For the first time it became known about prosecution for displaying the rainbow flag under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 Code of Administrative Offenses : they decided to bring a resident of the Saratov region to justice. Her lawyer managed to obtain the text of the Supreme Court decision.
On January 18, 2024, the first case under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 of the Administrative Code (public display of symbols of an organization recognized as extremist), initiated in connection with the demonstration of the rainbow flag.
Protocol under Part 1 of Art. 20.3 of the Administrative Code against a resident of the Saratov region was drawn up due to the publication of photographs with a rainbow flag on Instagram. A law enforcement officer discovered them on December 13, 2023.
Let us remind you that we consider the decision to recognize the international LGBT movement, made by the Supreme Court of Russia (SC) on November 30, 2023, unlawful: from our point of view, there is simply no such unified movement, just as there are no grounds for accusing LGBT activists as a single community of any extremist activity. We also consider this decision to be a discriminatory measure that impedes the protection of the rights of LGBT people. Therefore, persecution based on it, in our opinion, is unlawful.
Let us note that although the ban on the movement’s activities, according to the court decision, was subject to immediate execution, this decision entered into legal force only a month after it was made. That is, at the time the offense was discovered, the symbols of the LGBT movement were not prohibited.
First Department lawyer Maxim Olenichev, who represents the interests of the Saratov woman, along with the protocol, managed to obtain the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognizing the LGBT movement as an extremist organization. Thus it was first made public.
The text of the Supreme Court decision was signed by Judge Oleg Nefedov. As follows from the text, the Supreme Court believes that the international LGBT social movement, “which arose in the United States in the 60s of the 20th century as part of the birth control policy, among other things offering the encouragement of non-traditional family relationships” has been operating in Russia since 1984, does not have a single structure, “has a decentralized nature,” but at the same time consists of well-organized cells, is active in 60 regions of Russia and in another 25 countries, and also has 80 Internet resources. As the Supreme Court points out, “281 individuals have been identified who promote LGBT ideology and participate in the activities of the Movement.”
It should be noted that most of the arguments given by the Supreme Court in support of the movement ban on 19 pages of printed text have nothing to do with the definition of extremism in the framework law. These are discussions about morality, demography, traditions, value confrontation with the West and its ideological “expansion,” about the protection of children, and even about word formation. All this comes down to one thought - harmful and posing a threat to Russia’s national interests. Why the Supreme Court cites all these considerations in its decision to recognize the movement as extremist is not entirely clear.
The law on countering extremism to some extent correlates with accusations of inciting hostility towards those who do not support LGBT people, and hatred towards bearers of traditional values, turning into repression (obviously, we are talking about certain phenomena outside of Russia), in promoting exclusivity or inferiority based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in creating “preconditions” for inciting religious hatred. According to the Supreme Court, the activities of LGBT activists to criticize the authorities and change laws, as well as calls for mass protests and non-compliance with laws, are aimed at inciting hatred towards government officials.
It should be noted that the text of the Supreme Court decision does not contain not only any scientific information or statistical calculations, but also not a single fact about a single offense committed by at least one specific LGBT activist. Thus, the charges brought against the movement are unsubstantiated and appear unfounded.
Sources