacted angrily to a ruling they say ignored the will of the
majority of Americans and state and federal laws.¶ "Thirty States have held statewide ballots banning gay marriage since
the year 2000, and yet legislating from the bench has superseded both public approval and our elected
representatives," said House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga.,¶ "This is not only a
sad day for marriage, but a further judicial destruction of our entire system of checks and
balances."¶ House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he was "disappointed" by the ruling, but did not say Congress
should act to overrule it. "All human beings are created equal by God and thus deserve to be treated with love, dignity and respect," Boehner said, "My
views are based on my upbringing and my faith. I believe that marriage is a sacred vow between one man and one woman, and I believe Americans
should be able to live and work according to their beliefs.">¶ Not all Republicans opposed Friday's decision.¶ "Today's historic ruling upholds this
pledge by affirming that we will not tolerate any law threatening our country's obligation to treat all people equally," said Rep. Bob Dold, R-Ill., one of a
handful of House Republicans who supported marriage equality. ¶ Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who reversed his opposition to gay marriage in 2013 after
his son came out as gay, lauded the decision.¶ "In 2013, I decided to support marriage equality after I came to understand this issue better in the
context of my own family. I can't help but view today's Supreme Court decision through that same lens." he said. "And as a father, I welcome today's
decision."¶ While there is likely to be a conservative effort to move forward with a constitutional amendment defining marriage, Portman said
lawmakers should move on. "Now the Court has reached its decision, I hope we can move past the division and polarization the issue has caused."
AT: Russia Backlash DA
2AC – Russia Backlash DA
Link differential – the plan isn’t hard Russian criticizing – the Aff uses soft
power to promote LGBT rights abroad
TAYLOR 14 [Adam Taylor is a policy analyst for Business Insider, “Why Western Outrage
Could Make Things Worse For Russia's Gays”, 1-13-14, http://www.businessinsider.com/whywestern-outrage-could-make-things-worse-for-russias-gays-2014-1, msm]
One of the most troubling events in 2013 was the deteriorating situation for Russia's LGBT community. In a few short months, the government
passed laws banning "gay propaganda" and gay pride marches in Moscow for 100 years. Viral videos of disturbing
homophobic abuse seemed to show a growing lack of tolerance in the country. ¶ It didn't take long for a backlash to form in the
Western press; a New York Times op-ed on "Russia's Anti-Gay Crackdown" appeared in July, and shortly afterwards a boycott of Russian
vodka by American bars gained serious traction. At the tail end of the year, the relatively low-profile U.S. delegation to the
Russia's 2014 Sochi Olympic Games — which notably included two out lesbians — was widely viewed as a signal of the White House's disapproval. ¶
There's no doubt a Western backlash was justified, but a bigger, more worrying question is whether such action had any positive impact in Russia.
Months later, not only does the restrictive Russian LGBT legislation stay in place, but things actually look a little worse. Russia's
powerful Orthodox Church is now proposing a referendum that could revert the country to a Soviet-style ban on all homosexual relations.¶ Worse still,
prominent supporters
of the ban specifically point to Western interference as a justification for more
discrimination. "There is no question that society should discuss this issue since we live in a democracy," Orthodox Church spokesman
Vsevolod Chaplin told the pro-government Izvestia daily, while talking about the proposed anti-gay referendum. "For this reason, it is precisely the
majority of our people and not some outside powers that should decide what should be a criminal offense and what should not." ¶ At the very top of the
Russian leadership, President Vladimir Putin
holds approval ratings that would be the envy of any Western
leader. Part of his success comes from his success at turning Russia's Christian conservatism
into a rallying cry against European-style moral decadence.¶ “Putin wants to make Russia into
the traditional values capital of the world,” Putin biographer Masha Gessen told the New York Times' Bill Keller last month. It's
a movement that even has some support amongst American conservatives.¶ One interesting insight into Putin's strategy comes in the form of a recent
interview given by Angus Roxburgh, a British journalist who formerly worked for the Kremlin-linked GPlus PR-agency (the interview with Russia's New
Times has been translated by the Interpreter website). In his interview, Roxburgh argues that Western
condemnation only
emboldens Russian conservatives — and that the situation has been getting worse for years.¶ While
Roxburgh's closeness to the Kremlin may make some balk, it's hard to deny that he might have a good idea of how the Russian political elite thinks
[emphasis ours]:¶ It’s possible that Putin was in fact more liberal ten years ago. Western politicians, who had to deal with him, argued that, despite
some authoritarian habits that already started to manifest themselves (shutting down media critical of him, the case of Khodorkovsky), Putin still
considered Russia part of the West, or at least, considered the West an ally, sharing his core values. And many times he would make gestures that, in his
view, should have prompted the West to accept Russia as an equal partner. But Western leaders were not really in a hurry to do that. Kremlin’s
autocracy was becoming increasingly alarming for the West, intensified critical attitude toward Russia and prompted measures that Putin considered
anti-Russian (NATO expansion, flirting with Ukraine and Georgia, deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe). As a result, Putin felt
rejected, began looking for a way to protect himself and opted for a strategy of self-isolation. The result was a vicious circle: the
more
outraged the West was getting by Putin’s actions, the more it offended Putin who acted even
more sharply. Instead of trying to find a common ground with the West and the Russian
intellectual elite, he seems to have concluded that he should rely on conservative forces, that is,
the church, the security services and not too politically sophisticated masses who do not care
about Western values.¶ Roxburgh argues that not only does the state ignore Western outrage, but the
"constant Western moralization and lecturing irritates most Russian citizens." It's a sad fact that many
of these citizens agree with Russia's anti-gay actions. Forty-two percent of respondents to a recent poll from the
independent Levada Center fully support the ban on "homosexual propaganda," while just 2% fully oppose it. ¶ "Of course, the West
should criticize human rights violations
"
(not forgetting, however, about its own shortcomings )," Roxburgh explains,
but sanctions, penalties and lecturing are invariably counterproductive ."¶ In many ways,
the LGBT issue represents a microcosm of Russia's relation with the West: The
more we apply pressure to Moscow, the more Moscow doubles down.
Despite outrage in the
West, government critics such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Pussy Riot were kept in jail for years and only released at a time convenient for the
Kremlin, while other opposition leaders such as Alexey Navalny continue to face prosecution. Even in cases where there has been direct, unequivocal
Western action — such as the "blacklist" of Russian officials believed to have been involved in the death of Moscow lawyer Sergei Magnitsky — there has
been no capitulation from the Kremlin, only retribution. ¶
The only other option for the West seems to be
some
kind of
soft power
— incremental
policy less likely to cause a backlash from either the
Russian elite or the Russian public . That idea seems to chime with Roxburgh's thinking too, as he argues that change in
Russia is inevitable, but it seems more likely to come from inside of the Kremlin's power structure than outside. The big question is how that be
influenced.
AT: Politics
Plan Popular
Plan popular
CASPANI 1-29 [Maria Caspani is a journalist for Reuters. “U.S. lawmakers introduce bill to promote LGBT
rights worldwide”, 1-29-15, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/us-usa-lgbt-lawmakingidUSKBN0L22U320150129, msm]
U.S. lawmakers
in both houses of Congress introduced on Thursday a bill to protect and promote the
rights of the international lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.¶ The
International Human Rights Defense Act, spearheaded by Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Alan Lowenthal of California, both
Democrats, would appoint a special envoy within the U.S. Department of State to coordinate efforts to prevent discrimination and advance the rights of
LGBT people worldwide.¶ When President Obama addressed the nation and committed
to defending the human rights of
the LGBT community, we made that commitment to the world,” Markey said in a statement, referring to the State of
the Union address earlier this month.¶ “With the rights of the LGBT community under attack around the globe,
we must stand hand-in-hand with them in the struggle for recognition and equality everywhere,"
he said.¶ The same bill was introduced by Markey last year but never reached a vote. Its re-introduction this year comes as talks about the initiative are
underway at the State Department, a spokeswoman for Markey told the Thomson Reuters Foundation. ¶ "The
Senator is proud of the
level of support and the high level of attention to this especially within the State Department," Gisele Barry said.¶ If
passed, the bicameral legislation would direct the Department of State to make preventing and responding to discrimination
and violence against the international LGBT community a foreign policy priority, as well as
coordinate efforts to promote LGBT rights globally.¶ “We must do what we can as a nation to
enforce the precept that all human beings ... are entitled to a basic set of human rights which
include the right to love who they choose without fear of punishment or death. LGBT rights are
human rights,” said Lowenthal, the bill's co-sponsor, in the statement.¶ As LGBT rights, and especially same-sex couples' right to
marry, gained momentum across the United States throughout 2014, LGBT people remain subject to
violence and discrimination in many parts of the world. ¶
Plan popular – gay marriage ruling proves
Rothman 15
Noah Rothman, associate editor for Hot Air News, “Gay marriage as a
constitutional right is so popular that even Republicans are coming around –
Poll,” February 19, 2015, Hot Air, http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/19/gay-marriageas-a-constitutional-right-is-so-popular-that-even-republicans-are-coming-around-poll/ (NV)
Fortunately for the stability of the republic, the United States Supreme Court’s justices do not
take public opinion into account when deciding the cases before them. At least, they’re not
supposed to keep public opinion in mind. But if they did, there wouldn’t be any question about
how the Supreme Court will decide on the issue of same-sex marriage rights when they are likely to issue a ruling on the
matter this summer. According to a new CNN/ORC survey, a staggering 63 percent of all Americans
now say that gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to a legal marriage with their
partners. That’s an increase of 14 points from the summer of 2010 when just 49 percent said the
same. In 2010, a narrow majority disagreed that same-sex marriage should be a constitutional
right. Today, only 36 percent disagree with that statement. Among subgroups, a majority of just about
everyone – even those aged 65 or over – back the right of same-sex couples to wed. Only among self-described
Republicans and those who consider themselves conservative was the notion of extending the
constitutional right to marry to gay couples unpopular. But while a majority of both these
groups of voters still disapprove of gay marriage rights, 42 percent of Republican respondents
and 43 percent of conservative respondents said they backed extending legal marriage rights to
gay couples. That’s not the only surprising news on the polling front that indicates even cultural
conservatives are warming to the right of gay couples to get married. The release of a variety of polls of
Republican voters in early primary states via NBC News/Marist University this week suggested that even the GOP knows that the
writing is on the wall. Only a narrow majority of Republican primary voters in Iowa said it was still acceptable for a Republican
presidential candidate to oppose gay marriage. 47 percent of Hawkeye State voters disagreed. In New Hampshire and South
Carolina, a majority of primary voters said that opposition to gay marriage was no longer an acceptable view for a prospective
presidential candidate to hold. “And while the numbers are surprising, they make some sense,” The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake
observed. “A Pew poll conducted in March 2014 showed 39 percent of Republicans and Republican
leaners supported gay marriage. Add the passage of time and the fact that non-Republicans can vote in New Hampshire
and South Carolina, and you’ve got a potentially less anti-gay marriage electorate come next year.” Blake did offer a few caveats:
That’s a fair point. Not opposing gay marriage is not the same thing as supporting it, but this latest CNN survey indicates that
positive support for the right of gay marriage is also on the rise. At least, it is nationally. When even those political
figures who support conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), are proposing (too late) to get the
federal government out of the marriage business rather than to oppose gay marriage via the
constitutional amendment process, it is safe to assume that support for same-sex marriage is no
longer controversial. That fight is over.
Plan popular – shifting attitudes
Al Jazeera and AP 13
Al Jazeera and the Associated Press, “Gay rights bill passes first major hurdle in
Congress,” November 4, 2013, http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/11/4/senatepasses-antibiasgayrightsbill.html (NV)
The Senate voted to proceed with a landmark anti-bias gay rights bill Monday, reflecting the
dramatic shift in national attitudes towards the acceptance of homosexuality that has taken
place since similar anti-discrimination legislation was rejected by lawmakers two decades ago.
By a vote of 61-30, the Senate effectively ended a filibuster, allowing it to debate the Employee
Non-Discrimination Act of 2013. The legislation would prohibit workplace discrimination against gay, bisexual and
transgender Americans. The bill is expected to pass a final senate vote, but is slated to face strong opposition in the Republicandominated House of Representatives. A reminder of some lawmakers’ lingering resistance to equal rights for gay men and women
resonated in Maine, as six-term Democratic Rep. Mike Michaud, who is running for governor with a slight edge over the opposition
in opinion polls, said he was gay and questioned whether it still mattered to voters. "Yes I am (gay). But why should it
matter?" Michaud said, in a bid to maintain his constituency. Hours before Monday's Senate procedural vote,
President Barack Obama issued a fresh plea for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act,
the first significant gay rights bill since Congress lifted the ban on gays serving openly in the
military nearly three years ago. "Americans ought to be judged by one thing only in their workplaces: their ability to get
their jobs done," the president said in a message written for the Huffington Post. "Does it make a difference if the firefighter who
rescues you is gay — or the accountant who does your taxes or the mechanic who fixes your car?" Following Monday's vote, the
White House said the president welcomes the “senate’s bipartisan first step” toward the law’s
enactment. In high drama for the Senate, the typical 15-minute vote stretched beyond 30 minutes of waiting and cajoling. Two
backers of the measure — Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — were on planes back to Washington.
That left sponsors stuck at 58 of the necessary 60 votes, forcing Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to lobby
fiercely, sometimes at the door of the Republican cloakroom off the Senate floor. Seven Republicans joined all the members of the
Democratic majority who voted for the measure. The three potential Republican presidential candidates — Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz
and Rand Paul — voted against. Opening Senate debate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., quoted slain gay rights leader
Harvey Milk, who argued that freedom and individual rights shouldn't hinge on political deals and opinion polls. The law, Reid
said, would ensure that "all Americans regardless of where they live can go to work unafraid to
be who they are." Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa., called the measure another step forward in the country's progress. Current
federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race and national origin. But it doesn't
stop an employer from firing or refusing to hire workers because they are gay, lesbian, bisexual
or transgender. The bill would bar employers with 15 or more workers from using a person's sexual orientation or gender
identity as the basis for making employment decisions, including hiring, firing, compensation or promotion. The senate's passage of
the bill would mark the end of a 17-year quest to secure the chamber's support for the anti-bias measure that failed by one vote in
1996, the same year Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. That law required the federal
government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The end of this first step in the Senate's passage of the
bill reflects a change in popular attitudes. A Pew Research survey in June found that more
Americans said homosexuality should be accepted rather than discouraged by society, by a
margin of 60 percent to 31 percent. Although the same survey shows the U.S. trails other Western countries, including
Germany and Canada, opinions were more evenly divided 10 years ago. In 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah voted against the bill.
Earlier this year, he was one of several Republicans to back the measure in committee along with Sen. Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska.
Seventeen years ago, Murkowski's father Frank — then the state's senator — voted against the bill. Today,
Americans have
shown increasing support for same-sex marriage, now legal in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The
Supreme Court in June affirmed gay marriage and granted federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.
Key men and women in Congress support the plan
Johnson 14
Chris Johnson, is Chief Political and White House Reporter for the Washington
Blade, “Will Congress take up a comprehensive LGBT rights bill?” July 29, 2014,
Washington Blade, http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/07/29/will-an-lgbtcomprehensive-bill-be-the-future-of-advocacy/ (NV)
A new idea is gaining traction for advancing LGBT rights after controversy over the stalled
Employment Non-Discrimination Act: a comprehensive federal non-discrimination bill. As
several LGBT groups have announced they would no longer support ENDA because of its broad
religious exemption, the idea of a comprehensive bill stands in contrast to ENDA because it
would address discrimination in areas other than the singular issue of employment. It’s for that reason — and not just
the religious exemption — that the New York-based LGBT group Queer Nation has urged for the rejection of ENDA in favor of a
comprehensive bill that would institute non-discrimination coverage in a plethora of categories. Andrew Miller, a member of Queer
Nation, said in a phone interview with the Washington Blade that his organization doesn’t back any version of ENDA — either with
or without the expanded religious exemption. “If you believe, as I do, that LGBT Americans are equal in every way to
our fellow Americans, then it makes sense to pass legislation that affords the same civil
protections as our fellow Americans,” Miller said. “I think that strategy of incrementalism behind ENDA,
telegraphs or signals that LGBT Americans are not equal to our fellow Americans. If we want full equality because we know that we
are equal in every way to our fellow citizens, then that’s what we should be demanding.” The content of a comprehensive bill isn’t
clear as the idea is just beginning to take hold, but the general sense is the legislation would aim to eliminate anti-LGBT
discrimination across the board and would be introduced in the subsequent Congress. The presence of an employment component
would be contingent on the likely event that ENDA won’t pass the U.S. House this year before Congress adjourns. But Miller said
his organization has a more concrete view of what issues should be included in the legislation :
housing, employment, public accommodations, credit and federal programs. “I think that what it would be is a bill, a law, that would
afford the same civil rights protections that all other Americans have to LGBT Americans,” Miller said. “Those protections are from
discrimination in not just employment, but in housing and in public accommodations, in housing and credit and federal programs.
Those are the categories that are covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gay people should be afforded all those protections
themselves.” Many national LGBT groups have already endorsed the idea of a comprehensive LGBT bill to address discrimination,
including the Human Rights Campaign and Freedom to Work. The categories that Queer Nation enumerated (with the exception of
federal programs) were along the lines of the categories that HRC President Chad Griffin envisioned for the legislation in an op-ed
published in Buzzfeed that also explained the organization’s continued support for ENDA. Ian Thompson, legislative
representative for the American Civil Liberties Union, said his organization also backs the idea
of a comprehensive bill as a means to institute “explicit, effective and, above all, equal
protections in federal law” for LGBT people. “The concept of a more comprehensive bill is
something that we are supportive of, but what we want to ensure at the end of the day is that
LGBT people have explicit, effective and, above all, equal non-discrimination protections in
federal law,” Thompson said. The idea of a comprehensive LGBT bill as opposed to an incrementalist strategy isn’t new. Gay
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) has said for years he was considering an omnibus LGBT bill that would act as a symbolic measure. The
grassroots group GetEQUAL also has called for a full civil rights bill for LGBT people. Heather Cronk, co-director of GetEQUAL, said
her organization has been speaking out for the need to pass comprehensive LGBT legislation since its inception. “For too long, our
movement has fought for piecemeal legislation,” Cronk said. “It isn’t what we need; it isn’t what we deserve. We’ve been
talking about some kind of larger civil rights bill since we began four years ago. Whether that
looks like an omnibus bill, or a collection of smaller bills that is passed at the same time, we
don’t really know what it looks like. We just want to make sure that we’re fighting for it and
putting that on the table.” In an attempt to build support for a comprehensive bill, Queer Nation
has called on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the eight openly LGB members
of Congress to endorse the idea. Drew Hamill, a Pelosi spokesperson, confirmed his boss
supports the idea of a comprehensive bill in response to an inquiry from the Washington Blade. “She supports
such legislation and would want to work closely with the leading LGBT national organizations to
see it become a reality in the next Congress,” Hammill said. Spokespersons for four of the eight openly LGB
members of Congress — Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Sean Patrick Maloney
and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) — said the lawmakers also support the idea of a comprehensive bill.
Scott Overland, a Polis spokesperson, said his boss “is committed to passing legislation to
ensure that LGBT Americans have equal protection under the law in all of these dimensions.” He
didn’t immediately respond to a follow-up question on whether that means support for a singular, comprehensive bill. The
remaining three — Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), and Mike Michaud (D-Maine) as well as Sen.
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) — didn’t respond to the Blade’s request for comment. Michaud is in the
middle of a campaign to become the next governor of Maine. The process for passing a comprehensive LGBT bill in Congress would
be different than efforts to pass other bills with a singular focus because such legislation would likely be referred to multiple
committees. That would be similar to the process leading to the passage of health care reform legislation, which was approved by five
different committees in the House and Senate before being combined into one piece of legislation for President Obama to sign. In
the Senate, the piece on employment and education would likely mean a referral to the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
Committee and the piece on public accommodations would mean a referral to the Judiciary Committee, while the component on
credit may mean a referral to the Finance Committee and the component on federal programs may send the bill to the Homeland
Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. Assuming the legislation introduced is favorable enough for lawmakers to seek to
advance the bill, the most challenging piece may be credit because it’s an area where the history of discrimination against LGBT
people isn’t as widely known. Thompson said he would be “not at all surprised” if a comprehensive bill would be referred to multiple
committees, dismissing the notion that referrals would hamper passage. “I think what would be the first, important step in that is
doing the education and the outreach to congressional offices to make sure that they have a very good understanding about why a
proposal like this is needed, why its time has come,” Thompson said. Another possible approach to enacting comprehensive
legislation would be amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which provides protections based on race, color, religion, sex or
national origin — to include the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity. Such a move would ensure the religious
exemption to discriminate against LGBT people would be the same as it is for other categories of people. According to some LGBT
advocates familiar with ENDA, other civil rights groups are wary of amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT people
because it would make the historic law seem too easy to change. Moreover, amending that law wouldn’t institute non-discrimination
protections for LGBT people in housing because those protections are in the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Ayofemi Kirby, a
spokesperson for the Congressional Black Caucus, said she “can’t speak” to whether lawmakers in her caucus would support that
idea because that discussion hasn’t taken place, but noted a number of members of her caucus support ENDA. A more likely
scenario for the bill would be an amalgamation of other LGBT non-discrimination bills
combined into one piece of legislation. For example, the employment piece could consist of the version of ENDA with
the narrower religious exemption that Polis introduced as a resolution before the House Rules Committee following controversy over
the bill in a possible attempt to start a discharge petition on the legislation. The piece related to education may be the Student NonDiscrimination Act, legislation that would prohibit harassment and discrimination against students in K-12 schools. Another
question is whether President Obama would make the push in the final years of his administration to pass a comprehensive bill.
Despite the progress seen on LGBT issues under his administration and strongly articulated
support for legislation to end discrimination in the workforce, Obama has made no announcement in support
of a comprehensive bill. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to commit support when the Washington Blade asked
about such legislation earlier this month, saying, “We’d consider it…but not I’m personally familiar with it.” GetEQUAL’s Cronk said
an endorsement from Obama of a comprehensive LGBT bill “would be helpful” in generating additional support for the bill. “I think
that would be a very core part of his legacy would be to go beyond advocating for things that other people have put on the table,”
Cronk said. “I think it would be very powerful for President Obama to say, ‘Look, I endorse full
equality for LGBT people, and this is what I mean by that.'” Still, not every LGBT organization is offering a
ringing endorsement of a comprehensive bill as the way to advance LGBT rights. Stacey Long Simmons, policy and government
affairs director for the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, was non-committal about backing a singular bill, but insisted the goal
should be comprehensive protections. “While tackling employment discrimination is extremely important, it is but one piece of a
much bigger, more wide-ranging set of changes needed to deliver real freedom and justice for all LGBTQ people,” Simmons said.
“These changes include ending discrimination in housing, health care, education and in our democracy. In other words, a 360
approach that helps to create a nation where we all can equally access the promise of America. We care less about whether it’s done
in one comprehensive bill than getting it done comprehensively.”
AT: Terrorism DA
Cooperation Link Turn
Turn – profiling is counterproductive - it breeds a climate of minority
resistance to authorities
FRA 10
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “Understanding and
Preventing Discriminatory Ethnic Profiling: A Guide,” 2010,
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1133-Guide-ethnic-profiling_EN.pdf
(NV)
Ethnic profiling
is unlawful because it can contribute to the deterioration of relations between
different groups in society and because it offends human dignity. It is harmful for society
because it can create tension and mistrust between different communities, and harmful to
human dignity because it ignores that each of us is a unique individual. What the law requires is that each
person is treated as an individual. While it may be true that Islamic extremist terrorists associated with
the threat in question tend to be Muslim and of Asian appearance, this cannot give rise to an
assumption that all those who are Muslim or are of Asian appearance tend to be terrorists .(13) As
Lord Hope (a Law Lord in the UK House of Lords issuing his judgment in the Gillan case) put it: ‘The whole point of making it
unlawful for a public authority to discriminate on racial grounds is that impressions about the behaviour of some individuals of a
racial group may not be true of the group as a whole.’(14) For similar reasons, discriminatory ethnic profiling can also
be considered to be counter-productive. If action is taken on the basis of unlawful profiling, it
can result in increasing racial tensions, fueling resentment within minorities towards the police
and the majority population. In this respect, the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights noted:
‘The consequences of treating individuals similarly situated differently according to their
supposed ‘race’ or to their ethnicity has [such]… farreaching consequences in creating
divisiveness and resentment, in feeding into stereotypes, and in leading to the overcriminalisation of certain categories of person in turn reinforcing such stereotypical associations
between crime and ethnicity, that differential treatment on this ground should in principle be considered unlawful under any
circumstance.’(15) In cases where relations with the public are soured, this can also have a negative
impact on intelligence-gathering and other forms of cooperation with minority communities. This
is discussed in section 3.3.
It’s true – we cite research
FRA 10
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “Understanding and
Preventing Discriminatory Ethnic Profiling: A Guide,” 2010,
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1133-Guide-ethnic-profiling_EN.pdf
(NV)
The minority group may become a ‘suspect community’,(55) associated with criminality by the
public. This may result in additional negative consequences, such as increasing racial prejudices. The minority group
may become overly supervised by a disproportionate amount of police resources, which, in turn,
is likely to lead to higher numbers of arrests. Hence, a self-fulfilling relationship between
intensive policing and higher arrest rates can be established.(56) In addition to the social effects of ethnic
profiling, specific impacts have direct consequences for law enforcement efficacy. Policing is profoundly dependent on
the cooperation of the general public; however, if confidence and trust in the police is damaged,
then cooperation becomes less likely. Law enforcement authorities rely on the public not only as
witnesses for the investigation of crimes but also for the prevention and detection of incidents.
Without public cooperation, law enforcement officers rarely identify or apprehend suspects , or
obtain convictions. Research in the UK and USA shows that where members of the public feel unhappy
about encounters with the police this has a negative impact on public confidence and
cooperation with enforcement authorities. This is because individuals concerned may share
their experience with family members, friends and associates.(57)
Negligence Link Turn
Turn – profiling makes counterterrorist efforts blind to those that don’t fit
the profile
Schneier 03
Bruce Schneier, is the Chief Technology Officer of Resilient Systems, a fellow at
Harvard’s Berkman Center and a board member of the EFF, “Beyond Fear,”
September 2003, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/profiling.html (NV)
But people make bad security trade-offs when they're scared, which is why we saw Japanese
internment camps during World War II, and why there is so much discrimination against Arabs
in the U.S. going on today. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it effective security.
Writing about the Japanese internment, for example, a 1983 commission reported that the
causes of the incarceration were rooted in "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political
leadership." But just because something is wrong doesn't mean that people won't continue to do
it. Ethics aside, institutionalized profiling fails because real attackers are so rare: Active failures
will be much more common than passive failures. The great majority of people who fit the
profile will be innocent. At the same time, some real attackers are going to deliberately try to
sneak past the profile. During World War II, a Japanese American saboteur could try to evade
imprisonment by pretending to be Chinese. Similarly, an Arab terrorist could dye his hair blond,
practice an American accent, and so on. Profiling can also blind you to threats outside the
profile. If U.S. border guards stop and search everyone who's young, Arab, and male, they're not
going to have the time to stop and search all sorts of other people, no matter how hinky they
might be acting. On the other hand, if the attackers are of a single race or ethnicity, profiling is
more likely to work (although the ethics are still questionable). It makes real security sense for
El Al to spend more time investigating young Arab males than it does for them to investigate
Israeli families. In Vietnam, American soldiers never knew which local civilians were really
combatants; sometimes killing all of them was the security solution they chose.
Empirics Indict
Empirically, profiling only results in discontent and failure – even the DOD
agrees
Resnick 06
Eric Resnick, writer for Gay People’s Chronicle, “Pentagon now says gay spying
was a mistake,” July 14, 2006, Gay People’s Chronicle,
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories06/july/0714062.htm (NV)
Washington, D.C.--The Defense Department now says that spying on campus gay groups and
their allies was a mistake, and that the resulting reports have been purged. “There were mistakes
made,” said a Pentagon source with knowledge. “People saw TALON as a way to gather huge
data bases on anything that looked suspicious.” TALON, which stands for Threat and Local
Observation Notice, is a reporting system developed by the Air Force and authorized for wide
use by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2003. It was discovered by reporters in late
2005, prompting lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests by individuals and
organizations worried that they were placed under illegal surveillance. One of these is the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington LGBT watchdog of the military’s “don’t
ask, don’t tell” policy. An initial document release in May showed that Defense Dept. agents,
under the TALON program, were monitoring gay campus groups protesting the presence of
military recruiters and “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Additional documents released by the Pentagon in
June show that the surveillance was much broader than the first papers showed, and that some
of these campus groups had been labeled “potential terrorist” threats by military intelligence
agents in 2005. Pentagon spokesperson Commander Greg Hicks confirmed that TALON had
been used improperly, though he would not say if some other surveillance program was now
being used in its place. According to unclassified DOD memoranda and directives released to the
Gay People’s Chronicle, TALON “should be used only to report information regarding possible
international terrorist activity.” Hicks said the problem in this case was caused by other policies
that allow TALON to be used to provide “force protection of DOD personnel [like the recruiters]
and DOD installations.” “This element was what caused the inclusion of force protection issues
that did not have a foreign terrorist threat nexus to be included,” Hicks wrote in an e-mail in
response to questions. The TALON reports were generated from intercepted student e-mail.
Hicks would only say that “a ‘source’ relayed the information to DOD.” He would not say
whether or not the Pentagon had warrants, or whether similar collection was still going on. A
directive issued by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 2003 says, “Information
in TALON reports is non-validated, may or may not be related to an actual threat, and by its very
nature may be fragmented and incomplete. The purpose of the TALON report is to document
and immediately disseminate potential threat information to DOD personnel, facilities, and
resources. The TALON mechanism is not designed to take the place of DOD’s formal intelligence
reporting process.” However, later in the same directive, Wolfowitz wrote that TALON reports
were to be immediately directed to military commanders and to Counterintelligence Field
Activity, or CIFA. In November 2005, the Washington Post described CIFA as “the Pentagon’s
newest counterterrorism agency.” Its budget and actual size are top secret. However, the Post
reported “it has grown from an agency that coordinated policy and oversaw the
counterintelligence activities of units within the military services and Pentagon agencies to an
analytic and operational organization with nine directorates and ever-widening authority.”
Hicks said the data bases were purged of all the TALON reports that should not have been in
there, including those generated from spying on gay groups. This was mandated by a March
2006 directive by current Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that requires an audit,
and only reports that “meet the criteria for reporting” be kept. Hicks would not say what was
done with the information on gay groups and their campus activity while it was in the system.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed an additional suit June 14 in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to force the Pentagon to turn over additional records on other
groups wrongly reported on. “The U.S. military should not be in the business of maintaining
secret databases about lawful First Amendment activities,” said ACLU attorney Ben Wizner. “It
is an abuse of power and an abuse of trust for the military to play any role in monitoring critics
of administration policies.”
AT: Internal Link
Profiling doesn’t stop terrorism – assumes group characteristics to be true
of all individuals
FRA 10
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, “Understanding and
Preventing Discriminatory Ethnic Profiling: A Guide,” 2010,
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/1133-Guide-ethnic-profiling_EN.pdf
(NV)
The act of data collection to create profiles has raised some questions related to the right to have
one’s personal data protected, especially when profiling is being used to take important decisions, such as whether to
grant a bank loan. A number of problems may arise, of which the following are two key considerations: a. Firstly, errors may be
made in creating particular ‘categories’. For instance, data mining software might mistakenly
point to an incorrect correlation between sexual orientation and credit-worthiness, so that gay
men are thought to be more likely to miss loan repayments. As a result of this false
categorisation gay men may then have difficulty in obtaining a bank loan. Not only is the gay
man the victim of unfavourable treatment, but the decision has been based on false information
of which he is not aware. Reverting to the above example of clothing, it is also possible that categories are misinterpreted.
So, although most wearers of a certain clothing brand and style are girls aged 16 to 19 years, this should not be taken to mean that all
girls aged 16 to 19 years dress in this way. In other words, individuals often present the exception to the
rule. Therefore, general aggregate group profiles can serve to discriminate against those who do
not act in accordance with a generic profile. This is why experts call for a right of ‘redress’ – that
is, the opportunity to correct information – when decisions have been taken by automatically
following a profile.(4 ) b. The second problem is illustrated and contained within these
examples; namely, the collection of information that is considered ‘sensitive’ such as that related
to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, religious belief, disability or age. People belonging to
minorities who are defined by these characteristics currently receive protection in the law against discrimination. If these
characteristics are then used as the basis for profiling, there is a strong risk of discriminating
against people falling within these groups. This is because profiling relies on making
assumptions about the way people behave based on a particular identifiable characteristic . So, for
example, if we attempt to profile on the basis of race we are ready to assume that many people of the race in question have similar
preferences, opinions or behaviour. As this kind of profiling can be misused, a number of data protection experts call for a
general ban on collecting sensitive data, such as race, ethnicity or religion. If, as a general rule, this information is not included in
data warehouses, it removes the risk of creating profiles that are discriminatory.(5 )
Seriously, it isn’t key to counterterrorism
CCLA 15
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, “National Security Discrimination, Listing
and Profiling,” 2015, CCLA, https://ccla.org/issues/national-security/discriminationlisting-and-profiling/ (NV)
Historically national security threats have resulted in serious equality violations and harms to
innocent persons. The internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII is one such enduring
example of the perils of discriminating against innocent individuals and racial or religious
profiling. In the post 9/11 era, CCLA has fought against profiling and discrimination particularly
in the context of listing. Listing can occur when governments create lists such as “watch lists”,
and “No-Fly Lists”. Further the lack of legislatively prescribed procedures for placing individuals
on such lists, accountability measures, and effective redress mechanisms, can result in serious
failures of constitutional rights including due process, equality rights, and mobility rights. The
conflation of groups of individuals with national security threats is undemocratic and results in
serious harms to individuals. Discrimination, racial profiling, and mistaken listing of innocents
does nothing to keep us safer, and undermines our constitution and democratic principles. The
placing of people on No-Fly Lists, Asset-Freeze lists, and ‘Watch lists’ provides a clear example.
Today innocent individuals – including in some cases children – have woken up to find
themselves on terrorist watch lists in a manner described by one Federal court Canadian Judge
as waking up to a “Kafkaesque nightmare”, in which you don’t know the charges against you and
don’t have any clear way of fighting back. CCLA has received numerous calls from individuals
who were denied boarding passes on planes, on flights from Canada to Europe – because their
name appears on a US No Fly List. Opaque processes that tarnish innocent individuals and
impair their constitutional rights do not create security gains. CCLA continues to fight for clear
procedures with accountability safeguards and oversight (for example in operations of Canada’s
Passenger Protect Program and SPLAG), and clear legal recourses for affected individuals and
effective redress.